Criticisms of Lutheranism
- Thread starter Rufus
- Start date
- Status
arielann81
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm sure you will get better responses than mine but my grandfather just left the Lutheran Church. This after being sent from that denomination to be a missionary in Iraq until Saddam came into power and then became a Lutheran Pastor until they left this last year. The reason they left includes the denomination as a whole is allowing gay ministers now and they don't support this. I was actually visiting my grandmother in the hospital on Saturday, however, and asked about the difference between reformed faith and the Lutheran tradition. The context for this was my question about which seminary my grandfather attended. He mentioned that Luther believed in the sacraments having the literal body of Christ present while Calvin believed the sacraments were symbolic and apparently they could never agree on this. Anyway this might get you started in your research anyway and if you have questions I could always ask my grandparents for their point of view.
dudley
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
My main criticism of Lutheranism is it’s view of the sacrament of the Lords Supper
I am a Presbyterian and I would say my main criticism of Lutheranism is it’s view of the sacrament of the Lords Supper which I think is as incorrect as the Roman catholic view.
I have read a lot about the Lutheran argument for Consubstantiation and explored and studied all major mainline Protestant denominations including the Lutheran churches after leaving the Roman catholic church in 2006. As an ex Roman catholic I also know well the Roman catholic argument for transubstantiation. I am a Presbyterian now and I made a public affirmation of faith and became a Presbyterian in October 2010. I converted to the Reformed Protestant faith for many reasons ,one being I no longer accepted the pope as the sole Vicar of Christ on earth and I do not accept the authority of the pope. I believe it is scripture alone which is our only and final authority. Thus I have obviously sided with the Reformed Protestant theologians who argue in the following way regarding the Lords Supper and I found support in scripture, reading the scriptures the Presbyterian way I believe that Reformed Protestants are correct.
I still believe the Lord's Supper is a Sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ's appointment, His death is showed forth; BUT I now believe the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of His body and blood, with all His benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.
1. Luke 22:19-20
2. I Cor. 10:16
Where has Christ promised that He will thus feed and nourish believers with His body and blood as certainly as they eat of this broken bread and drink of this cup? HC Q77
In the institution of the Supper which says: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”
I Cor. 11:23-25; 10:16-17
As a Presbyterian I believe Christ is present spiritually in the Lords Supper but how specifically is a mystery. However the bread and wine I believe remain bread and wine Christ is not in the bread and the bread does not become his body. I believe now the Roman catholic mass is an abomination because it denies Christ’s one time only sacrifice on Calvary and the idea of the priest offering a sacrifice is a blasphemy.
I completely believe the Supper then was not instituted in order for us to offer up to God the body of His Son By no means. He Himself alone, as priest forever, has this privilege and so His words express when He says, “Take, eat.” He there commands us not to offer His body, but only to eat it. I looked to Hebrews and Matthew for the answer.
1. Heb. 5:10; Matt. 26:26
In the Lord's Supper the sacred bread does not become the body of Christ itself, though agreeably to the nature and usage of Sacraments it is called the body of Christ.
1. Matt. 26:29
2. I Cor. 11:26-28
3. Exod. 12:26-27, 43, 48; I Cor. 10:1-4
I believe as a Protestant we therefore eat the body and blood of the Lord for as our whole reliance for salvation depends on Him, in order that the obedience which He yielded to the Father may be imputed to us just as if it were ours, it is necessary that He be possessed by us; for the only way in which He communicates; also, to be so united more and more to His sacred body by the Holy Spirit, who dwells both in Christ and in us, that, although He is in heaven and we on earth, we are nevertheless flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone, and live and are governed forever by one Spirit, as members of the same body are governed by one soul. I look to the following scripture readings to prove my position.
1. John 6:35, 40, 47-48, 50-54
2. John 6:55-56
3. Acts 3:21; I Cor. 11:26
4. Eph. 3:16-19; 5:29-30, 32; I Cor. 6:15, 17, 19; I John 4:13
5. John 6:56-58, 63; 14:23; 15:1-6; Eph. 4:15-16
He is not only food to our souls, but drink also, so that we are not to seek any part of spiritual life anywhere else than in Him alone.
The above arguments and scriptural accounts I believe now a Presbyterian and I deny the Lutheran position of Consubstantiation as I deny the Roman catholic teaching on Transubstantiation. I believe the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine and we receive Christ who is fully present in a spiritual manner and not carnally. The Lords Supper is to feed and nourish our soul , it is not carnal food for the body. However Christ becomes present in our person because of our faith when we receive Him in communion. I renounce the Roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation as I renounce all the false teachings of Roman Catholicism and I renounce her pope as did the Protestant reformers. I receive communion in the Presbyterian way regularly now and experience the presence of the Lord in a way I never experienced Him when I received as a Roman catholic. I experience the Lord in a more personal manner when I receive the Lords Supper as a Presbyterian. I believe the Reformed Protestant view of the Lords Supper is biblically correct and the only sound position regarding the Lords Supper. It is one of the many reasons I am now a Reformed Protestant an no longer a Roman catholic.
