Lutheran/Reformed articles and debates

[Contra_Mundum]

Do they hold to water baptism imparting saving grace to the infant then, and how would they see/view the spiritual presense of Jesus actually in Communion then?

Yes, but only due to conjunction with the Word; and they believe the proper administration of baptism imparts faith, and so faith--which they believe is necessary--is also invariably present for the infant.

isn't there that really big difference to them between Law/Grace, in same fashion as somone holding to a Dispensational theology view might?

You must be thinking of Law and Gospel, which is not the same idea as dispensational divisions between eras of law and grace, or "under law" vs. "under grace." Neither is the disjunction of Law and Gospel as the two chief kinds of word in Scripture exclusively the domain of Lutherans; but is a long-held distinction recognized by Protestants generally. Confessional Lutheranism (ala Walther) in the USA did make this disjunction radical, essential, and indispensable to their hermeneutic and preaching.

do they have a Bible version thatis recommended by their Church for use?

Doubtful.

 

[Dachaser]

So they would see God imparting saving faith to the infant in tjhe Baptism, would they see God doing that for any and all babies that it has been administered too then? They axctually get reborn again in the rite?

You are corrct, it was law and Gospel, as they tend to make a really big distinction on those 2...

Concordia is their publisher, think they useLutheryn Niv study bible a lot!

 

[ReformedInSweden]

So they would see that God already has reconciled all sinners back to Himself at the Cross, and that the person themselves would be removing themselves out of that justified state by refusing the Lord Jesus?

It's kind of inconsistent, like many of their doctrines. Whole mankind is justified, but you still need to receive it by faith individually.

You can read it here in the statement of faith from the WELS:

"1. We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ. This is the central message of Scripture upon which the very existence of the church depends. It is a message relevant to people of all times and places, of all races and social levels, for “the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men” (Romans 5:18). All need forgiveness of sins before God, and Scripture proclaims that all have been justified, for “the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men” (Romans 5:18).

2. We believe that individuals receive this free gift of forgiveness not on the basis of their own works, but only through faith (Ephesians 2:8,9). Justifying faith is trust in Christ and his redemptive work. This faith justifies not because of any power it has in itself, but only because of the salvation prepared by God in Christ, which it embraces (Romans 3:28; 4:5). On the other hand, although Jesus died for all, Scripture says that “whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Unbelievers forfeit the forgiveness won for them by Christ (John 8:24)."


The LCMS puts it this way:

"17. Holy Scripture sums up all its teachings regarding the love of God to the world of sinners, regarding the salvation wrought by Christ, and regarding faith in Christ as the only way to obtain salvation, in the article of justification. Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ's sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ's sake their sins are forgiven. Thus the Holy Ghost testifies through St. Paul: "There is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," Rom. 3:23, 24. And again: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law," Rom. 3:28."


Here is a clarification from a Lutheran pastor:

He writes:
"No individuals as individuals are justified in the “objective” sense except for Jesus. Jesus suffered and died as the representative of all humanity, and was condemned by God the Father on behalf of all humanity. In Christ’s condemnation, all humanity was vicariously condemned. On the third day, Jesus rose from the dead – still as the representative of all humanity – and was, in his resurrection, thereby vindicated and justified by God the Father on behalf of all humanity. In Christ’s justification, all humanity was vicariously justified. This is the completed gospel that is now proclaimed, delivered, and applied to penitent sinners, in and through the means of grace; and that is received by them, individually, by faith alone. Again, these basic points have always been the teaching of Confessional Lutheranism. The terminology and the emphasis have varied, but the essential teaching of an objective justification of Christ, in the stead of the world and on behalf of the world, has always been held. This fact is demonstrated in these assembled quotations from Luther, Gerhard, and others."

 

[ReformedInSweden]

So they would see God imparting saving faith to the infant in tjhe Baptism, would they see God doing that for any and all babies that it has been administered too then? They axctually get reborn again in the rite?

The LCMS puts it this way:
"We believe this because the Bible says that infants can believe (Matt. 18:6) and that new birth (regeneration) happens in Baptism (John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6). The infant’s faith cannot yet, of course, be verbally expressed or articulated by the child, yet it is real and present all the same (see e.g., Acts 2:38-39; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15).

