Why some Lutheran's disagree with Luther on the EV of Mary -Please let's discuss...

[Philothei]

Some Lutherans disagree with the founder of their church Luther on the EV of Mary...It is not a dogma but still some do believe it and some do not...For the ones who do believe it why it is important to you that you do....Also for the ones who do not believe it why it is important that you do not...

Can you both offer the explanation... And why it is important to you for both views...Thanks

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Some Lutherans disagree with the founder of their church Luther on the EV of Mary...It is not a dogma but still some do believe it and some do not...For the ones who do believe it why it is important to you that you do....Also for the ones who do not believe it why it is important that you do not...

Can you both offer the explanation... And why it is important to you for both views...Thanks

I think you are imposing an EOC/RCC/LDS paradigm on Protestants that do not share it.


Lutherans do not consider Luther to be an infallible pope or unaccountable Apostle or that whatever Luther says is what Jesus says (Jesus mandated to agree with Luther). Luther is regarded as a person. A fallible, accountable, sinful one at that. Luther held some views (for example, some thing about the Jews) that Lutherans in general do not embrace. Luther held some views that Lutherans tend to embrace rather passionately (the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, for example). But this has NOTHING to do with or because LUTHER believed it.


Yes, Luther (and nearly all the Lutheran Church Fathers) embraced the PVM. At least early on, rather passionately in the case of Luther. However, there is NO evidence WHATSOEVER that he regarded it as dogma. In fact, according to my Lutheran teachers, there is sound evidence that he did not - that none of the Lutheran church Fathers did, either. And while the TITLE "ever virgin" is found in the LATIN translation of the Lutheran Confessions twice in reference to Mary, it is in no way indicated to be dogma (but simply as the common title).


You might find a Lutheran who voted for Obama. But this does not indicate that ergo all Obama stands for is Dogma in Lutheranism. You may find that there is a Lutheran who believes that there is intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy, but that does not mean that ergo it is Dogma in Lutheran that there is intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy - only that you found someone with that belief who happens to be officially registered in a congregation legally affiliated with some Lutheran denomination. I might find someone who believes in alien abductions who is officially registered in a congregation legally affiliated with some EOC denomination, does that mean that ergo all Orthodox must see that as EOC dogma?


If you could find some quote from Luther about the Jews, are you then going to post, "Why don't all Lutherans accept this statement as DOGMA - a matter of highest importance for all persons of Earth to know, a matter of greatest certainty of Fact and Truth, a matter impacting the salvation of souls? Because you found a snippet of a quote from Luther? I think the premise of this thread is absurd.






.

 

[Philothei]

I think the premise of the thread is valid as there are oposing views and I would like to know the root to these views
EV is NOT politics it is a Christian belief your "paradigm" is failing and is just a straw man...

 

[Philothei]

Where is the proof that Luther did not believe it? I do not see where you get your information and maybe it would be great to bring it forward...Of what I have read Luther did believe in it and all. I see nothing in his writings that say the opposite...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think you are imposing an EOC/RCC/LDS paradigm on Protestants that do not share it.


Lutherans do not consider Luther to be an infallible pope or unaccountable Apostle or that whatever Luther says is what Jesus says (Jesus mandated to agree with Luther). Luther is regarded as a person. A fallible, accountable, sinful one at that. Luther held some views (for example, some thing about the Jews) that Lutherans in general do not embrace. Luther held some views that Lutherans tend to embrace rather passionately (the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, for example). But this has NOTHING to do with or because LUTHER believed it.

Yes, Luther (and nearly all the Lutheran Church Fathers) embraced the PVM. At least early on, rather passionately in the case of Luther. However, there is NO evidence WHATSOEVER that he regarded it as dogma. In fact, according to my Lutheran teachers, there is sound evidence that he did not - that none of the Lutheran church Fathers did, either. And while the TITLE "ever virgin" is found in the LATIN translation of the Lutheran Confessions twice in reference to Mary, it is in no way indicated to be dogma (but simply as the common title).