Sincerely and in faith,
Dudley
I am a Presbyterian and I would say my main criticism of Lutheranism is it’s view of the sacrament of the Lords Supper which I think is as incorrect as the Roman catholic view.
I have read a lot about the Lutheran argument for Consubstantiation and explored and studied all major mainline Protestant denominations including the Lutheran churches after leaving the Roman catholic church in 2006. As an ex Roman catholic I also know well the Roman catholic argument for transubstantiation. I am a Presbyterian now and I made a public affirmation of faith and became a Presbyterian in October 2010. I converted to the Reformed Protestant faith for many reasons ,one being I no longer accepted the pope as the sole Vicar of Christ on earth and I do not accept the authority of the pope. I believe it is scripture alone which is our only and final authority. Thus I have obviously sided with the Reformed Protestant theologians who argue in the following way regarding the Lords Supper and I found support in scripture, reading the scriptures the Presbyterian way I believe that Reformed Protestants are correct.
I still believe the Lord's Supper is a Sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ's appointment, His death is showed forth; BUT I now believe the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of His body and blood, with all His benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.
1. Luke 22:19-20
2. I Cor. 10:16
Where has Christ promised that He will thus feed and nourish believers with His body and blood as certainly as they eat of this broken bread and drink of this cup? HC Q77
In the institution of the Supper which says: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.”
I Cor. 11:23-25; 10:16-17
As a Presbyterian I believe Christ is present spiritually in the Lords Supper but how specifically is a mystery. However the bread and wine I believe remain bread and wine Christ is not in the bread and the bread does not become his body. I believe now the Roman catholic mass is an abomination because it denies Christ’s one time only sacrifice on Calvary and the idea of the priest offering a sacrifice is a blasphemy.
I completely believe the Supper then was not instituted in order for us to offer up to God the body of His Son By no means. He Himself alone, as priest forever, has this privilege and so His words express when He says, “Take, eat.” He there commands us not to offer His body, but only to eat it. I looked to Hebrews and Matthew for the answer.
1. Heb. 5:10; Matt. 26:26
In the Lord's Supper the sacred bread does not become the body of Christ itself, though agreeably to the nature and usage of Sacraments it is called the body of Christ.
1. Matt. 26:29
2. I Cor. 11:26-28
3. Exod. 12:26-27, 43, 48; I Cor. 10:1-4
I believe as a Protestant we therefore eat the body and blood of the Lord for as our whole reliance for salvation depends on Him, in order that the obedience which He yielded to the Father may be imputed to us just as if it were ours, it is necessary that He be possessed by us; for the only way in which He communicates; also, to be so united more and more to His sacred body by the Holy Spirit, who dwells both in Christ and in us, that, although He is in heaven and we on earth, we are nevertheless flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone, and live and are governed forever by one Spirit, as members of the same body are governed by one soul. I look to the following scripture readings to prove my position.
1. John 6:35, 40, 47-48, 50-54
2. John 6:55-56
3. Acts 3:21; I Cor. 11:26
4. Eph. 3:16-19; 5:29-30, 32; I Cor. 6:15, 17, 19; I John 4:13
5. John 6:56-58, 63; 14:23; 15:1-6; Eph. 4:15-16
He is not only food to our souls, but drink also, so that we are not to seek any part of spiritual life anywhere else than in Him alone.
The above arguments and scriptural accounts I believe now a Presbyterian and I deny the Lutheran position of Consubstantiation as I deny the Roman catholic teaching on Transubstantiation. I believe the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine and we receive Christ who is fully present in a spiritual manner and not carnally. The Lords Supper is to feed and nourish our soul , it is not carnal food for the body. However Christ becomes present in our person because of our faith when we receive Him in communion. I renounce the Roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation as I renounce all the false teachings of Roman Catholicism and I renounce her pope as did the Protestant reformers. I receive communion in the Presbyterian way regularly now and experience the presence of the Lord in a way I never experienced Him when I received as a Roman catholic. I experience the Lord in a more personal manner when I receive the Lords Supper as a Presbyterian. I believe the Reformed Protestant view of the Lords Supper is biblically correct and the only sound position regarding the Lords Supper. It is one of the many reasons I am now a Reformed Protestant an no longer a Roman catholic.