The faith of the infant, like the faith of adults, also needs to be fed and nurtured by God’s Word (Matt. 28:18-20), or it will die."

You are corrct, it was law and Gospel, as they tend to make a really big distinction on those 2...

Yes, one of their well used resource is this one Walther's The Poper Distinction between Law and Gospel.

Concordia is their publisher, think they useLutheryn Niv study bible a lot!

Actually Concordia Publishing House (LCMS) came out with a new study bible a few years back The Lutheran Study Bible.
Since the ESV was published this Bible translation is mostly used in their books and publications.

 

[ReformedInSweden]

You must be thinking of Law and Gospel......... Confessional Lutheranism (ala Walther) in the USA did make this disjunction radical, essential, and indispensable to their hermeneutic and preaching.
.

Exactly. In their catechism they teach that the main teachings of Scripture are Law and Gospel.

I quote from the catechism from the LCMS:
Q. 6 What basic distinction must we keep in mind in order to understand the Bible?
A. We must sharply distinguish between the Law and the Gospel in the Bible.

Q. 7. What does God teach and do in the Law?
A. In the Law God commands good works of thought, word and deed and condemns and punishes sin.

Q.8. What does God teach and do in the Gospel?
A. In the Gospel, the good news of our salvation in Jesus Christ, God gives forgiveness, faith, life and the power to please Him with good works.

The catechism of the WELS teaches it in a similar way. This is also how they say a pastor should preach: first the law to condemn the sinner and show him his sin, then the gospel to show the sinner his saviour, and then the law again to teach the saved sinner how he should live the new life.

 

[TheologiaCrucis]

So they would see that God already has reconciled all sinners back to Himself at the Cross, and that the person themselves would be removing themselves out of that justified state by refusing the Lord Jesus?

It's kind of inconsistent, like many of their doctrines. Whole mankind is justified, but you still need to receive it by faith individually.

I don't think it's inconsistent, per se. In Lutheranism "objective justification" is the notion that what Jesus accomplished made salvation effectively and potentially possible for all of creation. It's like saying that on account of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution every American has the ability/right to own a gun... that doesn't mean every American will actually own a gun. Or, another analogy, its like someone purchased a gift for you, but the gift isn't yours unless it's delievered and received (i.e. when you open the gift). By virtue of the Christ, salvation has been earned for the whole world... that doesn't mean everyone will be saved.

This is where the idea of "subjective justificaiton" comes into play--which is where issues of individual salvation are addressed, election, etc. This is where, in faith, one receives the gift of what Christ already purchased. It occurs, here, on account of God's election, the working of the Holy Spirit through the means of grace, and is apprehended by faith.

In other words, for Lutherans salvation/justification involves both the purchasing of the gift (Calvary) and the receiving of the gift (via the Means of Grace, apprehended by faith alone).

 

[Dachaser]

Sounds like they have a dose of Karl Barth, in that both see God election basically covering all sinners, and up to us to have God cancel that free gift towards us!

Is that whythey hold to loss of salvation, as God honors free will to finally reject the free gift?

 

[Dachaser]

That Bible would still be the Niv study notes, adopted for them, but now in the ESV ?

 

[ReformedInSweden]

That Bible would still be the Niv study notes, adopted for them, but now in the ESV ?

No, the notes in the Lutheran Study Bible http://www.cph.org/t-tlsb.aspx are completely new as far as I understand.

 

[RamistThomist]

That Bible would still be the Niv study notes, adopted for them, but now in the ESV ?

No, the notes in the Lutheran Study Bible http://www.cph.org/t-tlsb.aspx are completely new as far as I understand.

That's correct. I've glanced through the LSB at my library and while I didn't compare them with the NIV Study, they are different (and probably better, since the latter is marred by being connected with anything NIV).

 

[RamistThomist]

Sounds like they have a dose of Karl Barth, in that both see God election basically covering all sinners, and up to us to have God cancel that free gift towards us!

Is that whythey hold to loss of salvation, as God honors free will to finally reject the free gift?

Or Barth has a dose of Lutheranism (since Melanchton and others predated Barth).

