What I appreciate about Lutheranism

[Till Schilling]

Is that you?

Somehow I am struggling with all this focus on death and dying. Yes, we need not fear death nor do we need to be preoccupied to put as much as possible into this life. But still: we have lifes to live and vocations to fulfill.

Arent we also freed from thinking about death? Not just from fearing it?

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Is that you?

No. It's Pastor Fisk. I am female.

Somehow I am struggling with all this focus on death and dying. Yes, we need not fear death nor do we need to be preoccupied to put as much as possible into this life. But still: we have lifes to live and vocations to fulfill.

Yes. I am not trying to equate death with depression or giving up on life.

Arent we also freed from thinking about death? Not just from fearing it?

Well, for me, death isn't a negative thing because Jesus is there (in death) and Jesus is everything to me. This is just the way in which he is working out my salvation. However, if it is not helpful for you, if God is leading you along a different path, then that is great.

 

[Till Schilling]

No. It's Pastor Fisk. I am female.

I know you are female. Your user name kind of gives it away.

And I know you are not Jonathan Fisk, but There is a woman in the video. I thought maybe it is you.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I know you are female. Your user name kind of gives it away.

And I know you are not Jonathan Fisk, but There is a woman in the video. I thought maybe it is you.

Oh. Lol. No.

 

[Till Schilling]

We look at the cross of Jesus to understand God. We look at the bloodied God who was hanged on that tree of death and understand that He was hanged because God is angry about death, angry about the 26 deaths in Texas. He is angry about those deaths, about your death, about all death. He is angry about death because this is not what He wanted for the world. Death is not the end for which He created the world when He first looked upon it and called it “very good.” He made it for life because He is the God of life and of the living.

The Cross Alone is our Theology - Lutheran Reformation

This says much better than my own words what I mean. The Japanese heathen of Pastor Fisk‘s video who stoically look towards their death are not an example. Death is terrible, it is wrong, it made Jesus cry, it was not meant to be that way. We were not meant to die.

 

[All Glory To God]

@Thatgirloncfforums What you need to be aware of in approaching this subject is confessional Lutherans do not believe in the same doctrines as Martin Luther.

One only needs to read Martin Luthers "Bondage of the will" and compare that with what his successors wrote in their confessions after his death to see how "Lutherans" do not have the same doctrine as the man himself.

So establishing the historical facts may be difficult at times, because the doctrines of modern day Lutherans do not reflect that of the Lutheran side of the Reformation and specifically that of Martin Luther.

 

[Till Schilling]

@Thatgirloncfforums What you need to be aware of in approaching this subject is confessional Lutherans do not believe in the same doctrines as Martin Luther.

One only needs to read Martin Luthers "Bondage of the will" and compare that with what his successors wrote in their confessions after his death to see how "Lutherans" do not have the same doctrine as the man himself.

So establishing the historical facts may be difficult at times, because the doctrines of modern day Lutherans do not reflect that of the Lutheran side of the Reformation and specifically that of Martin Luther.

Guess even if that were true it would not matter. The measuring rod of doctrine is Scripture. Not the writings of Luther himself.

But I do not think your statements are true. So you might want to back them up with proofs.

 

[All Glory To God]

Guess even if that were true it would not matter. The measuring rod of doctrine is Scripture. Not the writings of Luther himself.

But I do not think your statements are true. So you might want to back them up with proofs.

Well of course it matters. The subject is the Lutheran faith. That is stated subject and what the member is showing interest in.

My post was an attempt to advice the O.P and anyone else for that matter, that a distinction should made between Martin Luthers teachings and the beliefs of the people that came after him; because they are different. So to learn effectively, people need to start off with the important fact in mind.

As far as evidence is concerned it was provided when I offered a comparison between the writings of Martin Luther and the later confessions, not written by him. So that the differences between the two parties can be viewed. This is the observable evidence.

What evidence do you have to show that what I am saying is not correct?

 

[Daniel9v9]

Well of course it matters. The subject is the Lutheran faith. That is stated subject and what the member is showing interest in.

My post was an attempt to advice the O.P and anyone else for that matter, that a distinction should made between Martin Luthers teachings and the beliefs of the people that came after him; because they are different. So to learn effectively, people need to start off with the important fact in mind.

As far as evidence is concerned it was provided when I offered a comparison between the writings of Martin Luther and the later confessions, not written by him. So that the differences between the two parties can be viewed. This is the observable evidence.

What evidence do you have to show that what I am saying is not correct?

Luther is not our pope. What it is to be Lutheran, properly speaking, is to confess our faith as expressed in our Confessions. I’d be glad to provide some resources that talks about this if you’re interested.

