What of Lutherans?

[cubanito]

I am a PCA member, a fundamentalist. I have no interest in learning or discussing what theological liberals of any denomination have to say on this thread. Yhis is not a put down, just that in this matter I am only interested in the opinion of those that believe the Bible to be truly the inerrant Word of God.

I kinda understand the difference re the Eucharist, but what else separates fundy-like presbys and fundy-like Lutherans? Luther was no Arminian (even though I understand after him it drifted in that direction.

I just don;'t see what keeps us apart, where the PC-USA and some Lutherans could hammer out some commonality.

 

[JoyforJESUS]

Praise God! There are many things that we agree on.
i know you are welcome to take communion in the ELCA, is that true for me in your church?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I a PCA member, a fundamentalist. I have no interest in learning or discussing what theological liberals of any denomination have to say on this thread. Yhis is not a put down, just that in this matter I am only interested in the opinion of those that believe the Bible to be truly the inerrant Word of God.

I kinda understand the difference re the Eucharist, but what else separates fundy-like presbys and fundy-like Lutherans? Luther was no Arminian (even though I understand after him it drifted in that direction.

I just don;'t see what keeps us apart, where the PC-USA and some Lutherans could hammer out some commonality.

Conservative Lutherans (the ones I'm familiar with) have moved away from Luther on the issue of Predestination. My family attended a LCMS church for a while, but because we differed on "how" Christ was present in the Supper, we were not invited to the table. I did speak with another LCMS pastor who said that we could have taken Communion with them.

How Christ is present in the eucharist is a big deal to some Lutherans. It was in Luther's day and still is now (with some).

We also differ with them on the "law vs. grace" idea. They (IMHO) seem to put them more in conflict than do Reformed theologians.

With all that said, as should be clear from my posts on other threads, I think we should be striving for unity amongst true believers. I think we should have broader theological latitude in Conservative Christian Churches.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[GodsElect]

i dont understand the reason why one would deny God's sovereignty and say that He hasn't ordained ALL things that shall come to pass (predestination). That he is sitting up in Heaven saying......... "I really hope that My plan goes according to My plan. Oh that darn man! He didn't do as I planned! Guess I'd better go back to the drawing board and try it this way!" I would have to say if it were that way, we would surely have a God who's plan is defeated everyday by mankind. What Bible are you reading from? I would ask those who do not agree with predestination.

 

[heymikey80]

I a PCA member, a fundamentalist. I have no interest in learning or discussing what theological liberals of any denomination have to say on this thread. Yhis is not a put down, just that in this matter I am only interested in the opinion of those that believe the Bible to be truly the inerrant Word of God.

I kinda understand the difference re the Eucharist, but what else separates fundy-like presbys and fundy-like Lutherans? Luther was no Arminian (even though I understand after him it drifted in that direction.

I just don;'t see what keeps us apart, where the PC-USA and some Lutherans could hammer out some commonality.

Would Westphal's identification of John Calvin as a heretic qualify? The Eucharistic difference is a serious one. Pointedly, Calvinists tried for near a century after the split to patch this split, but after being ousted from Lutheran churches as heretics, you sort of get the hint.

Calvinism's pro-Law stance is also not one shared by Lutherans. They see the Law-Gospel distinction more as different poles of salvation.

Conservative Lutherans see the split, as conservative Calvinists should, too. Calvin and Luther also shared commonality in the Augsburg Confession, which might surprise some of you to know some of its assertions. We probably divide on more things now than then.

Calvinists also normally see things through an open-communion, open church view. Lutherans don't have quite this history.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Interesting....the soundly Reformed radio program The White Horse Inn has a Lutheran minister on the discussion panel, Rod Rosenblat.

 

[heymikey80]

Interesting....the soundly Reformed radio program The White Horse Inn has a Lutheran minister on the discussion panel, Rod Rosenblat.

I appreciate the connections with Lutheran theology just as much as I appreciate the connections with Baptists and Anglicans and everyone else. I would be surprised at a sealing of a denominational divide this wide, though.

This, all the while I think we have more in common with every evangelical than we have with non-evangelical, denominational peers.

It's also interesting to note that Calvin's direct advice is flatly supportive of Luther -- even when Luther is at his most combative against Calvin.

I don't think there's a clear way to seal such a division, though my ecclesiology compels me to the close connections. The ecclesiology of others doesn't similarly compel them.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Would Westphal's identification of John Calvin as a heretic qualify? The Eucharistic difference is a serious one. Pointedly, Calvinists tried for near a century after the split to patch this split, but after being ousted from Lutheran churches as heretics, you sort of get the hint.

