Why I Am (Still) Lutheran

  • Thread starter GratiaCorpusChristi
  • Start date

Aibrean

Honest. Maybe too Honest.
Mar 18, 2007
6,298
344
40
Xenia, Ohio
Visit site
✟15,869.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
TheDag - Your theology on salvation is in line with Lutheran doctrine (we are saved by grace through faith. Works follow faith ("if works do not follow, faith is false and not true" - Smalcald Articles - Book of Concord). I'm saying that is why proper teaching is important. MANY denominations have lost their way due to improper teaching. I was citing one example. DaRev summed up the rest (improper teaching can lead to improper teaching which can lead to endangering one's salvation because how salvation is attained is taught wrong).
 
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
it sounds like you are suggesting I claim good works get you to heaven. I hope I have misunderstood your post and that you have not mis-represented my belief.


Your argument that simply because one denomination lost their way we should ignore what the bible says is interesting.

Lets look at what the bible says. Take the parable of of The sheep and goats (matthew 25:41:46). In this parable it was those who actually acted out their faith that were saved while the others were not.

The bible also tells us to bear good fruit. Is good fruit sitting in church praising God and ignoring the needy bearing good fruit? No it is not. Don't get me wrong God is worthy of praise and we should praise him. However we should not just do that as it will be a dead faith. Mentioned in James 1:19-21, 1 Timothy 2:9-10, 1 Timothy 5:4,
Ephesians 2 tells us that we are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus to do good works. So if we are not required to do good works why were we created to do them? Just doesn't make sense.

James chapter 2 makes it very clear that faith without action (works) is dead. Being dead in our faith makes us a goat.

Jesus said in John 14:15 that if we love him we will obey his commands. In context of the passage it is talking about the miracles Jesus did and how he showed love to people.

So there is plenty of evidence that works are neccesary to be a true christian. It is however God's grace that saves us. The works are just a sign that we have received that grace or a response to god's grace.

My question to you is where do these good works originate and what is their purpose?
 
Upvote 0

TheDag

I don't like titles
Jan 8, 2005
9,457
267
✟28,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Not quite. I want to know where you think the good works that we do originates. Who or what is the cause of good works, in your opinion?
I believe as Ephesians 2 says that it is from God. There seems to me to be a bit missing from your question and your trying to drive at something. Perhaps you could just come out and say it if that is the case.

Also my belief is that we can choose to do these good works or not. If we do it is because of a reaction to God's love. If we choose not to then the question needs to be asked is our faith dead.
 
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I believe as Ephesians 2 says that it is from God. There seems to me to be a bit missing from your question and your trying to drive at something. Perhaps you could just come out and say it if that is the case.

Your previous posts leaned toward works righteousness, that good works were necessary for faith and salvation. Then you quoted Ephesians 2:10 which speaks of works as a result of or a reaction to God's grace. You were sounding contradictory.

You are correct that our good works originate with God. He is the cause. The good that we do is a result of our faith. But we cannot and do not say that our good works are in any way necessary for salvation or faith, for that contradicts the Gospel.

Also my belief is that we can choose to do these good works or not. If we do it is because of a reaction to God's love. If we choose not to then the question needs to be asked is our faith dead.

Your wording is a bit off here. While we most certainly can choose not to do the good works that the Holy Spirit prompts us to do as a result of our faith, we can never say that we can choose to do them. If we are faithful and we are saved, the good works flow naturally from that, not as a result of our own effort (for our own effort is sinful) but rather as the result of the Spirit's effort in and through us.
 
Upvote 0

TheDag

I don't like titles
Jan 8, 2005
9,457
267
✟28,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Your previous posts leaned toward works righteousness, that good works were necessary for faith and salvation.
perhaps you could explain how you came to think this. After all in my very first post in this thread (post #15) I specifically said works do not save us. So I am confused how you reached this conclusion.


Edit to add: and yes I can happily agree my wording was a bit off and you summed up what I meant nicely.
 
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
perhaps you could explain how you came to think this. After all in my very first post in this thread (post #15) I specifically said works do not save us. So I am confused how you reached this conclusion.

It was this statement here that caused the confusion:

Ephesians 2 tells us that we are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus to do good works. So if we are not required to do good works why were we created to do them? Just doesn't make sense.

This is why I asked you what you believed the source or cause of our good works was.
 
Upvote 0

Aibrean

Honest. Maybe too Honest.
Mar 18, 2007
6,298
344
40
Xenia, Ohio
Visit site
✟15,869.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
^ Answering TheDag here. You need faith to do good works because we are by nature sinful and unclean and have a desire to do evil. We have been enabled as new creations in Christ and through Christ to do good works.