You might find a Lutheran who voted for Obama. But this does not indicate that ergo all Obama stands for is Dogma in Lutheranism. You may find that there is a Lutheran who believes that there is intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy, but that does not mean that ergo it is Dogma in Lutheran that there is intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy - only that you found someone with that belief who happens to be officially registered in a congregation legally affiliated with some Lutheran denomination. I might find someone who believes in alien abductions who is officially registered in a congregation legally affiliated with some EOC denomination, does that mean that ergo all Orthodox must see that as EOC dogma?


If you could find some quote from Luther about the Jews, are you then going to post, "Why don't all Lutherans accept this statement as DOGMA - a matter of highest importance for all persons of Earth to know, a matter of greatest certainty of Fact and Truth, a matter impacting the salvation of souls? Because you found a snippet of a quote from Luther? I think the premise of this thread is absurd.



.

I think the premise of the thread is valid as there are oposing views and I would like to know the root to these views
EV is NOT politics it is a Christian belief your "paradigm" is failing and is just a straw man...

No. YOUR paradigm that cuz someone says it, ergo it is DOGMA and should be believed by all as such is just a straw man. You are imposing an EOC/RCC/LDS paradigm on Protestants that don't share it.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yes, Luther (and nearly all the Lutheran Church Fathers) embraced the PVM.

.

Where is the proof that Luther did not believe it? .

Sometimes it's hard conversing with you... Read post #2.




.

 

[Kristos]

It seems to be pretty well documented and universally accepted from the 5th Century on...at least until recently. Before that there nothing strong either way - it just wasn't an issue before that and it really wasn't an issue even then, which circumstantially seems to indicate that it was not new - especially when you consider the tumult caused be things like the title Theotokos.

 

[Philothei]

No. YOUR paradigm that cuz someone says it, ergo it is DOGMA and should be believed by all as such is just a straw man. You are imposing an EOC/RCC/LDS paradigm on Protestants that don't share it.




.

Nah...I said belief NOT dogma you misunderstand this

Sometimes it's hard conversing with you... Read post #2.



really? Where did you quote the information I asked and I missed it??



.

 

[Philothei]

Lutherans do not consider Luther to be an infallible pope or unaccountable Apostle or that whatever Luther says is what Jesus says (Jesus mandated to agree with Luther). Luther is regarded as a person. A fallible, accountable, sinful one at that. Luther held some views (for example, some thing about the Jews) that Lutherans in general do not embrace. Luther held some views that Lutherans tend to embrace rather passionately (the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, for example). But this has NOTHING to do with or because LUTHER believed it.


Yes, Luther (and nearly all the Lutheran Church Fathers) embraced the PVM. At least early on, rather passionately in the case of Luther. However, there is NO evidence WHATSOEVER that he regarded it as dogma. In fact, according to my Lutheran teachers, there is sound evidence that he did not - that none of the Lutheran church Fathers did, either. And while the TITLE "ever virgin" is found in the LATIN translation of the Lutheran Confessions twice in reference to Mary, it is in no way indicated to be dogma (but simply as the common title).

First of all there is a contradiction in your post. You first say that Luther did believe it and the Lutherans do not..OK so far and then in your second paragraph you claim he does not say so in Latin...where is your evidence ...Can I have the text where he does not say it in Latin? I read Latin and could translate it (with my husband's help who does studies texts) Where is it

 

[Kristos]

I once asked why there are so many Lutheran denominations who believe different things. I was confused about what exactly it means to be Lutheran. The answer I got was that all Lutheran denominations have their source in Luther (and his successors) and their Reformation/break with Rome. So consider this, it would seem that there should be a historical succession of belief as well. One should be able to trace beliefs and see how the changed and split because by this definition all Lutherans believed essentially the same thing at one time. So I think Philothei's question is - if Luther and the reformer believed in the EV, then what happened that causes Lutheran to reject it now? When did this change happen and why? If Luther thought that there was sufficient evidence to believe it, why would his prodigy say that there isn't. Was the a shift in what is viewed as evidence? Was Luther just plain wrong? Was there a new discovery or new document that showed this belief to be false? Something must have changed on a basic level.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Some Lutherans disagree with the founder of their church Luther on the EV of Mary...It is not a dogma but still some do believe it and some do not...For the ones who do believe it why it is important to you that you do....Also for the ones who do not believe it why it is important that you do not...

