Lcms

[rlhuckle]

Wildboar claimed:

"As for the, "Is there a church which is faithful enough for me to attend?" question, I believe that for most the answer is yes. Although I am not a member, I believe that the LCMS for instance would be faithful enough for me to attend if other options were not available and you can find an LCMS church in most places in the country."

I found the following on the LCMS website as part of a pamphlet that describes their beliefs regarding the Gospel.


"How do we receive this great salvation in our lives today? How do we personally receive the forgiveness Christ won for the entire world? How does what happened on the cross nearly 2,000 years ago flow into our lives today? Here too there is very good news.God,through His Gospel, offers us forgiveness and help against sin in more than one way. God is surpassingly rich in His grace.He gives His Gospel to us through His Word,through Baptism,through the Sacrament of the Altar,and through confession and absolution."

Isn't this Sacramentalism (with an allusion to universal atonement thrown in)?

"The Sacrament of Holy Baptism is water included in God’s command and combined with God’s Word; or as St.Paul says in Holy Scripture, “The washing of water with the word.” Through Baptism,we are made partakers of Christ’s death and resurrection. Therefore,we know that Baptism works forgiveness of sins,rescues from death and the devil,and gives eternal life to all who believe.Since Baptism is connected to the Word and promise of God, it is truly a life-giving water, rich in grace—a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit."

Isn't this baptismal regeneration?


"Christ has provided a special application of the Gospel through confession and absolution.Confession is admitting our sins to God and receiving His forgiveness from our pastor, as from God Himself,not doubting,but firmly believing that by it our sins are forgiven before God in heaven.Thus,by divine
ordinance, Christ Himself has entrusted absolution to his Christian church and commanded us to absolve one another from sins."

Isn't this the same as Romanism?

"The Lord’s Supper is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself, for us Christians to eat and to drink. In the Lord’s Supper,Christ’s body and blood are given to us as our treasure and gift which sustains our faith and life in Him. If you are heavy-laden and feel your weakness, go joyfully to the Sacrament and receive refreshment,comfort and strength."

Isn't this transubstantiation, albeit somewhat veiled?

"The forgiveness Christ won for the world on the cross is applied to us personally by God through His Word and Sacraments."

Again, isn't this universal atonement and Sacramentalism?

Is the LCMS "faithful enough" (undefined by Wildboar in regards to any biblical standard) and should it be considered doctrinally correct or have I totally misunderstood their pamphlet, which is intended for those who are interested in understanding their doctrinal positions?

[wildboar]

I by no means view the LCMS as perfect and neither do I agree with all of their doctrinal statements. However I do believe the Gospel is there--at least as we find it laid out in Scriptures, perhaps not as we find it on this forum. I would encourage you to attend such a church before passing judgment. I would also encourage you to look at what seems to be the underlying motivation behind it all. Lutheranism is decidedly anti-rationalistic. They seek to take the Bible for what it says and when there is mystery to leave it that way. In that sense we should all have the same trusting child-like faith--something that I see as lacking in this very post. I'll try to answer your specific objections.

"How do we receive this great salvation in our lives today? How do we personally receive the forgiveness Christ won for the entire world? How does what happened on the cross nearly 2,000 years ago flow into our lives today? Here too there is very good news.God,through His Gospel, offers us forgiveness and help against sin in more than one way. God is surpassingly rich in His grace.He gives His Gospel to us through His Word,through Baptism,through the Sacrament of the Altar,and through confession and absolution."

Isn't this Sacramentalism (with an allusion to universal atonement thrown in)?

You say sacramentalism as if its a four-letter word. In the great commission Jesus said that disciples are made through baptism. It is not through baptism without the word or baptism without the Spirit but it is through baptism. Historically the church has always taught some type of sacramentalism--not sacerdotalism as the papists teach and not sacramentarianism as the anabaptists teach.

You are correct in saying that the Lutherans do not teach a limited atonement as the Canons of Dort do. This is something I disagree with them on. However, a universal atonement is another matter and must be defined. I think it is telling that in this pamphlet in regards to the atonement they have not really said anything more than what Scripture has already said and you are already accusing them of false teaching.

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

"The Sacrament of Holy Baptism is water included in God’s command and combined with God’s Word; or as St.Paul says in Holy Scripture, “The washing of water with the word.” Through Baptism,we are made partakers of Christ’s death and resurrection. Therefore,we know that Baptism works forgiveness of sins,rescues from death and the devil,and gives eternal life to all who believe.Since Baptism is connected to the Word and promise of God, it is truly a life-giving water, rich in grace—a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit."

Isn't this baptismal regeneration?

Historically the church has always taught some form of baptismal regeneration. Our rationalism keeps us from believing. We stand with Naaman and refuse to engage in such a lowly thing like baptism. We're too good for it. 1 Peter 3:21 teaches differently.

"Christ has provided a special application of the Gospel through confession and absolution.Confession is admitting our sins to God and receiving His forgiveness from our pastor, as from God Himself,not doubting,but firmly believing that by it our sins are forgiven before God in heaven.Thus,by divine
ordinance, Christ Himself has entrusted absolution to his Christian church and commanded us to absolve one another from sins."

Isn't this the same as Romanism?

Nope, not really. Roman Catholic confession requires the person to try to name every sin that the person has committed and often perscribes different ways of doing penance. In private Lutheran confession, the person tells the pastor the sins that are really troubling him/her and the minister then pronounces forgiveness based upon the work of Christ. In public confession the minister pronounces those who are repentant and have faith as being forgiven by God based upon God's Word.

"The Lord’s Supper is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself, for us Christians to eat and to drink. In the Lord’s Supper,Christ’s body and blood are given to us as our treasure and gift which sustains our faith and life in Him. If you are heavy-laden and feel your weakness, go joyfully to the Sacrament and receive refreshment,comfort and strength."

Isn't this transubstantiation, albeit somewhat veiled?

Nope. Lutherans do not teach that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine. They do not teach that the bread and wine transform into something else. They teach that the body and blood of Christ are consumed with the bread and wine. They take Jesus' words at face value. The basic argument that Luther uses is that if you hand someone a purse with a 100 dollars in it, you could very likely say "Here is a 100 dollars" without mentioned the purse. Nobody would say "No, that's a purse." They have decided to take what Jesus says for what it says rather than trying to rationalize it. The Reformed objection and my own problem with this is that it seems to present a Christological error in which Christ's body ceases to be truly human since it occupies many places at one time. But they choose to leave the issue a mystery.

"The forgiveness Christ won for the world on the cross is applied to us personally by God through His Word and Sacraments."

Again, isn't this universal atonement and Sacramentalism?

Not as far as this statement goes, this statement repeats what Scripture says.

[Whammer]

Roger........I for one think your conclusions are right.
The universal atonement is a doctrine I hate......it is such a devilish shot at Jesus as THE faithful high priest. It seeks to tarnish the beauty of Jesus in many many ways.........the words in scripture like "reconcile", "redeemed", "propitiated", etc, in their contexts all get changed and credit starts going to man for salvation.
Baptismal regeneration is another doctrine I hate........another "glory stealing" doctrine of men that gives man another thing to do to add to the work of Christ.
I think these doctrines fit in to Gal. 1:1-9, that kind of false gospel which is really not the gospel of scripture.
I know these things have been discussed on the forum many times......and Chuck, I realise there is nothing I could say that would persuade you differently.......so I will say no more here.

[rlhuckle]

I by no means view the LCMS as perfect and neither do I agree with all of their doctrinal statements. However I do believe the Gospel is there--at least as we find it laid out in Scriptures, perhaps not as we find it on this forum. I would encourage you to attend such a church before passing judgment. I would also encourage you to look at what seems to be the underlying motivation behind it all. Lutheranism is decidedly anti-rationalistic. They seek to take the Bible for what it says and when there is mystery to leave it that way. In that sense we should all have the same trusting child-like faith--something that I see as lacking in this very post. I'll try to answer your specific objections.



You say sacramentalism as if its a four-letter word. In the great commission Jesus said that disciples are made through baptism. It is not through baptism without the word or baptism without the Spirit but it is through baptism. Historically the church has always taught some type of sacramentalism--not sacerdotalism as the papists teach and not sacramentarianism as the anabaptists teach.

You are correct in saying that the Lutherans do not teach a limited atonement as the Canons of Dort do. This is something I disagree with them on. However, a universal atonement is another matter and must be defined. I think it is telling that in this pamphlet in regards to the atonement they have not really said anything more than what Scripture has already said and you are already accusing them of false teaching.

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!




Historically the church has always taught some form of baptismal regeneration. Our rationalism keeps us from believing. We stand with Naaman and refuse to engage in such a lowly thing like baptism. We're too good for it. 1 Peter 3:21 teaches differently.



Nope, not really. Roman Catholic confession requires the person to try to name every sin that the person has committed and often perscribes different ways of doing penance. In private Lutheran confession, the person tells the pastor the sins that are really troubling him/her and the minister then pronounces forgiveness based upon the work of Christ. In public confession the minister pronounces those who are repentant and have faith as being forgiven by God based upon God's Word.



Nope. Lutherans do not teach that the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine. They do not teach that the bread and wine transform into something else. They teach that the body and blood of Christ are consumed with the bread and wine. They take Jesus' words at face value. The basic argument that Luther uses is that if you hand someone a purse with a 100 dollars in it, you could very likely say "Here is a 100 dollars" without mentioned the purse. Nobody would say "No, that's a purse." They have decided to take what Jesus says for what it says rather than trying to rationalize it. The Reformed objection and my own problem with this is that it seems to present a Christological error in which Christ's body ceases to be truly human since it occupies many places at one time. But they choose to leave the issue a mystery.



Not as far as this statement goes, this statement repeats what Scripture says.

Thank you for your explanations to my questions. I now better understand your position--and the position of the LCMS. Forgive me if I put my child-like faith in Christ and not in men and their mysteries.

[Dorcas]

You say sacramentalism as if its a four-letter word. In the great commission Jesus said that disciples are made through baptism. It is not through baptism without the word or baptism without the Spirit but it is through baptism. Historically the church has always taught some type of sacramentalism--not sacerdotalism as the papists teach and not sacramentarianism as the anabaptists teach.

Icky, icky! *shudders*
Don't we love a good verse out of context. There is no way you can seriously assert that Christ teaches that His disciples are made through baptism!?! My bible (all 27 of them) has the word THEREFORE -- clearly teaching that they are made because of the authority of Christ. Baptizing is a subordinate clause, telling them what to do, not the how or why of what they are doing.

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

People can argue all day long about what exactly this verse means, whether it applies to us today, and whether baptism is something we ought to do, but your interpretation is unacceptable. You are probably right that historically someone calling themselves "the church" has always taught this gross error, because people have always tried to add to the pure Gospel.

Acts 6:7 "The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith."

Acts 14:21-22 "After they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God."

Even in the few other places that speak of "making disciples", it directly connected to the Word of God / Gospel. (and not even another mention of baptism) And its interesting that the Bible doesn't speak of people this way after the book of Acts. More often they are defined by their faith ("believers" or "faithful"), their status before God ("saints" / set-apart) or by their fellowship (the "assembly" or "brothers"). If your interpretation were true, instead of calling them the Faithful, why not just call them The Baptized?

[wildboar]

Icky, icky! *shudders*
Don't we love a good verse out of context. There is no way you can seriously assert that Christ teaches that His disciples are made through baptism!?! My bible (all 27 of them) has the word THEREFORE -- clearly teaching that they are made because of the authority of Christ. Baptizing is a subordinate clause, telling them what to do, not the how or why of what they are doing.