Augsburg Confession:
For without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the First or of the Second Commandment. Without faith it does not call upon God, nor expect anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks, and trusts in, man's help. And thus, when there is no faith and trust in God all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart. Wherefore Christ said, John 15, 5: Without Me ye can do nothing;
additionally (also from the AC)
Our works cannot reconcile God or merit forgiveness of sins, grace, and justification, but that we obtain this only by faith when we believe that we are received into favor for Christ's sake
and (AC)
it is taught on our part that it is necessary to do good works, not that we should trust to merit grace by them, but because it is the will of God.
When you have children, don't you want them to grow up and be good?

Romans 8:5-9 (scriptural support)
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.

Philippians 2:13
for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
G

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest
MarkRohfrietsch said:
While we are not schismatics; I view the RCC as the "Catholics-in-exile", not us. We are already "in" and desire them to come back!
smile.gif

That depends on your view of the church. If the church is not an institution, but merely a fuzzy feeling of Christian brotherhood, well then yes. But if apostolicity matters, even a little bit, then we have a legitimate grievance against the Roman church for our corporate excommunication. We are exiles from Rome, the church of St. Peter; that doesn't mean we aren't in good (perfect) standing with God, but it is nevertheless a tragedy.

Are the Roman Catholics wrong? Yes. But they're not the ones in exile. The church of Rome is the mother of Western Christendom; that's simply a fact. But she, as I said, has been an abusive mother, and we are suffering the pangs of exile as a result. What we seek is reconciliation with a mother, as a mother, not further painful separation between brethren in Christ.

Naturally, this involves the mother repenting of her abusive behavior and admitting her grievous error. We want back in not as slaves but as children, but we can only be her children if she will be a good mother. After all, this is not fuzzy ecumenicalism.

DaRev said:
I agree with this. It was Rome who left 'Mother Church'. Luther's attempt was to bring it back and Rome elected not to return.

I don't believe it's right to talk about the church as if the church were synonymous with right doctrine. Yes, Rome abandoned the doctrine of justification as taught by Sts. Paul and Augustine, but that doesn't mean they aren't the church of Rome and the vast majority of apostolic bishops. And as Article XIV of the Apology says, the office of the bishop may not be divinely instituted, but it was nevertheless a right and good innovation and development of doctrine in the earliest church.

DaRev said:

While the practical aspects of the OP are mostly spot-on, it is for the most part a Law based analysis.

"Law based analysis?" What does this even mean? All I can figure is that this is "Lutheran-speak" for "bad."
 
Upvote 0

joyfulthanks

The long day is over. Praise the Lord!
May 4, 2005
4,045
325
✟5,769.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I don't believe it's right to talk about the church as if the church were synonymous with right doctrine. Yes, Rome abandoned the doctrine of justification as taught by Sts. Paul and Augustine, but that doesn't mean they aren't the church of Rome and the vast majority of apostolic bishops.

I do believe that the church is synonymous with right doctrine rather than with apostolic succession. I base this on Galatians 1:8-9, where St. Paul says, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

St. Paul is here ananthematizing anyone, no matter what their apostolic credentials are, who presumes to preach a different gospel. This, to me, means that the church is synonymous with right doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,266
940
34
Ohio
✟77,093.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
So are you saying that anyone who is not Lutheran is not Christian? After all, you've just said that anyone with incorrect doctrine is accursed. Or maybe you are using a different definition of "gospel" than Paul is. I think that equating "gospel" with "monergistic justification by grace alone through faith alone" is a very narrow definition of "gospel." That is part of it, but it is not all of it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TheDag

I don't like titles
Jan 8, 2005
9,457
267
✟28,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So are you saying that anyone who is not Lutheran is not Christian? After all, you've just said that anyone with incorrect doctrine is accursed. Or maybe you are using a different definition of "gospel" than Paul is. I think that equating "gospel" with "monergistic justification by grace alone through faith alone" is a very narrow definition of "gospel." That is part of it, but it is not all of it.
If she were saying that then she would also be saying lutherans are not christian. there is no denomination that has it 100% right.
 
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
That depends on your view of the church. If the church is not an institution, but merely a fuzzy feeling of Christian brotherhood, well then yes. But if apostolicity matters, even a little bit, then we have a legitimate grievance against the Roman church for our corporate excommunication. We are exiles from Rome, the church of St. Peter; that doesn't mean we aren't in good (perfect) standing with God, but it is nevertheless a tragedy.

Are the Roman Catholics wrong? Yes. But they're not the ones in exile. The church of Rome is the mother of Western Christendom; that's simply a fact. But she, as I said, has been an abusive mother, and we are suffering the pangs of exile as a result. What we seek is reconciliation with a mother, as a mother, not further painful separation between brethren in Christ.

Naturally, this involves the mother repenting of her abusive behavior and admitting her grievous error. We want back in not as slaves but as children, but we can only be her children if she will be a good mother. After all, this is not fuzzy ecumenicalism.