Can you both offer the explanation... And why it is important to you for both views...Thanks

Hi Philothei, good question.

Among some Lutherans on both sides of this teaching there can be much passion. Lutherans hold Sola Scriptura but do not reject "tradition" the way that reformed protestants do.

When a tradition is at odds with Scripture or is prohibited by Scripture it must be rejected. When a tradition is not supported by Scripture, yet neither conflicts with, nor is prohibited by Scripture; it is considered Adiaphora (a thing of indifference). Adiaphora may be held, practised, and believed as "pious belief". Such things are not considered necessary for salvation; nor do we believe that the Church has the authority to mandate such teachings and beliefs as "articles of faith".

Yes, all of the early reformers held a belief in the EV of Mary; this is abundantly clear when one reads the Churches Confessions. Even in the final addition to the 1580 edition of the BoC (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration Article VIII. The Person of Christ, 21), we read (bolding is mine):

On account of the personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin did not bear a mere man. But as the Angel (Gabriel) testifies, she bore a man who is truly the Son of the most high God (Luke 1:35). He showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, because He was born of a virgin, without violating her virginity. Therefore, she is truly the mother of God and yet has remained a virgin.

Personally, I do accept this traditional belief regarding Mary. From studying Scripture, I believe that it alludes to this teaching. Likewise (and there are others more than willing to argue this as you well know) Scripture does not conflict with this belief either.

Traditionally, the early Church believed this. This belief may have originated with the Apostles, (but we don't know this for sure). We do know that at least some of those who were taught, either first hand or second hand by the Apostles held this belief.

In good faith, and in light of Scripture, I can not condemn those who do not accept and hold this belief.

Neither do I believe that those who do not hold this belief have any right or doctrinal mandate to condemn those of us who do.

Beliefs/unbelief in such as the EV and even the Dormation/Assumption will neither get one into heaven, nor damn them to hell.

Only Faith in Christ Jesus, the Son of the Living God, as given by the Holy Spirit will result in eternal salvation.

Such beliefs, held as pious opinion over the history of the Church give much more depth to our faith. Likewise, maintaining such traditions passed down from the early Church speaks of the timelessness of the the Church. Reformed protestants often view the Church in the here and now, disregarding history and tradition. Confessional Lutherans, and I believe the EO and RCC see the Church as eternal; the Bible speaks of a "cloud of witnesses"; who do they witness to if not us?

Blessings and Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

First of all there is a contradiction in your post. You first say that Luther did believe it and the Lutherans do not

Luther believed it - as pious opinion. SOME Lutherans also do. As pious opinion. This is not a contradiction.


SOME Lutherans (including one who posts often at CF) affirms this - as pious opinion. SOME Lutherans (including at least one who posts often at CF) reject it. SOME Lutherans (including me) neither accept it or reject it but take no stand on it. These are not contradictions since it's not dogma among us.

OK so far and then in your second paragraph you claim he does not say so in Latin

No. What I said is that LUTHER believed it. The LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS use the TITLE "ever virgin" in the LATIN TRANSLATION twice. But such does not make it a LUTHERAN dogma. Luther and the Lutheran Confessions are not the same thing.

Can I have the text where he does not say it in Latin?

I posted that Luther DID believe it. I don't think it mattered whether he was expressing his opinion in German or Latin.

The Lutheran Confessions are a series of statements, they are not the person of Martin Luther.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Among some Lutherans on both sides of this teaching there can be much passion.

Yes.


SOME Lutherans embrace it (none, known to me, as dogma)
SOME Lutherans reject it (none, known to me, as heresy)
SOME Lutherans (like me) do neither.


Some, in all 3 categories, know that Luther (and the Lutheran Church Fathers, generally, believed it. Knowing he believed it does not mandate to all 70 million Lutherans today that they must also believe it. Do you agree, Mark?

When a tradition is at odds with Scripture or is prohibited by Scripture it must be rejected. When a tradition is not supported by Scripture, yet neither conflicts with, nor is prohibited by Scripture; it is considered Adiaphora (a thing of indifference). Adiaphora may be held, practised, and believed as "pious belief". Such things are not considered necessary for salvation; nor do we believe that the Church has the authority to mandate such teachings and beliefs as "articles of faith".