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

The participles are grammatically connected to the main verb in the sentence. They are a further explanation of "make disciples." It is through baptism and teaching that disciples are made according to this verse.

[Kentucky Kid]

Could someone tell me if I am correct in that the LCMS: #1: does not believe in double predestination...............#2: believes in a universal atonement; that Christ's atonement IS SUFFICIENT for all if they only believe..................#3: are Amyrauldins......................#4:believe in sub-substantiation..........................#5: make their members sign a statement before they partake of the "sacrament" (their wording)- that they are not "living" (remaining) in any known sin. Thanks..............................KK

[Whammer]

Could someone tell me if I am correct in that the LCMS: #1: does not believe in double predestination...............#2: believes in a universal atonement; that Christ's atonement IS SUFFICIENT for all if they only believe..................#3: are Amyrauldins......................#4:believe in sub-substantiation..........................#5: make their members sign a statement before they partake of the "sacrament" (their wording)- that they are not "living" (remaining) in any known sin. Thanks..............................KK

Hey Craig, I think this link was given in another thread, I just couldnt find that thread, but the link http://www.lcms.org/ is the official website for them. I dont know any lutheran synod/church that does not deny double predestiantion.....that doesnt mean the beast doesnt exist, I have never heard or seen it myself. I also would not even call most them amyrauldians, most dont even hold the "4 point stance", it is maybe "1 point" at most. Their views on the atonement stand in contrast to the truth of particular redemption, I guess it would be easier for you to read what they say rather than me disagreeing with them again
But as I made my mind clear on the "poll" about the whore.......you know that I consider the lcms just another part of that........
Anyway.......(I know I'm being repetitive) its so good to have you interacting with all of us again!

[gerhard]

Could someone tell me if I am correct in that the LCMS: #1: does not believe in double predestination...............

The LCMS's only confessional standard is the Book of Concord (BOC) which includes the Augsburg Confession, Smalcald Articles, Luther's Catechisms, and the Formula of Concord (FOC). The FOC, SD, Election, para. 81, teaches that God does not prepare any man for condemnation.

#2: believes in a universal atonement; that Christ's atonement IS SUFFICIENT for all if they only believe..................

The FOC, SD, Election, para. 28, teaches that Christ's blood atones for the whole world's sins whether men believe it or not.

#3: are Amyrauldins......................

I think there are similarities (e.g., total depravity, unconditional election, universal atonement). I have heard that Amyrauldins believe that God passes by some men. The Book of Concord standard would not accept that teaching. Regarding irresistible grace and infallible preservation, there may also be differences.

#4:believe in sub-substantiation..........................

I'm not sure what is meant by sub-substantiation. The FOC, SD, Holy Supper, para. 14, teaches that Christ's body and blood are substantially present, offered, and received with the bread and wine. Con and trans substantiation are rejected.

#5: make their members sign a statement before they partake of the "sacrament" (their wording)- that they are not "living" (remaining) in any known sin.

The only requirement of the BOC standard is that communicants be first "instructed, examined, and absolved" (Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Of Human Traditions, para. 40). Note: Baptism would normally precede Absolution (Augsburg Confession, XII).

[Kentucky Kid]

Thank you Bryan and Dan- my questions have been answered! I used to live in Oregon, and I had very close friends who confessed to believe the gospel end up at a LCMS congregation. They could not answer my questions. My judgment ("he that is spiritual judgeth all things" I Cor 2:15) is that their confession denies the gospel; therefore they are part of the whore. But one must realize that as a radical non-compromiser of the gospel, I believe 99.9% of congregations are part of the whole; for a congregation which does not preach the gospel is part of the whore.......................................KK

[Saint Nicholas]

Thank you Bryan and Dan- my questions have been answered! I used to live in Oregon, and I had very close friends who confessed to believe the gospel end up at a LCMS congregation. They could not answer my questions. My judgment ("he that is spiritual judgeth all things" I Cor 2:15) is that their confession denies the gospel; therefore they are part of the whore. But one must realize that as a radical non-compromiser of the gospel, I believe 99.9% of congregations are part of the whole; for a congregation which does not preach the gospel is part of the whore.......................................KK

Yes my brother. The Gospel and nothing but the Gospel is the only basis and validity for the Ekklesia. Without the Gospel, nothing else matters. People everyday join fellowships and churches. But for what? If there is no Gospel, than Jesus is no more than a pop-icon and teacher of moral living to them. And I agree, they are part of the whore who preach a false Gospel.