I believe, Biblically speaking, that the "mother Church" is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. The church of Rome has strayed from this. Why would we want to reunite with a church body that has strayed? Our prayer is that the church of Rome correct its errors and return to the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

I don't believe it's right to talk about the church as if the church were synonymous with right doctrine. Yes, Rome abandoned the doctrine of justification as taught by Sts. Paul and Augustine, but that doesn't mean they aren't the church of Rome and the vast majority of apostolic bishops. And as Article XIV of the Apology says, the office of the bishop may not be divinely instituted, but it was nevertheless a right and good innovation and development of doctrine in the earliest church.

The Church is found where the Gospel is preached in its purity and the Sacraments are administered according to Christ's institution. That indicates right doctrine (orthodoxy). The church of Rome is just that, the church of Rome, which has strayed from the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

"Law based analysis?" What does this even mean? All I can figure is that this is "Lutheran-speak" for "bad."

Your comparisons of the different "churches" is primarily based upon practical aspects, which is law-based. While I agree with your ultimate conclusion, your method of getting to it seems more concerned with practice than with doctrine.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Melethiel

Miserere mei, Domine
Supporter
Jun 8, 2005
27,266
940
34
Ohio
✟77,093.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
DaRev said:
Your comparisons of the different "churches" is primarily based upon practical aspects, which is law-based. While I agree with your ultimate conclusion, your method of getting to it seems more concerned with practice than with doctrine.


Did you even read his post? He spent most of the time talking about theology...

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
In case this actually needs to be said, my problem isn't rituals, icons, stone and wood churches, or anything else on the endless Protestant litany of complaints against the rich symbolism of Catholicism which is so poorly understood here in America.

And by the way, if you're Protestant, and after narrowing this all down you're still wondering why I'm not Catholic, I highly suggest you go back and reevaluate your theology.

Because the answer, of course, is the doctrine of salvation and justification.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

joyfulthanks

The long day is over. Praise the Lord!
May 4, 2005
4,045
325
✟5,769.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
So are you saying that anyone who is not Lutheran is not Christian? After all, you've just said that anyone with incorrect doctrine is accursed. Or maybe you are using a different definition of "gospel" than Paul is. I think that equating "gospel" with "monergistic justification by grace alone through faith alone" is a very narrow definition of "gospel." That is part of it, but it is not all of it.

You have assumed a lot, and read way too much into what I posted. Let me answer your objections one by one.

So are you saying that anyone who is not Lutheran is not Christian? After all, you've just said that anyone with incorrect doctrine is accursed.

I should have used the word "gospel" in place of doctrine. My bad. However, according to the Apostle Paul (not me), anyone who preaches a different gospel is anathema. I am not saying that anyone who is not Lutheran is not Christian. That couldn't be further from what I believe. (See below for more detail on what gospel we must believe and preach or be ananthematized.)

I think that equating "gospel" with "monergistic justification by grace alone through faith alone" is a very narrow definition of "gospel." That is part of it, but it is not all of it.

You have assumed that I equate the gospel with believing in the doctrine of monergistic justification by grace alone through faith alone - something which I neither said nor implied in my post.

Actually, I believe that the gospel is quite simple: Christ has been crucified and raised again from the dead for the forgiveness of our sins. Anyone who has faith in Christ through the preaching of that gospel is saved. Whether that person believes salvation happens synergistically or monergistically is not a salvation issue. You can be wrong on a great number of things, but if you cling to Christ in faith, believing that your sins are forgiven for the sake of His death and resurrection, you will be saved. I DO believe in the doctrine of monergistic salvation by grace alone through faith alone, but I don't believe that believing that doctrine is what brings salvation. Believing in Christ and His death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins is what saves. Sometimes, I think we Lutherans get the two mixed up.

Anyway, back to the point of my previous post: I believe, as the reformers did, that the visible church is found anywhere the gospel is truly preached and the sacraments rightly administered. And a Christian is any person who has faith in Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of his sins - no matter of what "church" they may be a part.

The point I was trying to make (and which I obviously made very badly) is that, according to Galatians, the true preaching of the gospel will always trump any spiritual credentials -- even those of an angel, or the Apostle Paul himself. I think one should start from that premise when it comes to discerning where the true church is. So, for example, if a church teaches (or emphasizes to the point where it obscures the gospel) that the purchase of indulgences brings the forgiveness of sins, rather than that faith in the death and resurrection of Christ brings the forgiveness of sins, it ceases to be the church - no matter how well it can trace its succession back to the original apostles.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RobsBabe

Newbie
Mar 20, 2008
86
2
Tornado Alley
✟15,216.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
This has been a very interesting read so far. I'm not done with it yet, but I'll come back and finish it soon. Thank you for posting all of it. :)

My thoughts too. I've been lurking on this thread and absorbing the conversation. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums