Posted on 11/02/2019 6:58:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A lot of evangelicals are swimming these days. They’re slipping on their metaphorical fins and masks and churning their way across bodies of water to emerge on the other shore as members of a different faith community. Those that move from evangelicalism to Roman Catholicism are said to swim the Tiber; those that become Orthodox swim the Bosporus.
Reasons for their aquatic activities vary. Some like the art and architecture associated with the ancient faiths. Some like the ceremonial aspects–the liturgies, the veneration of icons, the Eucharist. Some like the history that oozes from Catholicism and Orthodoxy, a history that travels through great saints of yesteryear–through Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nazianzus–but goes largely forgotten in contemporary evangelicalism.
Church-switching among evangelicals has always been popular. It’s become even more so now that so much of the conservative Protestant world has fled so purposely from symbolic architecture and time-honored aesthetics, and has chosen to worship in big boxy rooms with giant worship screens, all-enveloping sound systems, and Chris Tomlin-wannabes singing from the stage. Catholicism and Orthodoxy certainly offer something different from what goes on in that environment.
But evangelicals interested in “swimming” to a different tradition should consider traversing a body of water much closer to home: the Mississippi River, on which is located St. Louis, Missouri, and the headquarters of the premier conservative Lutheran church body in America, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
Evangelicals who value tradition and history may not know that in conservative Lutheranism they will find the same critical elements of Christianity for which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are known. Retaining membership in the true church, celebrating baptism and the Lord’s Supper in all their power, singing the historic liturgy–the very things many evangelicals seek when they turn to the east–are all found in conservative Lutheranism.
First, though, a word about the idea that in adopting the new faith, evangelicals move from an inferior entity to the real thing. Converts to Roman Catholicism frequently cite their desire to return to “original” Christianity, the “mother” church, which they equate with Catholicism. The Church of Rome asserts that if one wishes to most correctly follow Christ’s intention for the church, one joins the Roman Church–this is the form of church Jesus wanted his followers to inhabit. It is and has been the “true” church from the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15 to Vatican II, from Peter to Paul VI, and on to the current pope, Francis. Luther and the other Reformers broke away and started their own apostate institutions. That’s the view from the Vatican.
But Jesus does not lay out a proper form for his church. A true church, as limned in the New Testament, is one whose ministers teach the gospel purely and administer baptism and the Lord’s Supper rightly, according to Christ’s institution and mandate. That’s all. If your church does that–and the Missouri Synod hangs its hat on this directive–you belong to the true church.
Martin Luther, a monk in the Catholic Church of the fifteenth century and an official in what was considered the holy, apostolic church, did not break away from that church but renewed it to its previous position. He reversed the heresies of the previous couple of centuries and brought the one holy church back in line. Rome chose not to heed the rediscovery of the biblical gospel.
Also appealing to evangelicals making the move east are the ceremonies of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Lutheranism is sacramental as well; it narrowed the Catholic seven sacraments to two–the two instituted in Scripture, which are baptism and the Eucharist–but left intact their power to remove sins. Luther did not allow them to be interpreted representationally, as others in the Reform did. Thus, they are termed “means of grace”: spiritual vehicles whereby sins are forgiven. Like Catholics and Orthodox believers, we hold to the real presence in the Lord’s Supper, that Christ is physically present in the elements, and to the sacramental power of this means of grace–our sins are actually forgiven in the eating and drinking.
Other rituals were either retained or abandoned on the basis of Scripture. One such is the historic liturgy. You probably won’t find full-on smells and bells in conservative Lutheran churches, but our pastors wear robes and there’s plenty of stand-up-sit-down in our services. Luther kept the historic liturgy in his renewal of the church, both because it did not run counter to Scripture and because the people were accustomed to it, enriched by it, and comforted by it. It was their vehicle for accessing the gospel.
The hymnals used by conservative Lutheran churches feature this centuries-old historic liturgy, much of which harks back to the biblical witness. They also contain the millennia-old ecumenical creeds, one of which is confessed every Sunday, and the books are organized around the liturgical calendar–from Advent to Pentecost–which rehearses, yearly, the entire history of salvation.
Historically, Lutheranism has contributed significantly to the beautiful and meaningful music that makes up those hymnals. Luther himself wrote dozens of hymns; the most famous Lutheran hymn writer, Paul Gerhardt, is among the all-time great sacred poets. His hymns, as well as the best of Charles Wesley, Isaac Watts, Catherine Winkworth, among many others, highlight our worship. Many of the faith’s most inspirational and meaningful hymns were spawned by the Reformation, which period of church history is not exactly favored by Rome and Constantinople.
