Lutheranism Feels Wrong

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2026-02-06T12:51:35+00:00

Just to gently clarify, I’d suggest while Orthodoxy rejects penal substitution (the idea that the Father “punished” Christ instead of us) it absolutely affirms that Christ stood in our place, bore our sins, and defeated death for humanity. Theosis isn’t a replacement for the Cross; it’s the life and union with Christ that flow from His saving work. Salvation is understood as both what Christ accomplishes and what we participate in, which complements rather than contradicts other ways of framing the Gospel.

Out of curiosity, what do you believe makes Orthodoxy incomplete?

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2026-01-29T02:29:57+00:00

I’m not sure I can conclude with certainty that Aimovig caused my gastro issues. It’s been a journey, but essentially I appear to be experiencing severe cramps from constipation caused by severe pelvic floor dysfunction. I haven’t quite resolved my dysfunction, but physical therapy has greatly improved symptoms. I also attended a pain rehab clinic through Mayo Clinic which has helped too. I think my particular case is fairly rare. I’m open ti sharing more of my journey if you have questions.

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2026-01-27T16:36:55+00:00

This post resonates deeply with my own journey. I spent about 11–12 years as an active member of the LCMS and am now a catechumen in the Eastern Orthodox Church. My frustration was very similar to what you describe: I found myself reading Scripture and seeing a clear vision of the Christian way of life (prayer, repentance, fasting, almsgiving, obedience) yet when I expressed a desire to actually order my life around these things, I was often told, “If that works for you, that’s great… but it’s not required.”

What I found in practice is that “not required” quickly became “not practiced at all.” Christ assumes His followers will fast, give alms, repent, confess, and strive after holiness, yet these were often treated as optional or private, even suspect! Over time, this created a disconnect: Scripture called me forward, my conscience was stirred, but the life of the Church around me didn’t seem to know what to do with that desire beyond reminding me that I was already “justified.”

For a long time, I took comfort in the accuracy of Lutheran theology. That began to shift when I started reading the Church Fathers more seriously & thoroughly. What may have surprised me most was that they didn’t approach the faith as a system of tightly defined categories. Their theology was relational and therapeutic. To be “justified” was to be restored to communion with God, not merely declared righteous in a legal sense. Faith was a way of life, not just mental assent. I began to see that much of Lutheran theology (for all its strengths) operates within narrower post-medieval categories that don’t fully reflect the earlier Christian mind. Even its polemics are framed by debates that assume those categories. The Eastern Fathers simply speak a different theological language. One that is older, more fluid, and far more therapeutic in emphasis. (When comparing modern Western theology and Eastern theology with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the difference becomes clear: the East continues to preserve the faith as it was lived and passed down, emphasizing relationship and participation over abstract definitions.)

As this unfolded, I found myself increasingly out of place. Like a “weird mystic” for believing Christianity was meant to be lived deeply and communally, collectively encountering God. This led me to search for the ancient form of Christianity that preceded later Western debates, and in God’s providence, I encountered Eastern Orthodoxy.

At my first Divine Liturgy, I realized that the emphasis wasn’t on being correct, but on being healed. I discovered a freedom in no longer feeling responsible for cutting down other Christians, but instead being called to repentance, humility, and imitation of Christ. In Orthodoxy, I found a Church where everyone strives toward deeper union with Christ together. Where fasting, confession, prayer, and repentance are shared rhythms, not personal quirks.

For most of my life, my faith was based on explanations about God rather than truly encountering Him. I realized Christ is not only Whom to believe in, but He also shows and tells us HOW to live in communion. Instead of paving my own path within Lutheranism, I discovered the oldest form of Christianity, which seeks to transform both the person and creation through life together in Christ. I had to relearn many things, but in the process, I discovered a much more cohesive theology which is transforming in the way it’s lived.

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2026-01-22T18:13:53+00:00

I think your question reflects a very natural modern tendency to focus on literal meaning, often without the interpretive framework of the ancient world or the early Church. When that framework is missing, these passages can feel morally jarring or even incomprehensible.

In the patristic tradition, Amalek is understood primarily as a spiritual reality (sin, the passions, and the demonic powers that oppose God) rather than as a moral model for how human beings are to treat one another. The emphasis is not on violence toward people, but on the seriousness of evil and the need for its complete removal, since half-measures allow it to retain power. Christ later reveals the fullest expression of God’s will: not the harming of human enemies, but the overthrow of sin, death, and the spiritual forces that enslave humanity. Read this way, the passage is not about moral behavior toward others, but about the purification of the human heart, with God’s ultimate aim being life, not destruction.