I’m well aware of a trend among some that pits Luther against the Concordia, but that is not particularly right or helpful. For, just to mention one thing, Luther changed his mind on a lot of things, so you would really have to consider which “version” of Luther you’re dealing with. And needless to say, the later reformers such as Chemnitz and onwards were extremely familiar with Luther’s works, and so I think it would be fair to say that, in some sense, they had a clearer understanding of what Luther meant and what it is to be Lutheran, compared to us in our day, purely by their proximity. That doesn’t mean that we are any less Lutheran, of course — my point is simply that the Confessions are more reliable than modern interpretations of Luther.

Blessings!

 

[All Glory To God]

I don't say this to insult you but this post illustrates my point very well. How Martin Luther and his successors are of different views.

Luther is not our pope. What it is to be Lutheran, properly speaking, is to confess our faith as expressed in our Confessions. I’d be glad to provide some resources that talks about this if you’re interested.

This shows how on one hand you seem to be dismissing Luther as the ultimate guide for the Lutheran church and hold to confessions but on the other hand go on to say his teachings are consistent with confessions. This is sort of a double talk and the type of thing I was pre-warning the OP of when investing Luther and the Lutherans.

I’m well aware of a trend among some that pits Luther against the Concordia, but that is not particularly right or helpful.

Well you can call it that or just read your own post again and verify that there is indeed a difference between the two.

For, just to mention one thing, Luther changed his mind on a lot of things, so you would really have to consider which “version” of Luther you’re dealing with.

I am not Martin Luthers spokesman. I've heard this claim but never really seen it substantiated. In the ''Bondage of the will'' I think it's clear he believed in the doctrines of total depravity and double predestination. So what follows is efficacious grace is what saves fallen man. Obviously he was big on sacraments and so much so that some interpret that to mean Luther believed saving grace flows from the lords supper and Baptism. Although I would disagree and think he kept he original view and merely accentuated he view on sacraments so the view of double predestination did not take a overwhelming view over the sacraments or even creating a sense of fatalism.

And needless to say, the later reformers such as Chemnitz and onwards were extremely familiar with Luther’s works, and so I think it would be fair to say that, in some sense, they had a clearer understanding of what Luther meant and what it is to be Lutheran, compared to us in our day, purely by their proximity. That doesn’t mean that we are any less Lutheran, of course — my point is simply that the Confessions are more reliable than modern interpretations of Luther.

Blessings!

Confessions are a solid point to anchor one's faith at but the issue is do these Lutheran confessions reflect Martin Luthers view. I deny.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I don't say this to insult you but this post illustrates my point very well. How Martin Luther and his successors are of different views.



This shows how on one hand you seem to be dismissing Luther as the ultimate guide for the Lutheran church and hold to confessions but on the other hand go on to say his teachings are consistent with confessions. This is sort of a double talk and the type of thing I was pre-warning the OP of when investing Luther and the Lutherans.



Well you can call it that or just read your own post again and verify that there is indeed a difference between the two.



I am not Martin Luthers spokesman. I've heard this claim but never really seen it substantiated. In the ''Bondage of the will'' I think it's clear he believed in the doctrines of total depravity and double predestination. So what follows is efficacious grace is what saves fallen man. Obviously he was big on sacraments and so much so that some interpret that to mean Luther believed saving grace flows from the lords supper and Baptism. Although I would disagree and think he kept he original view and merely accentuated he view on sacraments so the view of double predestination did not take a overwhelming view over the sacraments or even creating a sense of fatalism.




Confessions are a solid point to anchor one's faith at but the issue is do these Lutheran confessions reflect Martin Luthers view. I deny.

I'm having a difficult time understanding. The Smalcald Articles, the Power and Primacy of the Pope and both catechisms we're written by Luther. Luther was also alive when the Augsburg Confession was hammered out. The only articles that he didn't directly influence (because they occurred after his death), were the Defense of Augsburg and the two concords. There is nothing else in the Lutheran Confessions besides the ecumenical Creeds.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I found this article to be very advantageous and enlightening. Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure what it has to do with what I am trying to express though. All that I am saying, is that wherever Jesus is, I am there too. He recapitulates my life. I believe that death in and of itself is terrible and wrong, but since Easter Saturday it has been inundated with God having become Man, so the reality of death is transformed for Christians. But I don't mean to scare you or make you miserable. So if you don't find anything I am saying helpful, don't let my words disturb you. What I say is nothing, Christ is everything.

The Cross Alone is our Theology - Lutheran Reformation

This says much better than my own words what I mean. The Japanese heathen of Pastor Fisk‘s video who stoically look towards their death are not an example. Death is terrible, it is wrong, it made Jesus cry, it was not meant to be that way. We were not meant to die.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Also, @Till Schilling , I just thought that this was a point of agreement between Lutheranism and I. I am not Lutheran, you are, so I think everyone reading this should take your word over mine.

 

[All Glory To God]

I'm having a difficult time understanding. The Smalcald Articles, the Power and Primacy of the Pope and both catechisms we're written by Luther. Luther was also alive when the Augsburg Confession was hammered out. The only articles that he didn't directly influence (because they occurred after his death), were the Defense of Augsburg and the two concords. There is nothing else in the Lutheran Confessions besides the ecumenical Creeds.

Can you be more specific about what is difficult, so I can address?

Thanks.

 

[Till Schilling]

Also, @Till Schilling , I just thought that this was a point of agreement between Lutheranism and I. I am not Lutheran, you are, so I think everyone reading this should take your word over mine.

Just because I am a member of a Lutheran church does not mean that my thoughts are truer to our theology than yours. If anything I feel that you are more knowledgeable than me.

I am sorry if I annoyed you, I did not mean to. Also I want to state that I find a lot of what you are saying very helpful.

Probably I am not spiritually minded enough in my refusal to look forward to dying. Too earthly, too much focused on what life still has to offer. Maybe a belated midlife crisis.

 

[Till Schilling]

I am not Martin Luthers spokesman. I've heard this claim but never really seen it substantiated. In the ''Bondage of the will'' I think it's clear he believed in the doctrines of total depravity and double predestination. So what follows is efficacious grace is what saves fallen man. Obviously he was big on sacraments and so much so that some interpret that to mean Luther believed saving grace flows from the lords supper and Baptism. Although I would disagree and think he kept he original view and merely accentuated he view on sacraments so the view of double predestination did not take a overwhelming view over the sacraments or even creating a sense of fatalism.

…

Confessions are a solid point to anchor one's faith at but the issue is do these Lutheran confessions reflect Martin Luthers view. I deny.

Actually you will find that the primary issue for us is not whether the confessions reflect Luther’s view but whether the confessions are a faithful representation of Holy Scriptures.

That said and regarding your claims: why don’t you point us to the exact parts of Luther’s writings, starting with “The bondage of the will” that in your mind express what you said that they express?

 

[All Glory To God]

Actually you will find that the primary issue for us is not whether the confessions reflect Luther’s view but whether the confessions are a faithful representation of Holy Scriptures.

That said and regarding your claims: why don’t you point us to the exact parts of Luther’s writings, starting with “The bondage of the will” that in your mind express what you said that they express?

Well I can if you insist but I recommend you read the book yourself.

 

[Daniel9v9]

I don't say this to insult you but this post illustrates my point very well. How Martin Luther and his successors are of different views.



This shows how on one hand you seem to be dismissing Luther as the ultimate guide for the Lutheran church and hold to confessions but on the other hand go on to say his teachings are consistent with confessions. This is sort of a double talk and the type of thing I was pre-warning the OP of when investing Luther and the Lutherans.



Well you can call it that or just read your own post again and verify that there is indeed a difference between the two.



I am not Martin Luthers spokesman. I've heard this claim but never really seen it substantiated. In the ''Bondage of the will'' I think it's clear he believed in the doctrines of total depravity and double predestination. So what follows is efficacious grace is what saves fallen man. Obviously he was big on sacraments and so much so that some interpret that to mean Luther believed saving grace flows from the lords supper and Baptism. Although I would disagree and think he kept he original view and merely accentuated he view on sacraments so the view of double predestination did not take a overwhelming view over the sacraments or even creating a sense of fatalism.




Confessions are a solid point to anchor one's faith at but the issue is do these Lutheran confessions reflect Martin Luthers view. I deny.

To go about this from a different angle — what exactly in the Confessions do you believe to be contrary to God’s Word and why?

 

[All Glory To God]

To go about this from a different angle — what exactly in the Confessions do you believe to be contrary to God’s Word and why?

But that's not what I'm here for. I just wanted to give some friendly advice to the OP on how Luther's view and his successors have different doctrines. Not to try and proof Lutherans are unbiblical. Believe it or not there was a well meaning intent behind my suggestions.

 

[Till Schilling]

But that's not what I'm here for. I just wanted to give some friendly advice to the OP on how Luther's view and his successors have different doctrines. Not to try and proof Lutherans are unbiblical. Believe it or not there was a well meaning intent behind my suggestions.

Of course you meant well. But you will understand that we are not amused by your warning the OP of Lutheranism.

Besides this: we believe you to be in error. The points you mentioned are questionable - Luther believing in double predestination along the lines of a 17th century calvinist definition is quite doubtful - or plain wrong when it comes to contrasting Luther and the Lutheran confessions. Whilst again the term “total depravity” is a Calvinist term and thus not part of the theology of the Confessions, the biblical teaching of the inability of natural man to turn to God as laid out by Luther himself in “The bondage of the will“ is of course also the theology of the Confessions. The fact that you think it is not but refuse to detail why you think so is frankly bizarre.