From Luther onward, Lutherans have boasted a history of congregational singing. In Roman Catholic churches, the hymnals stay in the pew racks while a cantor at a microphone dominates the sound. Orthodox parishioners chant and sing the liturgy, but don’t sing too many hymns. Congregational singing is such an uplifting part of the faith, and zesty singing by the people is an integral part of Lutheran worship.
When you swim the Tiber, you are not vacating an inadequate, imperfect form of Christianity for the true, historic version instituted by Christ himself. You are not switching teams; you are, at best, merely switching positions on the same team or, at worst, trading a biblical iteration of church for a version that lifts the opinion of human beings above the clear word of Scripture.
Conservative Lutheranism retains the Bible as the sole religious authority. Certainly, the Bible plays a role in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but it isn’t the supreme authority in doctrine and practice. When the Bible is forced off center stage, bowing to tradition or reason, the door is opened to theological error. The history of the Church of Rome is replete with examples of this.
Conservative Lutherans also believe Scripture to be sufficient for salvation. Simple, clear faith need not be augmented by rituals (fasting, or even attending church) and beliefs (intercession of saints, the immaculate conception of Mary, etc.) not required by the Bible. We also hold that Scripture is clear enough that all Christians can read it and benefit from it; we need not “ask Father” to interpret every little thing.
Before evangelicals jump into the Tiber or the Bosporus in their quest for true Christian faith, they might want to consider swimming the Mississippi. It’s muddy, true, but it’s closer to home, in more ways than one.
Kanye West is going to tap into this. Even his secular stuff incorporated ‘high church’ aesthetics.
Lutheran ping!
As I stated before I am half Baptist and half Lutheran. I believe Lutheranism gets it right on living in grace. I like that they attach some mystery to things like communion. Where I am a baptist is more in the salvation side. I believe that Lutherans have a built in flaw in their belief system and that revolves around salvation at baptism. Lutherans talk like Baptists (I was raised Lutheran and taught it and believed it but I would not say I understood the salvation at baptism concept until I came back to it later in life after a 25 year journey in the Baptist church). I attend a bible based Sunday school class at my Lutheran church and people from many backgrounds attend it. Anyway, the flaw is that many people will talk about their conversion to Christ and the Lutheran talks about their baptism. There is no conversion moment for a Lutheran (confirmation really does not do it). So I believe the flaw is that it works well for people who are raised in the system but it is a conflicted theology where saving the lost is concerned. A new convert describes his salvation whereas the Lutheran points to his baptism. The Lutheran is happy and embraces salvation in others but I think that in the Baptist religion there is only one type of Christian and in Lutheranism there are two type - those Baptized and those who have a later salvation experience. I think this is their fatal flaw. I go to a Lutheran church now and like living in grace and enjoy the mysterious side of Christianity better ...but I embrace the Baptist approach that every person needs a personal saving repentance.
Contuinuing on.... Because one is saved at Baptism, the Lutherans believe that you can lose your salvation....it is very hard to lose but it can be lost. The baptist does not believe you can lose your salvation because the salvation/repentance moment is a sealed contract (covenant?). Losing ones salvation is a bad thing - but the Lutherans must have it in their doctrine because of the infant baptism thing.
You asked about Lutheran ping
WOW! I had not heard that stat. If true, there are opportunities to change minds. Evidently people are not making the connection. Our church prays regularly for the unborn. That should tell them something. I do not know of any Ds in our church.
This is what makes sense to me:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-14-27.html
What do you do with the words, “This is my body; this is my blood.”.?
Rather, any church that claims that it particularly is the "true church" is cultic, and one that believes regeneration occurs thru a ritual even for souls who cannot fulfill the stated requirement for that (infants), which is wholehearted penitent heart-purifying faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37; 10:43; 15:7-9) is an seriously aberrant church.
And as for "historic liturgy," you mean,
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. (1 Corinthians 14:26-31)
And do you think "not discerning the body" in 1 Cor. 11 refers to what is being consumed, vs. the body of Christ? See here
What the NT church did, which was not making it into a sacrifice for sins by the words of a Catholic priest and fed to be flock as spiritual food.
Rather than dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, offering the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin which NT pastors are never described as doing in the life of the church, instead the primary active function of pastors is preaching, (1 Timothy 4:2) by which they “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) for the word is called spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 15:7-9; cf. Psalms 19:7) In contrast, nowhere in the record of the NT church is the Lord's supper described as spiritual food, and the means of obtaining spiritual life in oneself.
Rather than being manifest as the paramount life-giving priestly practice of the NT church, apart from reference to the "feast of charity," (Jude 1:12) the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one letter to the churches (statements such as "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart" (Acts 2:46; cf. Acts 2:42; 20:7,11 are not clearly referring to the Lord's supper), and in which communion of the body and blood of Christ refers to the church as "one bread" having fellowship with Christ, whose sacrificially death they are remembering and showing, like as pagans have fellowship with the object of their dedicatory feasts. Which believers are thus warned against, but in both cases this fellowship was not by actually consuming the physical body and blood of their respective objects of worship.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. (1 Corinthians 10:16-20)
And in the next chapter the church is the body of Christ which is not being recognized as such due to Corinthians selfishly eating separately and to the full, while ignoring others, and thus "shame them which have not," completely contrary to the sacrificial love of Christ shown by His death by which He purchased the, and which is what they were supposed to be remembering and thus showing.
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not...For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come...he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22,26,29)
This hypocritical treatment of believers for whom Christ died being the problem, the solution was,
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
More here , by the grace of God.
Thus few have been born again and thus they tend to vote more like Catholics.
Lutherans are members of the True Church the same as any Christian who is washed in the Blood of Jesus Christ. The True Church is not an earthly denomination. As for our beliefs about. communion they differ greatly from Rome. While we believe what Christ says about His Supper we do not worship the elements. We do not think the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine and are magically transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ rather we receive His Body and Blood in with and under the physical elements. There is no soul and divinity of Christ in the supper. It is not a re sacrifice of Christ and the pastor does not reach into heaven and pull Christ down to the altar. Well i don’t know who wrote this article - but some of it is misleading. I am a life long member of the LCMS with a grandfather and a son that are LCMS pastors so while far from an authoritative source I can speak to what we are taught and believe
All fte LCMS members I know have been born again and the LCMS is one of the more conservative voting blocks - more conservative in the pollsI have seen than just about any other denomination. Our synod president has recently written strong publications against abortion and gay marriage. You will not find gay clergy in the LCMS. I consider you a brother but you may wish to do some fact checking before you paint us with the catholic brush.
i don’t think there is any Lutheran who does not agree every person needs a personal saving repentance. If I were not Lutheran probably be baptist but most of all I am Christian. As Paul says i follow Christ
The reality is that the closer a Prot church is to Rome (which Mainline Prots usually are) then the more liberal they usually tend to be, as those who I.D. as Catholics overall testify to being:
73% (highest) of Pentecostal/Foursquare believers strongly affirm that Christ was sinless on earth, with Catholics, Lutherans and Methodists being tied at 33%, and the lowest being among Episcopalians with just 28% http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/53[Note: Barna changed its site some time after this compilation, so most of the links no longer get to the work cited.]
81% of Pentecostal/Foursquare believers strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches , followed by 77% of Assemblies of God believers, and ending with 26% of Catholics and 22% of Episcopalians. ^
Orthodox (29%), Mainline Churches (28%), and Catholics (27%) led Christian Churches in affirming that the Scriptures were written by men and were not the word of God, versus just and 7% of Evangelical Churches, who instead rightly affirm its full inspiration of God. - U.S. Religious landscape survey; Copyright © 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#
50% of white Catholics support the requirement that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception, versus 47% who oppose it, along with 38% of white evangelical Protestants an 50% of white mainline Protestants. Public Religion Research Institute, February 2012 http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/
75% of white evangelical Protestants consider having an abortion morally wrong, as do 64% of Hispanic Catholics, 58% of black Protestants, 53% of white Catholics, 38% of white mainline Protestants and 25% of religiously unaffiliated adults. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/15/abortion-viewed-in-moral-terms/
64% of white evangelical Protestants [blacks make up 6% of all evangelicals] believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, as do 52% of Hispanic Catholics, and 41% of white Catholics, and 39% of black Protestants, and 31% of white mainline Protestants. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/01/16/public-opinion-on-abortion-slideshow/
79 percent of American Jews, 58 percent of Catholics and 56 percent of mainline Protestants favor acceptance of homosexuality, versus 39 percent of members of historically black churches, 27 percent of Muslims and 26 percent of the evangelical Protestants. U.S. U.S. Religious landscape survey; Copyright © 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#
Evangelical Protestants are the most politically conservative Christian tradition. Within each tradition, those with literal views of the Bible are more politically conservative than is their tradition overall. Catholics that are Biblical literalists (11.8%) hold more conservative political views than the Catholic population in general does. The Biblical literalist Catholic is as politically conservative as the Biblical literalist who is Evangelical (47.8%) or Mainline Protestant. (11.2%) American Piety in the 21st Century, Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf
A study which broke down Mainline Protestants, Evangelical Protestants, and non-Hispanic Catholics into the three subgroups of traditionalists, centrists, and modernists, found that 5.3 percent of the population qualified as traditionalist Catholic, 5.4 percent as centrist Catholics, and 4.9 percent of were modernist Catholics. The Henry Institute, A Pre-Election Analysis http://www.calvin.edu/henry/civic/CivicRespGrant/rel&08election.doc
Catholics and Mainline Protestants tend more towards belief in a more Distant God. Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion - American Piety in the 21 Century – September 2006 . http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf
About 56 percent of Evangelicals currently say they're strongly affiliated with their religion, while only 35 percent of Catholics say the same, and 4% lower than mainline Protestants (devoutness of Mainline Protestants [distinct from evangelicals] fell to roughly 30 percent in the late 1970s to late 1980s before gradually climbing to 39 percent in 2010) https://www.barna.com/research/protestants-catholics-and-mormons-reflect-diverse-levels-of-religious-activity
By denomination, 61% of the those associated with an Assemblies of God church said they had shared their faith at least once during the past year, as did 61% of those who attend a Pentecostal/Foursquare church, and ending 14% among Episcopalians and just 10% among Roman Catholics. http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/54
More .