I agree. It MAY be held. It MAY also not be.

Your point that it's SCRIPTURE that is the norma normans, not the personal points of view of Martin Luther, is the central point here vis-a-vis the opening post.

Personally, I do accept this traditional belief regarding Mary. From studying Scripture, I believe that it alludes to this teaching. Likewise (and there are others more than willing to argue this as you well know) Scripture does not conflict with this belief either.

Traditionally, the early Church believed this. This belief may have originated with the Apostles, (but we don't know this for sure). We do know that at least some of those who were taught, either first hand or second hand by the Apostles held this belief.

We disagree....

We are both members in good standing of the exact same Lutheran denomination.

I, by no means, condemn those that embrace this pious opinion. It is not in conflict with Scripture, Tradition or our Confessions. Since none in the LCMS condemn me as a heretic for holding no dogmatic position on this, I have no cause to respond in kind. No Lutherans, known to me, regard this as Dogma.


But the central point vis-a-vis the opening post is your lack of reference to Luther. Lutherans do not embrace that whatever Luther said or opinioned is the authority, source, norm for dogma and that we are to parrot such. You are revealing that that is not the rubric for Lutherans.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Originally Posted by MarkRohfrietsch

Among some Lutherans on both sides of this teaching there can be much passion.

Yes.


SOME Lutherans embrace it (none, known to me, as dogma)
SOME Lutherans reject it (none, known to me, as heresy)
SOME Lutherans (like me) do neither.


Some, in all 3 categories, know that Luther (and the Lutheran Church Fathers, generally, believed it. Knowing he believed it does not mandate to all 70 million Lutherans today that they must also believe it. Do you agree, Mark?

I do indeed.

I agree. It MAY be held. It MAY also not be.

Your point that it's SCRIPTURE that is the norma normans, not the personal points of view of Martin Luther, is the central point here vis-a-vis the opening post.

Exactly. Luther, Augustine, my Pastor, you and me, are all subject to the norma normans of Scripture.

Personally, I do accept this traditional belief regarding Mary. From studying Scripture, I believe that it alludes to this teaching. Likewise (and there are others more than willing to argue this as you well know) Scripture does not conflict with this belief either.

Traditionally, the early Church believed this. This belief may have originated with the Apostles, (but we don't know this for sure). We do know that at least some of those who were taught, either first hand or second hand by the Apostles held this belief.

We disagree....

On this issue, and little else.

We are both members in good standing of the exact same Lutheran denomination.

That we are.

I, by no means, condemn those that embrace this pious opinion. It is not in conflict with Scripture, Tradition or our Confessions. Since none in the LCMS condemn me as a heretic for holding no dogmatic position on this, I have no cause to respond in kind. No Lutherans, known to me, regard this as Dogma.

Any who would, would be in conflict with Scripture.

But the central point vis-a-vis the opening post is your lack of reference to Luther. Lutherans do not embrace that whatever Luther said or opinioned is the authority, source, norm for dogma and that we are to parrot such. You are revealing that that is not the rubric for Lutherans.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Kristos]

Hi Philothei, good question.

Among some Lutherans on both sides of this teaching there can be much passion. Lutherans hold Sola Scriptura but do not reject "tradition" the way that reformed protestants do.

When a tradition is at odds with Scripture or is prohibited by Scripture it must be rejected. When a tradition is not supported by Scripture, yet neither conflicts with, nor is prohibited by Scripture; it is considered Adiaphora (a thing of indifference). Adiaphora may be held, practised, and believed as "pious belief". Such things are not considered necessary for salvation; nor do we believe that the Church has the authority to mandate such teachings and beliefs as "articles of faith".

Yes, all of the early reformers held a belief in the EV of Mary; this is abundantly clear when one reads the Churches Confessions. Even in the final addition to the 1580 edition of the BoC (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration Article VIII. The Person of Christ, 21), we read (bolding is mine):



Personally, I do accept this traditional belief regarding Mary. From studying Scripture, I believe that it alludes to this teaching. Likewise (and there are others more than willing to argue this as you well know) Scripture does not conflict with this belief either.