Your brother,
Nicholas

[gerhard]

I used to live in Oregon, and I had very close friends who confessed to believe the gospel end up at a LCMS congregation. They could not answer my questions.

In general, laymen may join LCMS congregations by confessing Luther's Small Catechism only. Luther's Small Catechism does not directly and specifically address your questions. However, all LCMS congregations and ministers must confess, without exception, the entire Book of Concord which does directly and specifically answer all your questions.

My judgment ("he that is spiritual judgeth all things" I Cor 2:15) is that their confession denies the gospel; therefore they are part of the whore. But one must realize that as a radical non-compromiser of the gospel, I believe 99.9% of congregations are part of the whole; for a congregation which does not preach the gospel is part of the whore.......................................KK

What are the essentials that must be taught and what must not be taught?

[Whammer]

What are the essentials that must be taught and what must not be taught?

I guess to start simply, it is essential to understand that there is only one Creator. Everything that exists outside Himself is His creation. He did not duplicate Himself, so there is nothing like Him in creation. All things are expressions of His wisdom and power, and the things He makes are not Him. Everything that has an existence in creation, is defined By Him. We know this Creator to be Jesus.......John 1:1-3, Col. 1:15-20, Heb. 1:1-3, John 14:9.
Most people I know deny this doctrine,and, off the top of my head, I cant think of any popular confession drawn up by men, that does not deny it.
There is much in the mind of God that we at this time dont know much about, we may speculate from such words as those of Jesus in Matt. 11:21-24, but I myself dont think I have words enough to do God the justice He deserves, be that as it is, God is the only One I know who can simply "speak" His mind, and it is......it is what He says it is, nothing more and nothing less.

[Kentucky Kid]

Hi Dan! You asked: what should and what not should be taught? Dan, I judge everything according to the gospel. The gospel I believe in is salvation conditioned on Christ's righteousness imputed plus nothing. ANY teaching of a universal notion becomes another gospel. Example: if, as the LCMS states that Christ's blood was shed for all who ever lived, then if a sinner is saved, what saved that person? Certainly, it COULD NOT be Christ's righteousness imputed plus nothing. If a person is not saved, why was that person not saved? If, as the LCMS states, that Christ's blood was shed for all, then it must be blood shed PLUS SOMETHING else for the sinner to be saved. If it is Christ's blood PLUS SOMETHING then THAT SOMETHING must become a work; and then is therefore no more grace but works. It therefore is another gospel. If another gospel, it should only be taught to be abhorred. To put it into perspective: in your profile you say that God wants all people to be saved. If God wants all to be saved; but they all do not become saved: there is a power above God becasue God didn't get what he wanted; namely that He cannot save all although He wants to. The God of the Bible is sovereign; and He has already saved His people from their sins. ANY universalistic notions of Christ's atonement perverts the gospel, and should only be taught to be abhorred. I hope I answered your question Dan. If not: continue........................KK

[Saint Nicholas]

Very well put my brother. I totaly agree! The very foundation and essence of the ekklesia is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is Jesus Christ whom the Father has sent to save His people from their sins. Not with a potential atonement as the heretics preach, but with a real and effectual atonement of sin................Nicholas

[Whammer]

Yes, to go along with Craig and Nick's accurate/correct thoughts is 2 Tim. 1:8-10, Eph. 7-10, Rom. 9:11. The gospel, wrapped up and summed up in Jesus, comes from the eternal nature of God. We also touch on the eternal nature of justification.......EJ here.
I think in this thread and the thread this one came out of, it is clear that the lmcs jesus/gospel is a different thing than the Jesus/gospel presented here on this forum. May those who have ears to hear what the Spirit says........HEAR!

