Major Differences of Lutheran MO Synod?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dennis;

You seem to really down-play the severity of the baptism error in the Lutheran church:
What does Baptism give or profit? - Answer.
It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

How can the LCMS profess justification by faith alone and then put forth what sounds to me like a position of baptismal regeneration. Am I understanding their view on baptism correctly? And if so, how can they be compared to the PCA? Am I judging them to harshly here?

What Bruce said. Luther believed that the Holy Spirit creates faith in the infant and that he was consistent in saying that all are saved by grace through faith. Indeed, the antipod of Lutheranism is not Reformed Calvinism, per se, but the derivative churches that teach decisional regeneration. To claim that a person can "decide" to become a Christian strikes the LCMS as Pelagian (or at least semi-Pelagian). Monergism requires that salvation be a "work" of God alone, not a cooperative effort between God and my "deciding" to accept Jesus.

Pergy, I am painfully aware of my special status on this board as a confirmed member of a LCMS church. My answers were intended to be descriptive in a way that would not incite a full throated debate by me that would put me off the board.

Thanks for the info, Dennis. I'll back off....I value your presence on the board and don't want to jeopardize that.
 
Is it me or do many Lutherans possess the spiritual gift of sarcasm and satire? :)

Ya think?

One of the grandson's of the aforementioned Robert Preus does some satirical You Tube videos that employ humor to punch holes in dispensational eschatology (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5MDqUAfPcI), Mormonism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTwpOfr3NDQ), and even take aim at C.F.W. Walther, the founder of the LCMS. For a VERY VERY funny short cartoon about Walther (couple of minutes), cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWnIsvWv-3w. Pr. Fiene is a LCMS pastor near Joliet, IL. Don't turn it off when the credits roll. The funniest line comes at the very end after the discussion of his Law and Gospel book.

Some of his videos use the annoying computer generated voice technique (e.g., Mormonism and Dispensationalism), but make some brilliant points. The one on Walther uses a different animation technique that is just plain hilarious!
 
Last edited:
If I understand correctly, they also have an unbiblical view of church office. In my to a local LCMS service a year or two ago, they installed a woman elder. But from what I gathered it is viewed as a "secular" or administrative post that does not entail spiritual leadership.

I don't keep up with LCMS news much but I too have seen reports that some are wobbly on inerrancy.

You'll get some congregations that are very "traditional" in their worship whereas others aren't much different than broad evangelical megachurches.

The elder line surprises me. In the Fort Wayne area the nearly 30 congregations are pretty strong on roles of men and women. Like many denoms, the churches on the coast are sometimes more mainstream with American norms (e.g., Keller in New York for the PCA).

Inerrancy is still a BIG deal for the LCMS because of the Concordia St. Louis vs. Seminex thing in the '70s. I cannot speak for the old guys out in the hustings, but the seminarians and the profs are 100% unshakable on the subject. Actually, that was one of the things that impressed me most about LCMS, that they seemed far more united on doctrine than most other denoms.

As to the worship styles, you are correct. About 20% of the churches self-identify as "missional." They are still playing with church growth long after it has been relegated to a fad by other bodies. Congregations in this camp would have worship services that mirror broad evangelicalism. 20% would be in the hard "confessional" camp and would lean toward smells and bells.

The bulk of Lutheran churches are in the middle, meaning that they are liturgical and would use many (if not all) of the following elements in their worship in the following order:
* The Preparation
The Invocation and Confession of Sins

* The Ministry of the Word
The Introit, Kyrie, and Gloria in Excelsis
The Salutation and Collect
The Old Testament, Epistle, Gospel
The Creed, Hymn, and Sermon

* The Ministry of the Sacrament
The Offertory, Offerings, and General Prayer
The Preface, Sanctus,
Lord's Prayer and Words of Institution
The Pax, Agnus Dei, and Distribution
The Nunc Dimittis,
Thanksgiving, and Benediction

And, yes, it feels VERY Catholic to a broad evangelical. Remember that Luther worked on the assumption that if it "ain't broken, don't fix it." He embraced the Western Mass pretty much wholesale, with the exception that the Lord's Supper was NOT a sacrifice, NOT transubstantiation, and MUST be offered in both kinds (bread and wine). Many Lutherans describe themselves as "evangelical catholics" with evangelical denoting the gospel (grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone) and catholic being spelled with a small "c." In order to show that they do NOT identify with Rome, the Apostles Creed is rewritten so that "one holy catholic church" becomes "one holy Christian church."
 