Traditionally, the early Church believed this. This belief may have originated with the Apostles, (but we don't know this for sure). We do know that at least some of those who were taught, either first hand or second hand by the Apostles held this belief.

In good faith, and in light of Scripture, I can not condemn those who do not accept and hold this belief.

Neither do I believe that those who do not hold this belief have any right or doctrinal mandate to condemn those of us who do.

Beliefs/unbelief in such as the EV and even the Dormation/Assumption will neither get one into heaven, nor damn them to hell.

Only Faith in Christ Jesus, the Son of the Living God, as given by the Holy Spirit will result in eternal salvation.

Such beliefs, held as pious opinion over the history of the Church give much more depth to our faith. Likewise, maintaining such traditions passed down from the early Church speaks of the timelessness of the the Church. Reformed protestants often view the Church in the here and now, disregarding history and tradition. Confessional Lutherans, and I believe the EO and RCC see the Church as eternal; the Bible speaks of a "cloud of witnesses"; who do they witness to if not us?

Blessings and Peace

I would certainly agree with pretty much everything that you said here. Some of these things fall into a grey area though between piety and doctrine. Even when a pious belief is not formally declared as doctrine, it can become difficult to deny and remain in communion. Perhaps this isn't right, but I think it is a reality. In this case, could I as an EO Christian hold an agnostic view toward Mary's EV? I think strictly speaking I could, BUT (and this is big but - no pun intended) I think it would be practically impossible for worship in the EO in good faith because the title permeates so deeply into the liturgical life of the church that it's no longer possible to discern where the piety ends and the doctrine begins. I don't know if that makes any sense, so I will add an example. The hymn of Justinian is sung during the second antiphon at every Divine Liturgy celebrated. This hymn calls Mary by the title Ever Virgin. This hymn does not end with an "amen", so I suppose I could technically just not sing it, and liturgically, I'm not giving my approval, but still I'm there and I'm hearing and participating the rest of the communal worship, so on some level this would seem dishonest. So practically, I think one would pretty have to hold this belief at least at a level above the agnostic in order to be EO even though in my opinion it's not really doctrine and not directly necessary for salvation.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I would certainly agree with pretty much everything that you said here. Some of these things fall into a grey area though between piety and doctrine. Even when a pious belief is not formally declared as doctrine, it can become difficult to deny and remain in communion. Perhaps this isn't right, but I think it is a reality. In this case, could I as an EO Christian hold an agnostic view toward Mary's EV? I think strictly speaking I could, BUT (and this is big but - no pun intended) I think it would be practically impossible for worship in the EO in good faith because the title permeates so deeply into the liturgical life of the church that it's no longer possible to discern where the piety ends and the doctrine begins. I don't know if that makes any sense, so I will add an example. The hymn of Justinian is sung during the second antiphon at every Divine Liturgy celebrated. This hymn calls Mary by the title Ever Virgin. This hymn does not end with an "amen", so I suppose I could technically just not sing it, and liturgically, I'm not giving my approval, but still I'm there and I'm hearing and participating the rest of the communal worship, so on some level this would seem dishonest. So practically, I think one would pretty have to hold this belief at least at a level above the agnostic in order to be EO even though in my opinion it's not really doctrine and not directly necessary for salvation.

Good point, I would be interested in hearing from Philothei and any of our other EO members regarding this.

 

[Kristos]

Good point, I would be interested in hearing from Philothei and any of our other EO members regarding this.

Me too because I've never really heard any EO take the issue with this view. It always seems to be arguing over if it's true or not, and not examining the root of it. Long standing pious traditions are often taken as doctrinal even when many times they don't really meet the criteria. I'm not advocating that these should be flippantly discarded, but rather that they are really internal matters, meant for personal contemplation and spiritual growth after illumination and are not really part of the Gospel proper that is proclaimed to the world.

 

[AHJE]

Peace be to all in the grace of Jesus Christ,

Hey, Josiah, ... good old friend ... thought I'd never see you again ... where have you been?

Josiah and I have had a very very lengthy discussion on this matter in another Christian Forum and he knows how I believe about the matter.

I believe that the Truth of Mary's Perpetual Virginity is solidly biblical ... and therefore true ... and therefore ... the Word of God.