Calvinism's pro-Law stance is also not one shared by Lutherans. They see the Law-Gospel distinction more as different poles of salvation.

Conservative Lutherans see the split, as conservative Calvinists should, too. Calvin and Luther also shared commonality in the Augsburg Confession, which might surprise some of you to know some of its assertions. We probably divide on more things now than then.

Calvinists also normally see things through an open-communion, open church view. Lutherans don't have quite this history.

I've recently read several hundred pages of Calvin's response to the attacks from Joachim Westphal. He wanted Calvin executed for his views on the Supper.

Melancthon, like Calvin, wanted to see the divide between Lutheran's and Reformed repared, but his party lost that battle.

We have a long way to go. We can not unite as conservative Bible believing Presbyterians. Who many denominations of Presbyterian and Reformed churches are there in the USA? We can't seem to get those walls removed , much less the ones that seperate us from other non-Reformed groups.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Interesting....the soundly Reformed radio program The White Horse Inn has a Lutheran minister on the discussion panel, Rod Rosenblat.

Rod Rosenblat is very good. I've read his articles on line.

Kenith

 

[edie19]

Interesting....the soundly Reformed radio program The White Horse Inn has a Lutheran minister on the discussion panel, Rod Rosenblat.

Rod is Missouri Synod which I understand is more conservative and sticks closer to the Reformed doctrines than does the ELCA. There have been times when he's questioned ELCA doctrines and teachings.

They also have a Reformed Baptist, Ken Jones, which means that there is one credo-baptist on board with them.

It has certainly made for some fun discussion at times.

 

[JoyforJESUS]

I a PCA member, a fundamentalist. I have no interest in learning or discussing what theological liberals of any denomination have to say on this thread. Yhis is not a put down, just that in this matter I am only interested in the opinion of those that believe the Bible to be truly the inerrant Word of God.

I kinda understand the difference re the Eucharist, but what else separates fundy-like presbys and fundy-like Lutherans? Luther was no Arminian (even though I understand after him it drifted in that direction.

I just don;'t see what keeps us apart, where the PC-USA and some Lutherans could hammer out some commonality.

I checked the ELCA website, there is full communion between the ELCA and Prespeterians (sp).

 

[heymikey80]

I checked the ELCA website, there is full communion between the ELCA and Prespeterians (sp).

Yes, that's with the PC(USA), the United Church of Christ, and the Reformed Church in America.

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod published this analysis (pdf).

 

[cubanito]

There are various levels of "unity." I am not asking about full union, which makes sense for denoms as similar as, for example, my own PCA (Pres Church in America) and the OPC (Orthodox Pres Church).

I also understand that communal sharing is more difficult between theo-cons that take such matters as the exact meaning of the Eucharist very seriously. Frankly, I find such hair-splitting arguments between consubstant and "spiritual presence" ridiculous given how scant the Biblical record is on communion.

I am talking about at least some sort of joint declaration.

What disturbs me is that the old divisions seem to make very little sense. Today the difference between theo-liberal Lutherans and conservative Lutherans seem a much larger gulf than between Lutherans and Presbys of a similar conservative bent.

Put another way, I find the stance taken on Biblical inerrancy to be vastly more important than those more traditional splits along sacramentals lines. I am trying not to offend in the following sentence: honestly, what does it really matter what a denomination's exact view of the Eucharist when that denomination is vague on Biblical inerrancy?

Does it really matter all that much if one takes an Arminian or Augustinian stance on predestination if one has a low view of Scripture? Throw out a strict belief in Scriptural inerrancy (such as embodied in the Chicago statement on the Fundamentals) and everything is just personal opinion.

I once suggested that since we have icons for just about everything else on these forums, that we should have icons re our view on Biblical inerrancy. The suggestion was laughed at, but I still don't see why. While certainly Biblical inerrancy may not be the primary doctrine in Christianity, it ought to be way up there, higher than views on the sacraments, methinks.

While one can be saved with a weak view of Scripture, and good works follow despite a muddled view of inspiration; how can one even discuss the fine points of theology without a solid commitment to Biblical inerrancy (points which IMO go far beyong the meager plain Biblical statements)

JR

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

There are various levels of "unity." I am not asking about full union, which makes sense for denoms as similar as, for example, my own PCA (Pres Church in America) and the OPC (Orthodox Pres Church).