The Lutherans were a little more conservative about reforming worship practices than the Reformed were as well, partially out of Luther's concern not to disrupt and discomfort the laity overmuch on what was seen as a matter of secondary importance. This generally led to the division in worship theology with the Lutherans holding to what's been called the "normative principle" rather than the Reformed's regulative principle with their stronger emphasis on idolatry as being a core error of the Romanists.

That said, LCMS church liturgy looks a lot less novel and innovative than much of what passes for worship in churches that confess the regulative principle in their Reformed standards these days--make of that what you will.
 
My fiance was raised LCMS (she of course is PCA now). Her Grandpa retired from Concordia Publishing House and her Dad is an elder in an LCMS church. Needless to say its been a bumping road communicating with her parents.

1. It seems to me that Lutherans of the LCMS variety are completely unaware of the broader evangelical world. If I were to go talk to a random Southern Baptist deacon tomorrow we could have a conversation using typical evangelical lingo and understand each other even if occasionally we misunderstood each other because each denomination does have lingo specific to them. My experience has been that Lutheran lingo is very different from broader evangelical lingo and it can make a conversation very difficult even discussing things we have in common. They also know absolutely zero about the different beliefs of other Christian denominations.

2. They seem to only focus on Luther's small catechism and the limited doctrines it teaches as the only doctrines they thoroughly know and understand. Once the conversation ventures beyond Justification by Faith Alone and the sacraments you get looked at like you aren't discussing the Bible. Even though her little sister's selling point on Lutheranism when I first started dating my fiance was "Marcus, don't you want to be a part of a church that thoroughly understands and believes the Bible?"

3. I went to church and a picnic at her parents church and her pastor described Lutheran pastor described Lutheran soteriology this way: God grabs (predestines) his elect and raises them up to heaven in an open hand but the elect can hop out of God's electing hand if they choose.

4. They also have a really weird argument for that Jesus died for all men but God still elects a certain number to salvation even though that number can decrease if the elect are not faithful until the end.

I do think that LCMS theologians do have a lot to offer in evangelical dialogues but it saddens me that Lutheranism seem to exist in its own separate theological realm. They are closer to the reformed theology/true Biblical Christianity than most evangelicals.
 
I read a booklet length summary of evangelical Lutheran doctrine a number of years ago, possibly from Concordia Seminary, and in addition to the points above, the Lutherans didn't seem to make anything much of covenant theology, and appeared to be weak on the Sabbath.

Someone with greater knowledge of Lutherans, like Dennis, might comment on this. If they haven't made much of covenant theology it's bound to affect their view of the sacraments, perseverance, the law including the Sabbath, and everything else.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Luther was not a sabbatarian, nor are Lutherans. It is viewed as fulfilled in Christ. Covenant theology is not the hermeneutical priority that it is for Reformed theology.

We teach that in the New Testament God has abrogated the Sabbath and all the holy days prescribed for the Church of the Old Covenant, so that neither "the keeping of the Sabbath nor any other day" nor the observance of at least one specific day of the seven days of the week is ordained or commanded by God, Col. 2:16; Rom. 14:5 (Augsburg Confession, Triglot, p. 91, Paragraphs 51-60; M., p. 66).

The observance of Sunday and other church festivals is an ordinance of the Church, made by virtue of Christian liberty. (Augsburg Confession, Triglot, p. 91, Paragraphs 51-53, 60; M., p. 66; Large Catechism, Triglot, p. 603, Paragraphs 83, 85, 89, M., p. 401.) Hence Christians should not regard such ordinances as ordained by God and binding upon the conscience, Col. 2:16; Gal. 4:10. However, for the sake of Christian love and peace they should willingly observe them, Rom. 14:13; 1 Cor. 14:40. (Augsburg Confession, Triglot, p. 91, Paragraphs 53-56; M., p. 67.)

The application of the commandment to "honor the Sabbath" is seen as fulfilled in the regular attendance of worship and honoring the proclamation of the Word of God. As to perseverance, Lutherans believe in Romans 8 and fully anticipate heaven. They argue that their doctrine more fully accords with assurance of salvation than alternative theological systems because they ground salvation in the objectivity of the work of Christ rather than the subjective appropriation of it by the believer. However, unlike Calvinism, Lutherans accept the warning passages in the Bible as presenting genuine existential hazard of falling away should someone be so foolish as to abandon the salvation provided in Christ for something "better" (cf. Heb 6, 10). So, Calvinists complain that Lutherans believe you can lose your salvation; Lutherans complain that Calvinists have an uncertain basis for assurance of salvation.