Sincerely and in faith,
Dudley
The best place to start would be with the official doctrinal standards of Lutheranism. Welcome to the Book of Concord
Here are the official websites of the major confessional Lutheran denominations in North America.
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod: Home - The Lutheran Church
Wisconsin Evangelical Synod: Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)
Church of the Lutheran Confession: the Church of the Lutheran Confession
Church of the Lutheran Brethren: Voice of the Church of the Lutheran Brethren | CLB
Here are the official websites of the major confessional Lutheran denominations in North America.
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod: Home - The Lutheran Church
Wisconsin Evangelical Synod: Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)
Church of the Lutheran Confession: the Church of the Lutheran Confession
Church of the Lutheran Brethren: Voice of the Church of the Lutheran Brethren | CLB
Last edited:
An additional confessional Lutheran denomination is the Evangelical Lutheran Synod: Evangelical Lutheran Synod | Engaging you with Jesus
The standard English language Lutheran systematics is Mueller's Christian Dogmatics. He usually summarizes the Lutheran position in a concise readable format.
The Heidelberg Catechism was written with a view to explaining what the Reformed Evangelicals believed and sets forth the Reformed faith in a positive light as it differs from the Lutheran Evangelicals.
The Heidelberg Catechism was written with a view to explaining what the Reformed Evangelicals believed and sets forth the Reformed faith in a positive light as it differs from the Lutheran Evangelicals.
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
http://www.biblicaltheology.org/dcrt.pdf
Here is Vos on this.
Here is Vos on this.
That only applies to the ELCA and other Liberal Lutheran groups. I have friends in the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod) and the LCC (Lutheran Church of Canada).
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
There were many elenctic treatments of the Lutherans. Many of these are in Latin, but Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology is a good place to start. He has several sections on the Lutherans, such as their doctrine of ubiquity, castigation of reason, errors on the sacraments, and possibly a few others.
In the main, I think most of our men would hold much with Luther and Melanchthon, but later Lutherans departed from Luther's doctrine of predestination and all three uses of the law (for example). If memory serves, Turretin seems to point out where Luther may have even come to his senses over the ubiquity notion at a later point in his life. Anybody recall that in Turretin?
Cheers,
In the main, I think most of our men would hold much with Luther and Melanchthon, but later Lutherans departed from Luther's doctrine of predestination and all three uses of the law (for example). If memory serves, Turretin seems to point out where Luther may have even come to his senses over the ubiquity notion at a later point in his life. Anybody recall that in Turretin?
Cheers,
We'd agree with Melanchthon on the Lord's Supper (which he got from his friendship with Calvin), we'd disagree with him on soteriology (which he got from his friendship with Erasmus).
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Perhaps not on the Lord's Supper like you would think. Here is a paper from a leading Lutheran scholar on this.
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/scaerresponsetohagglund.pdf
It seems that Melanchthon did view a "real presence" in the Lord's Supper but not a spiritual one, as Calvin would understand it. Christ became physically present in the "sacramental action" of the Sacrament, Calvin would disagree there. I think a major difference between Lutherans and Reformed is over the Holy Spirit and the means of grace. For Lutherans the Spirit works in and through the Word and Sacraments absolutely. There is no real separate inward work of the Holy Spirit, apart from the Word and Sacraments, in people at all.
For us the WCF uses the term “ordinary” in its confession about the Word and Sacraments. God’s ordinary work happens through the Church, where the Word and Sacraments are, but because He is God He can freely work in any way he wishes. The confession allows for God to save babies in the womb as well as people incapable of the “outward called by the ministry of the Word” (see chap. 10, which I will post for your convenience).
For Lutherans this is a problem. Predestination is never really handled well by them. I’ll post the Formula of Concord on this so that you can read it and compare with our confessions. If the Spirit acts exclusively through the Word than why are some responsive to it and not all? For us this is no problem because the Spirit acts through the Word but only inwardly in the hearts of the elect. This is anathema for Lutherans; it “separates” the work of the Spirit from the Word and Sacraments. The finite cannot contain the infinite therefore God cannot be tied down to physical elements exclusively, Word and Sacraments. Again He ordinarily acts through these but not exclusively.
This is as simple an explanation as I can give. I will attempt to elaborate if my post is confusing. I will do my best but I am not an expert so bear with me. If anything is confusing please point it out to me and I will try to make more sense. I hope this helps.
The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - Book of Concord
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/mullerreformeddefinition.pdf
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/mullerluthprofatwestminster.pdf
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/scaerreformedexegesis.pdf
http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/jer_alder/jer_alder.Freedom.Will.html
- Status