I also understand that communal sharing is more difficult between theo-cons that take such matters as the exact meaning of the Eucharist very seriously. Frankly, I find such hair-splitting arguments between consubstant and "spiritual presence" ridiculous given how scant the Biblical record is on communion.

I am talking about at least some sort of joint declaration.

What disturbs me is that the old divisions seem to make very little sense. Today the difference between theo-liberal Lutherans and conservative Lutherans seem a much larger gulf than between Lutherans and Presbys of a similar conservative bent.

Put another way, I find the stance taken on Biblical inerrancy to be vastly more important than those more traditional splits along sacramentals lines. I am trying not to offend in the following sentence: honestly, what does it really matter what a denomination's exact view of the Eucharist when that denomination is vague on Biblical inerrancy?

Does it really matter all that much if one takes an Arminian or Augustinian stance on predestination if one has a low view of Scripture? Throw out a strict belief in Scriptural inerrancy (such as embodied in the Chicago statement on the Fundamentals) and everything is just personal opinion.

I once suggested that since we have icons for just about everything else on these forums, that we should have icons re our view on Biblical inerrancy. The suggestion was laughed at, but I still don't see why. While certainly Biblical inerrancy may not be the primary doctrine in Christianity, it ought to be way up there, higher than views on the sacraments, methinks.

While one can be saved with a weak view of Scripture, and good works follow despite a muddled view of inspiration; how can one even discuss the fine points of theology without a solid commitment to Biblical inerrancy (points which IMO go far beyong the meager plain Biblical statements)

JR

Cubanito,

I could not agree with you more.

Liberal theologians from diverse denominations have much more in common with one another than they do with the theological conservatives of their own denominational tradition.

I am much more at home in a when I worship at the LCMS, than I would be at a liberal PCUSA congregation (I too am PCA).

Amongst Evangelical (conservative) Christians I think we need to work toward greater unity. On this level the Sacraments are the largest divide (real presents vs. memorials; paedobaptism vs. credo [only] baptism). But as you mention these pale in comparison to the issues that divide liberal (and neo-orthodox) vs. conservative evangelical.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[heymikey80]

The problem, as generally understood since the times the problem emerged, is that different denominations place higher value on purity of the sacraments, the church, the Bible's direct statements, etc. than the unity of believers. That presses them to define more exactly, and set stronger boundaries. The same can be said of "Orthodox" and "Catholic" churches -- their very names indicate emphasis on purity of doctrine or unity of the church.

To me these things correspond personally in our own lives. We're far more inclined to choose the false dichotomy -- "Do we assimilate with or separate from these people?" When in actuality our role as "Semper Reformanda" is more, "How do we propose to redeem among these people?"

When it comes to conservatives, also, when both sides place a high value on a particular thing, and the two definitions conflict -- then it requires a change.

And change is hard after 450 years. It becomes an earthquake, shaking down structures in the theology that have stood the test of time. It also tends to introduce liberalism into a hitherto conservative framework. "If people have suffered for accepting one principle that is now fallen, how many other futile sufferings are there in its teaching? And so why develop and defend such things, if some aren't the truth? The truth takes care of itself; we should just paddle on its shores and hope the waves reach us."

The fact that we might consider some ideas about the sacraments "ridiculous" is actually an indicator to other denominations of the lack of value and emphasis we place on the sacraments. I would think that in my church's case it's likely true -- though I don't find the lack of emphasis to be very encouraging -- or even for that matter Calvinistic.

Our sacramental union with other believers, including Arminians, we don't consider to be a problem. Yet we would consider unity over teaching to be a more serious problem. We consider the unity of believers to be of higher value than the purity of the sacraments -- and the contrary may well be argued through 1 Corinthians 11 (which paradoxically argues to us that disunity is what sets the sacrament at nothing).

I agree that inerrancy does impact more on your view of Christianity than many other things. But it's a conclusion, often hard-won in people's lives. Many people who are experiencing the effect of the Bible having the authority it really does have in their lives, haven't really become aware of inerrancy. To me it's a secondary doctrine, too.

And when it comes to Biblical exegesis, I've found a number of people who don't hold to strict, word-by-word inerrancy who are quite good exegetes of the meaning of what's being said.

 

[cubanito]

Well, there you go. We theo-conservatives seem to agree something ought get done. On a personal level such disparate people as John MacArthur (dispensationalist/Augustinian/independent), RC Sproul (as PCA/Reformed as one can get) and Arminian Baptist ministers invite each other to teach at their conferences, and hang out like peas in a pod.