There is ONE VERSE which contains all the proof that a diligent seeker needs to discover how biblical the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is.

Luke 1:34, "And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?" (St. Luke 1:34, DRB)

By stating this Mary reveals her INTENTION to REMAIN a Virgin (eventhough in Jewish eyes she was already practically a married woman ... remember that in Mt. Joseph was going to "divorce" her privately ...)

This intention is so KEY.

I will not go into the plethora of reasons that I have for this biblical argument. I am just putting this out there for someone to arrive at the same conclusion that I did.

The Holy Spirit will help you if you seek diligently.

If you believe that this is shown to be true from the Holy Bible then one is responsible to the light that is given by Sacred Writing ... (Catholics are bound to believe it as Dogma because Catholics believe that the Word of God also comes to us through Divine [not human] Tradition and not Scripture Alone).

Not only Martin Luther believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary but also Calvin, and Zwingli.



God bless you.

Good to see you again Josiah.

 

[Philothei]

Good point, I would be interested in hearing from Philothei and any of our other EO members regarding this.

Ok. Since I have been hanging around EO bishops (most of my life) almost for ever...I would say this...The EO do not excommunicate someone for he does not believe in a dogma. Bishops do not go around chasing faithful around to see if they agree with this canon or the other.... Unless this person would openly preach against the EV they would not "lift a finger" to harm such individual. I know personally some of the converts who do come to the EO but deny to venerate any icons or believing the EV or Mary. Our faith is not so legalistic and deviations to the EO tradition and dogma can indeed happen....
Faithful to be called "heretics" they have to preach that heresy and trying to divide the faithful...thus the word "heretic". It is NOT someone who for this or that reason beliefs something different (we all do to a point as we are NOT the same in our background and level of understanding)...There are shades of the Truth for sure and ONLY God understands it 100% we are all vulnarable humans after all....

The fathers named someone heretic who constantly preaches the "wrong" truth according to the canons and the dogma of the church. Unless a person does if he keeps to his own counsel and whatever he believes he keeps it private although not good ...still not in the verge of being ex-communicated.Rather the Church using despensaton would allow it to go on seeing it as a weakness of one's faith. Like any other things that are sinful...For example we do have many agnostics in our midst who are in our church as in a lot of churches even the RC or OO...These faithful are trying depserately to hang to our church and community as long as they do not harm and divide the flock they are to remain in the "ship of salvation"

My 0.2 cents on the matter

Thanks Mark and Kristos for the interesting discussion

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Ok. Since I have been hanging around EO bishops (most of my life) almost for ever...I would say this...The EO do not excommunicate someone for he does not believe in a dogma. Bishops do not go around chasing faithful around to see if they agree with this canon or the other.... Unless this person would openly preach against the EV they would not "lift a finger" to harm such individual. I know personally some of the converts who do come to the EO but deny to venerate any icons or believing the EV or Mary. Our faith is not so legalistic and deviations to the EO tradition and dogma can indeed happen....
Faithful to be called "heretics" they have to preach that heresy and trying to divide the faithful...thus the word "heretic". It is NOT someone who for this or that reason beliefs something different (we all do to a point as we are NOT the same in our background and level of understanding)...There are shades of the Truth for sure and ONLY God understands it 100% we are all vulnarable humans after all....

The fathers named someone heretic who constantly preaches the "wrong" truth according to the canons and the dogma of the church. Unless a person does if he keeps to his own counsel and whatever he believes he keeps it private although not good ...still not in the verge of being ex-communicated.Rather the Church using despensaton would allow it to go on seeing it as a weakness of one's faith. Like any other things that are sinful...For example we do have many agnostics in our midst who are in our church as in a lot of churches even the RC or OO...These faithful are trying depserately to hang to our church and community as long as they do not harm and divide the flock they are to remain in the "ship of salvation"

My 0.2 cents on the matter

Thanks Mark and Kristos for the interesting discussion

Thanks for the information.

I can understand this approach regarding dogmatics; would this approach be the same for doctrinal issues such as the two natures of Christ, the Trinity, the real presence, and the efficacy of the Sacraments as means of Grace? For us Confessional Lutherans, denying doctrinal issues such as these would be deal breakers.