 

[TylerRay]

I was a Lutheran pastor for 7 years and began my PhD work at Concordia Seminary. I am still heavily influenced by Lutheranism and my dissertation deals with Luther. Robert Kolb was my mentor. I ultimately had a few issues with the sectarianism in the LCMS and some of their perspectives on the Lord's Supper. I am currently attending an independent Presbyterian church, and haven't pursued colloquy yet into a Reformed denomination. Perhaps I will in time.

I think the biggest thing lacking in Lutheranism is virtually no emphasis on the Covenant as a central component of biblical interpretation. My dissertation suggests that Luther's paradigmatic distinction between the two kinds of righteousness functioned for Luther much like the covenant principle does for later Reformed Christians. So, Luther insists on "testament" rather than "covenant" as the translation of the words of institution for the Lord's Supper. This blunder, I would suggest, is what makes him unable to discern the connection of the elements to covenantal signs. That said, he was willing to sign (along with Calvin) the Variata of the Augsburg Confession and revised by Melanchthon (who originally composed it). Melanchthon (my avatar) was accused after Luther's death by a crowd who called themselves Gnesio-Lutherans (real Lutherans) of "Crypto-Calvinism," particularly with regard to his views on the Lord's Supper. Oddly, they also accused him of synergism too, which I believe was due to their misunderstanding of his assertion that the human will is, in Aristotlean lingo, a material cause of conversion. Thus a huge schism between these Philippist Lutherans and the Gnesio crowd emerged after Luther's death. The Formula of Concord is the Lutheran resolution on this controversy and it effectively decided with the Gnesio positions and makes several condemnations of Crypto-Calvinism, particularly in the article pertaining to the Lord's Supper. After 1580 and the Formula much of the Philippist crowd ended up aligning with the Reformed. It was this early controversy/division in Luthernism where you will find some of the more intriguing debates between present Lutheranism and a more Reformed brand of Lutheranism as embraced by the Philippists.

For a Lutheran view in Christology see the Formula of Concord or, at much greater length, Martin Chemnitz's Two Natures of Christ. In short the Lutheran view of Christology argues that the human nature if Christ participates in the attributes of divinity by virtue of the unity of persons. So, the human nature post-resurrection appears in a locked room, disappears from the table, etc. Human nature cannot do this by its own so, Lutherans argue, this suggests a communication of attributes.

This issue comes to a head in the debate over the Lord's Supper because this becomes Luther's justification for his position regarding the presence of the actual body and blood in, with and among the elements of bread and wine. Oddly, however, Luther's objection to Transubstantiation was that it imposed Aristotle upon the words of Christ and tried to explain the mystery in terms not delineated in The biblical text. I would suggest that the text also gives no exegetical reason to impose the above Christology upon the words either... Thus Luther ends up in his debate with the Reformed (mostly Zwingli) violating his own principle by which he rejected Rome's view.

Ryan,

Thank you for your perspective!

I'm wondering what you think of the claim that it was Melanchthon who convinced Luther not to unite with the Reformed Churches, and that his motivation for doing this was ecclesio-political, i.e., that doing so would prevent a future reunification with Rome, should one be eventually negotiated.

I'm not at all trying to paint Melanchthon in a bad light; the above is what I've heard (I think it was from Dr. Sproul, but don't quote me on that).

I hope my question isn't too far off-topic.

 

[TylerRay]

My main interest in the Lutheran tradition is its worship (although believing that Jesus died for everyone who ever lived could make evangelism easier). Being a former traditionalist Roman Catholic I am attracted to a ritualistic style of worship and many Lutheran churches seem to have that. I love my current church and the people in it, but being a Reformed church it has very simple worship. It also doesn't follow the church year (except for Good Friday, Ascension Thursday and Christmas Day), which is one thing I miss, particularly on Palm Sunday.

Michael,

May I suggest that you set apart some time to make a serious study of Reformed principles of worship vs. the principles found in Lutheranism and similar communions?

Have you done much reading/listening/study on the regulative principle of worship vs. the normative principle?

 

[Toasty]

Lutherans hold to one being able to lose eternal life, but also would see the presense of Christ in the Communion as real, but not transformed into Jesus physically as Catholics do?

And they see water baptism not as rite into community, but actually as providing saving Grace in the water? But again, not as catholics do, but something real happens to the baby?