Again, conservative Lutherans are NOT Reformed, but Reformational. There are points of shared belief and significant areas of difference.
 
Last edited:
Combining two threads....


I consider it a classic. But, it IS Lutheran and Wes is correct about the anti-Reformed rhetoric. However, recognize that from Walther's perspective there are only a few "types" of Christianity: (EO), Roman Catholic, Reformed, and Lutheran. For him, the revivalism of Finney is part of the Reformed DNA so he classifies it such. Even when Finney, modern Arminians, etc. "react" against Calvinism, they must admit that their lineage comes from it historically. Accepting the splits from the Reformed camp that have gone their own bizarre trajectories since breaking with Calvinism, it will sound off-putting to hear semi-pelagian revivalism denounced as an error of "Reformed" Christianity. But, remember it was a 19th century work dealing with the American landscape then.


In contrast to the stong objectivity of the Lutheran view of the sacraments, here is the Presbyterian view:
WCF 28 Of Baptism

5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance (Lk.7:30 with Ex.4:24-26), yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it (Act.10:2,4,22,31,45,47; Rom.4:11); or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated (Act.8:13,23).
While a Presbyterian may admit that an infant could be so blessed as to have the seed of faith "germinated" as it were as soon as the water of baptism is applied, "grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it...." The Scriptures do speak of infant faith. That water can speak as effectively (and perhaps better) than words at such a point, if the Spirit so determines. The key difference with the Lutherans is that we understand a distinction between the sign and the thing signified, the work of the man and the work of God--things which belong together, but which are not invariably joined. And, of course, the whole-cloth aspect of salvation: that what he has begun he will also complete, Php.1:6; union with Christ is not something that can be undone.


So, does the (Lutheran/Walther) argument go that Reformed Theology so distinguishes between the sign and the thing signified that it led some to a credo-baptism position, in which the sign follows the thing signified (they being even more separated). Then, one day, when credo-baptism is cast as being only act of free response, then naturally people will move to Finney's decisional revivalism, and you finally end up with mainstream Evangelicalism.

Mind you, I'm not arguing that, just trying to understand the mindset. This, I guess, would be why there is no such thing as Lutheran Baptists.
 
That might be how one Lutheran would characterize such a "process," but I doubt that in reality any such "slide" is traceable.

It's probably more accurate to seek to find on some sort of "spectrum" or "x-y axis" (perhaps even a "circle" or something else) to locate the various expressions (denominations, congregations) of the church in the world. By comparing and contrasting various traits, it is possible to find a general location for one church body (as defined on paper, officially or if must be unofficially) in relation to others.

This is why I use the language "to the left of" (linearly) to describe the self-consciously and confessionally Reformed vis-a-vis the Lutherans. We'll grant the "right" side to the papists and other hierarchical groupings; and think of the "left" as the radical individualists. We'll also just grant the "right" the "conservative" moniker while we're at it, although that form of classification is really something quite different from a sacramentally conceived or organizationally conceived spectrum. All of these are different from each other, and from other characteristics, which is why spectrum-analysis is too often reductionist, and encourages too many false-dichotomies.

People and ideas don't always--perhaps not even often--"slide" on a spectrum, as if all things reside on a single continuum that men pass more or less from one herd into the next beyond. Reality has many more dimensions than one, and one may be close to this group in one area, and at the same time to that far-separated group (from the first) in another.

In short, what I wish to say is that so long as the limits of a given spectrum's description are honored as descriptive (and not much more), we can say that "Lutheran-Baptist" is very much an oxymoron in a sacramental sense; there being our several Reformed groupings in between them on that line; meanwhile Anglicans should likely be found to the right of the Lutherans. If the subject were ecclesiology instead, we would find very different connections between American Lutherans and Baptists.
 
On a side note, The WELS churches are quite "hard-core". We have a member in our congregation who, upon recently becoming a member of this church (which is OPC), is being excommunicated by his previous WELS church. They do not believe that he is attending a biblical church. He also has been attending this church for quite sometime and said that the WELS typically will not have fellowship outside of a WELS church, since it might lead members to "liberal" tendencies.

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but he also stated that WELS churches typically do not believe that anything outside of a WELS church is a true church.
 
It definately is a common misconception, one I definately held. In fact when I first met the Pastor, I asked him about consubstantion. He told me emphatically that it isn't Lutheran doctrine.

I had this same discussion with a Lutheran missionary pastor (LCMS) in Prague. He was almost incensed at the thought.
 