We do not believe communion is a sacrifice for sin, that was done once for all. What we believe is that in communion Christ comes to us in a physical way. He created the physical world and understands we are physical beings. Communion is grace — grace we can see, feel taste and smell. It is a beautiful gift from the Lord who gave all for us.
Again do not paint us with the Roman brush. There are huge differences that if you really wish to debate we can, but please dont ascribe Roman teaching to us
God forbid, for as said before and showed to you, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. and which best shows how the NT church understood the OT and gospels).
But Lutherism is a case of arrested Reformation, which is not the work of one day or two.
That's a bizarre statement. The bible clearly lays out the form in Ephesians 4:11-12. The bible lays out the qualifications for elders and deacons in 1 Tim 3 and in Titus.
And in which Bishops and elders refer to those in one office: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1.
And in referring to which the Spirit of Christ never uses the distinctive words for a separate sacerdotal class of clergy (“hiereus” and “archiereus", over 280 times in the NT, denoting for Old Testament kohen or their pagan equivlents) known in English as "priests."
While the English word "priest" is a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros, being referred to in Old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," the problem is that Catholicism translates both hiereus and presbuteros as "priest." thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.
All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere are NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distinctive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, and Catholicism attempts to justify using the same distinctive word for both OT "ko^he^n" and NT presbuteros via an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbuteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.
The bible lays out a church service in 1 Cor 14:27 to 37.
And 1 Cor 11, in which, besides "not discerning the body" contextually referring to the nature of the church in its unity with Christ who bought it, the Lord's supper is shown to be part of a meal, as it was in the Lord's institution of it, not a solitary bit of bread and wine, though the giving of that representative bread and the cup took place within it.
That is one in your favor, but is a ordained priest required for the conducting of it?
What we believe is that in communion Christ comes to us in a physical way. He created the physical world and understands we are physical beings.
The way the Christ of Scripture comes to us in a physical way is in the incarnation, with His manifestly physical body. Which Scripture empathizes in contrast to a body whose appearance does not correspond to what he materially is, akin to an old heresy, which John combats by invoking the manifest physicality of the true Christ, which by all tests of physicality would be just that.
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life," (1 John 1:1) "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." (1 John 5:6) "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (1 John 4:2-3)
Thus to take the words "take, eat, this is My body which is broken for you" literally would mean consuming the same literal bloody body that was (metaphorically) broken/ literally crucified for us.
Since Catholic priests cannot effect this (apart from claimed Eucharistic miracles) then she had to come up with her metaphysical contrivances . Now i understand that you d
o not subscribe to Catholic transubstantiation, yet the only physical way the body of the Lord is present with us after His ascension is that of His church, we being "one bread,"
"For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." (Ephesians 5:30)
Which body of Christ contextually was what certain Corinthians believers were effectually not recognizing in eating independently and ignoring others in need, shaming them that have not. Thus the hammer of judgment fell on them.
And "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:20)
Again do not paint us with the Roman brush. There are huge differences that if you really wish to debate we can, but please dont ascribe Roman teaching to us
No, but again such is a case of arrested Reformation which must continue.
I was quoting stats that do not make the distinction you do based upon your personal acquaintances, but if "48% of MO synod lay people vote Democrat is true then that only further supportsd my statement "that the closer a Prot church is to Rome (which Mainline Prots usually are) then the more liberal they usually tend to be.
And note that I said "usually," and thus I am not necessarily painting you with the catholic brush, but which would require specific fact checking on your part as well to deny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.