[gerhard]

I hope I answered your question Dan.

Yes, but I have some followup questions. Is your teaching a doctrine of scripture alone or is man's reason necessary for its development? If man's reason is necessary, how can there be any confidence that correct conclusions have been reached? Was not man's reason corrupted in the fall?

[Whammer]

Yes, but I have some followup questions. Is your teaching a doctrine of scripture alone or is man's reason necessary for its development? If man's reason is necessary, how can there be any confidence that correct conclusions have been reached? Was not man's reason corrupted in the fall?

1 Cor 2:14-16, 1 Cor 3:20 in the context of the 1st 4 chapters, Rom. 12:1-2. If we here just had "naked reason" to go on and were un-enlightened, then your statement above would have some merit. As it is, 2 Cor. 4:7-13..........since we have The Spirit and believe........we speak!

[Robert R. Higby]

Gerhard: Is your teaching a doctrine of scripture alone or is man's reason necessary for its development? If man's reason is necessary, how can there be any confidence that correct conclusions have been reached? Was not man's reason corrupted in the fall?

EVERYONE defending ANY position of churchian dogma has asked the same question on this forum. The assumption is that anyone questioning the confessions of a certain denominational tradition is depending on reason, whereas those who FOLLOW such denominational tradition in its entirety are depending on faith.

Faith in what? That a certain person or group of men in the past were led innerrantly by God in the notions that they framed!!

Luther was the champion of liberty of conscience and the priesthood of every believer. To this day, no denomination has yet come into line with HIS conclusions in a way that truly honors the enlightenment he received from the Holy Spirit. YES, the truth is logical and has to be reasoned out in harmony with the WHOLE of God's revelation in scripture! I have yet to see where the Lord asks us to assassinate our brains and simply submit to a past council of men without evaluating their doctrine in light of the gospel.

Man's reason is restored in regeneration, along with all other faculties. We don't depend on it in isolation, however, it functions in harmony with Holy Spirit enlightenment annexed to the truth of the gospel revealed in scripture!

[Kentucky Kid]

Hi Dan: you asked me to answer your question that you quote in post #17 & where Bob answered in #19: Man's reason was corrupted in the fall, resulting in what is called "TOTAL DEPRAVITY"; which I believe is the sinners inability to know Christ by himself. Since the fall, the totally depraved man has invented all types of religions to try and restore oneself to God. This is described in Rom 10:3 " FOR THEY BEING IGNORANT OF GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND GOING ABOUT TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, HAVE NOT SUBMITTED THEMSELVES UNTO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD". But, as Bob said man's reasoning is restored in regeneration. God takes the depraved mind and converts it ( Ezekiel 36:25 -27 ) and gives that mind the mind of Christ ( I Corinthians 2:16 ). Dan if we can prove ourselves to amongst God's elect ( II Peter 1:10 ), we can have total confidence that even though it is our mind that is reasoning, that it is God who is teaching our mind ( John 6:45 ). And He teaches us what the total depraved mind cannot; that Christ is the only righteousness that God accepts, and that righteousness is revealed in the TRUE GOSPEL ( Rom 1:16,17 ) whereby the elect sinner trusts in Christ's rightousness ALONE for their salvation ( Gal 6:14 ). A person who believes that Christ's blood was shed for all cannot believe this; for if Christ shed His blood for all, then who or what makes the difference between saved and lost; between heaven and hell? Certainly not Christ's righteousness alone, but it must be something the sinner does ( then you are stuck back @ Rom 10:3 ). But Christ shed His blood for the ELECT ONLY purchasing their salvation ( Acts 20:28 ). Hope this answered your question for me; if not continue...................KK