It definately is a common misconception, one I definately held. In fact when I first met the Pastor, I asked him about consubstantion. He told me emphatically that it isn't Lutheran doctrine.

I had this same discussion with a Lutheran missionary pastor (LCMS) in Prague. He was almost incensed at the thought.

Didn't Luther tailor his doctrine of Christ's humanity being ubiquitous to his doctrine of the sacrament, or is that another myth/misunderstanding/misrepresentation?
 
On a side note, The WELS churches are quite "hard-core". We have a member in our congregation who, upon recently becoming a member of this church (which is OPC), is being excommunicated by his previous WELS church. They do not believe that he is attending a biblical church. He also has been attending this church for quite sometime and said that the WELS typically will not have fellowship outside of a WELS church, since it might lead members to "liberal" tendencies.

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but he also stated that WELS churches typically do not believe that anything outside of a WELS church is a true church.

I have never been to a WELS church but know that they say that the LCMS is liberal. I guess inerrancy, creationism, pro-life, no ordination of women, etc. is what we would all call "liberal."
 
It definately is a common misconception, one I definately held. In fact when I first met the Pastor, I asked him about consubstantion. He told me emphatically that it isn't Lutheran doctrine.

I had this same discussion with a Lutheran missionary pastor (LCMS) in Prague. He was almost incensed at the thought.

Didn't Luther tailor his doctrine of Christ's humanity being ubiquitous to his doctrine of the sacrament, or is that another myth/misunderstanding/misrepresentation?

Ubiquity is another one of those words like "consubstantiation." For a group with such a developed theological system and superstructure, they strangely balk at employing terms that appear too abstract from the actual testimony of Scripture. The mantra is "I believe, teach, and confess" what the Bible says, not what the philosophers say. Confessional Lutheran theologians will cop to a "sense" of the term ubiquity, saying that Christ may be locally present, illocally present, repletively present, or sacramentally present. They argue that the communication of attributes includes the notion that Christ's deity "communicates" the ability to be in more than one place at a time. They characterize the Reformed as believing that the resurrected Jesus is limited to sitting at the right hand of the throne of God, unable to move from his heavenly domain. The Lutheran doctrine of "real presence" in the Lord's Supper requires, however, that Jesus be able to be present in more than one place at the same time. Reformed writers have lampooned this as nonsensical, illogical, and well, Monophysite.

That is why I said that the rap on Lutherans is Monophysitism; the complaint against Calvinists is Nestorianism. Both sides would reject that they cross the line into error. But, you can see why critics on each side make the charge.
 
Last edited:
It definately is a common misconception, one I definately held. In fact when I first met the Pastor, I asked him about consubstantion. He told me emphatically that it isn't Lutheran doctrine.

I had this same discussion with a Lutheran missionary pastor (LCMS) in Prague. He was almost incensed at the thought.

Didn't Luther tailor his doctrine of Christ's humanity being ubiquitous to his doctrine of the sacrament, or is that another myth/misunderstanding/misrepresentation?

Ubiquity is another one of those words like "consubstantiation." For a group with such a developed theological system and superstructure, they strangely balk at employing terms that appear to abstract from the actual testimony of Scripture. The mantra is "I believe, teach, and confess" what the Bible says, not what the philosophers say. Confessional Lutheran theologians will cop to a "sense" of the term ubiquity, saying that Christ may be locally present, illocally present, repletively present, or sacramentally present. They argue that the communication of attributes includes the notion that Christ's deity "communicates" the ability to be in more than one place at a time. They characterize the Reformed as believing that the resurrected Jesus is limited to sitting at the right hand of the throne of God, unable to move from his heavenly domain. The Lutheran doctrine of "real presence" in the Lord's Supper requires, however, that Jesus be able to be present in more than one place at the same time. Reformed writers have lampooned this as nonsensical, illogical, and well, Monophysite.

That is why I said that the rap on Lutherans is Monophysitism; the complaint against Calvinists is Nestorianism. Both sides would reject that they cross the line into error. But, you can see why critics on each side make the charge.

This particular aspect flies in the face of the Chalcedonian Creed which all of Christendom (allegedly) holds to....."each nature retaining it's own attributes....". . Omnipresence is not an attribute of the human nature. Christ may be present spiritually, but not physically. Rome tries to pass this off in a more goofy fashion......
 
Last edited:
Sort of what I said in the part you did not highlight: "Reformed writers have lampooned this as nonsensical, illogical, and well, Monophysite."
 
And with that, maybe this one is done?

Thanks to everyone who gave info (especially Dennis).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top