Yet at the denom level even such nearly identical bodies as the PCA and OPC seem reluctant to acknowledge each other.

I do understand that we theo-conservatives in general take our theology more seriously, and thus are less likely to merge than those who, quite frankly, view much of theology as a matter of personal opinion.

But why can't we more formally recognize one another?

JR

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Concerning law/gospel, there may be more common ground than many Lutherans and Reformed are willing to admit. Perhaps this isn't the majority, but I have certainly heard and read Lutherans who teach the importance of the third use of the law. And also, there are Reformed folks who believe there should be a stronger emphasis on law/gospel.

I do find it interesting that I see a lot of agreement and union between certain elements within denominations and traditions, even where there is disagreement and disunity within these separate traditions. I am fascinated when I hear Reformed, Lutherans, and Baptists get together on programs like the White Horse Inn, and Issues, Etc. and it pleases and encourages me to see such grace and discussion even though Presbyterians in general can't get along with other Presbyterians can't get along with other Reformed can't get along with other Protestants, and so on.

 

[5SolasinKY]

I realize this is a Presbyterian/Lutheran question, but I felt this may contribute to the discussion.

In curiosity after I became Reformed I visited a LCMS church and found two things that make for a major difference:

• The Lutheran view on regeneration in connection with baptism.
• It was announced that anyone who could not agree with the Lutheran view of the cup and bread were not invited to participate (without explaining their view), so it felt more 'closed' to me than the Reformed Baptist one. (We permit all baptized Christians (per our definition of Christian) who are not estranged/under discipline/outside church membership or not searching for a church included) or if even a member has a dispute with another member.

I understand that we should remember that everyone who has placed their faith in Christ and Him alone for salvation is our brother or sister in Christ. However, doctrine is not a trivial thing and neither is commitment to it. I can realize that many Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. are brothers and sisters in Christ, but rather than assault my conscience before God on important doctrines, I worship with those who are like-minded. Occasionally I can worship with the others, but for my home church, I choose one that does not cause me to have to choose between obedience to God and conformity to men. I see also that conservatives agree on much more across denominational lines than with liberals of the same stripe, but again, a commitment to God first cannot be faulted.

I find in doctrinal discussions, the Lutherans feel strongly enough about their own convictions on these two points that there is no compromise from their side either.

There is still one church, one faith, one baptism (disregarding modes, etc. and regarding Christ). I don't feel the factioning in worship and denomination (especially considering the invisible church/visible church view) in any way fails to recognize we are one church, so long as we remember how we are all saved in the first place. Of course, if another gospel is proclaimed in a 'church' or 'denomination', that is where the line must be drawn.

 

[JoyforJESUS]

I realize this is a Presbyterian/Lutheran question, but I felt this may contribute to the discussion.

• It was announced that anyone who could not agree with the Lutheran view of the cup and bread were not invited to participate (without explaining their view), so it felt more 'closed' to me than the Reformed Baptist one.

I am a member of the ELCA Lutheran Church. I am not welcome at the Lords Supper in the LCMS. yes it is closed. I have never been turned away in a Catholic Chruch by a priest. But I have been turned away at LCMS churches. It is the Only demonination I have ever been refused the Lords Supper.

It does hurt.

 

[5SolasinKY]

It doesn't surprise me. However, is it understood the place the Eucharist holds in the gospel that Roman Catholicism teaches? Their gospel is sacerdotal.

I personally would not participate in something that at the root flies in the face of the gospel. They would not have to bar me because I am self-barred. I am not insulted if churches who teach another gospel bar me (and I am baffled that they would be insulted when my church bars them). It does give me some concerns when a church that preaches the gospel of Christ bars a Christian (by their own definition). However, even that 'concern' is not enough for me to hold ill will, because they may be doing so in jealousy of the purity of the practice and in loyalty to Christ, which is an admirable thing.

The unity the Bible teaches is only in Christ. Syncretism is an unholy unity for which God makes no concession as we can see throughout both the Old and New Testaments. It is the great sin the Israelites commit over and over again, which ultimately cost them their kingdom forever. (The Israel of today is not a theocracy). It is the warning countless times in the New Testament. Acceptance of any other gospel while claiming to hold to the gospel of Christ is syncretism.

The unity we must have, by command of God, is the unity which is in those who commonly are looking to Christ, His perfect life, His sacrifice and resurrection, and Him alone for salvation. Any other unity pollutes the testimony of true Christianity.