They seem to be somehow go between reformed/Catholic teaching, butthey would see water baptist requred in order to be saved?

This is from the LCMS website, which is located here: http://www.lcms.org/faqs/doctrine#baptism

QUESTION: How does faith play a role in infant Baptism? Is faith later taken care of when the child is confirmed?

ANSWER: Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates the gift of faith in a person's heart.

Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about Baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant.

This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see, e.g., 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).

Parents and sponsors of a baptized child bear the responsibility of teaching this child God's Word so that the child's faith may remain alive and grow (Matt. 28:18-20).

Confirmation is a time-honored church tradition (not required by God's Word, but we believe useful nonetheless) in which the child baptized as an infant is given the opportunity to confess for himself or herself the faith that he or she was unable to confess as an infant.

Faith is not “created” at confirmation, but it is rather confessed for all to hear so that the church can join and rejoice in this public confession, which has its roots in the faith which God Himself created in Baptism.

 

[Daniel M.]

For those of you like me who are Dr. John Gerstner fans, he deals with this at length in lectures 19-23 of Handout Church History, a free teaching series available on Ligonier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Toasty]

How would Lutherans explain Acts 4:27-28 which teach that Herod and Gentiles and the peoples of Israel did whatever God predestined them to do?

 

[Dachaser]

This is from the LCMS website, which is located here: http://www.lcms.org/faqs/doctrine#baptism

QUESTION: How does faith play a role in infant Baptism? Is faith later taken care of when the child is confirmed?

ANSWER: Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates the gift of faith in a person's heart.

Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about Baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant.

This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see, e.g., 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).

Parents and sponsors of a baptized child bear the responsibility of teaching this child God's Word so that the child's faith may remain alive and grow (Matt. 28:18-20).

Confirmation is a time-honored church tradition (not required by God's Word, but we believe useful nonetheless) in which the child baptized as an infant is given the opportunity to confess for himself or herself the faith that he or she was unable to confess as an infant.

Faith is not “created” at confirmation, but it is rather confessed for all to hear so that the church can join and rejoice in this public confession, which has its roots in the faith which God Himself created in Baptism.

Isthere a difference bewteenthen God giving/producing saving faith in babies, and God saving infants who die?

 

[TheologiaCrucis]

Lutherans distinguish between objective justification (Christ accomplishing salvation for all on the cross) and subjective justification (receiving the benefits of the cross by faith). This is why Lutherans often object to limited atonement... Though I think either side is responding to a bit of a caricature of the other in this debate. What Lutherans mean is that the cross itself did not exclude anyone even though by God's election some are actually saved as opposed to others (subjective justification). That Lutherans operate with this distinction (one that even many Lutherans do not understand) is what often confuses their soteriological debates with the Reformed.

The Baptism question.... Keep in mind that Lutherans view the sacraments like a visual Word of God that has efficacy like the proclaimed Word can affect hearts and minds. God works through baptism... But one is not saved by the mere act of having been baptized. In his Large Catechism Luther said the absence of baptism condemns no one, but the rejection of it does.

The presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper is a more complicated matter. First, in spite of common depictions, Lutherans never use the word consubstantiation to describe their view. That is because the word itself uses the very categories of Aristolte that Luther objected the Papists had used to dogmatize transubstantiation. For Luther the very body and blood of Christ was present in some mysterious sense... Which is what he meant by "in, with and under" (words Westminster later rejects on account of how later Lutherans used the language). Luther also affirmed however the language Melanchthon employed in the Variata of the Augsburg Confession that the bread and wine exhibit (exhibere) the body and blood of Christ... And Calvin signed on to this revised Lutheran confession. It should be noted that by "spiritual presence" Calvin meant not the manner of presence but the means... That Christ is present by means of the Holy Spirit. Luther affirmed such presence more in accordance with the second person of the Trinity likening the words "this is my body" to the imperatives spoken at creation..words that accomplish what they say.

Lutherans have no official bible translation though the latest lectionary in the LCMS employs the ESV.

 

[TheologiaCrucis]

How would Lutherans explain Acts 4:27-28 which teach that Herod and Gentiles and the peoples of Israel did whatever God predestined them to do?

Lutherans affirm predestination and the sovereignty of God's acts in history.