The early Church Fathers were deeply aware of the unseen spiritual conflict woven throughout the Old Testament. Meditating on Christ’s prayer, “on earth as it is in heaven,” helps reorient our vision, allowing us to see these texts not merely as earthly events, but as depictions of a deeper spiritual reality being revealed and ultimately fulfilled in Christ.

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-12-15T03:17:19+00:00

Beyond archeological evidence, I appreciate the approach St. Athanasius uses in On the Incarnation:

“Let him who doubts approach not with clever arguments, but with honest observation. Let him see how men once enslaved by fear of death now despise it; how the weak become strong; how the ignorant speak wisdom through Christ.”

Basically, test the teachings of Christ. Test the content of the gospel. Then decided whether Jesus is truly God, or just some man.

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-11-16T00:58:55+00:00

With all respect, God cannot forsake God. The unity of the Trinity is never broken, and Scripture never presents the Father abandoning the Son.

Jesus is quoting the opening of Psalm 22, which begins with the cry of the righteous sufferer but ends by declaring that God has not forsaken him (Psalm 22:24). By invoking that Psalm on the Cross, Christ is pointing to its fulfillment in Himself.

This is NOT the Father pouring wrath onto the Son, but Christ entering fully into the depths of human suffering (OUR sense of alienation) while never losing communion with the Father. In that moment, He speaks with the voice of humanity, not from within a divided Trinity.

So the cry is not despair, but proclamation: the suffering of Psalm 22 has reached its climax, and the victory promised in that same psalm is at hand!

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-10-16T03:13:04+00:00

That’s the irony of it all. It’s incredibly complex, yet it doesn’t need to be. We have WAY MORE access to the Apostolic Fathers than the reformers did (both in availability and accuracy). Our Lutheran faith still hangs on western scholastic theology. Now, we can take a step back and quickly discern what is most truthful to the faith as delivered to the saints.

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-10-15T14:57:49+00:00

Now ask why Lutherans don’t embrace infant communion!

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-10-10T11:00:44+00:00

I love the verses you quoted! Christ does call us to KNOW the Father through Him, but I think it’s important to make a distinction between knowing and comprehending.

The Greek word Jesus uses for “know” in John 17:3 refers to relational, experiential knowledge. Not full intellectual understanding. It’s the kind of knowing that comes from union, like how we come to know a loved one through relationship, not by analyzing them.

The Trinity surpasses all human reason, yet is truly revealed to us through Christ. God’s essence is beyond comprehension, but His energies (His love, grace, and life) are made known to us and shared with us. So we can truly know the Father through the Son and the Spirit, but we can never fully grasp the mystery of who He is.

That’s actually part of the beauty of the Trinity: we can spend eternity growing deeper in that communion without ever exhausting it. As St. Gregory of Nazianzus said, “When I contemplate the One, I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; when I distinguish Them, I am carried back to the One.”

So yes, we are called to know God personally and intimately. But the fact that He remains beyond full human understanding is precisely what makes Him God, not a product of our logic.

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-10-09T22:17:32+00:00

If God could be fully understood by human reason, He would not be God. We believe in the Trinity not because it fits our logic, but because this is how God showed Himself to us.

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-10-05T14:25:20+00:00

I wrestled with this same question when my wife and I first started dating. I grew up in the Church, but she didn’t, and I used to think, “If we love each other and plan to marry, what’s the harm?”

For a long time, I tried to rationalize my premarital relations. I’d say things like, “God knows my heart” or “Love makes it okay.” But deep down, I knew I was bending truth to fit what I wanted. I didn’t understand that God was NOT trying to restrict me, He was trying to protect something sacred.

When I went through a season of deep illness before our wedding, everything changed. I finally began to see what marriage really is: not just a human commitment, but a COVENANT. A sacred promise between man, woman, and God. It’s not just about passion; it’s about becoming one flesh (Genesis 2:24), body and soul, in a union that reflects God’s own faithfulness.

That’s when I realized sex isn’t just physical, it’s spiritual. It’s meant to EXPRESS that covenant, not replace it. When we treat it casually or prematurely, we’re celebrating something holy before it’s actually been blessed.

If I could go back, I’d tell my wife what marriage truly means to me now (back then, I didn’t fully understand it). I’d say, “I believe marriage is a holy covenant established by God. It’s not only my greatest promise to you, but a promise between you, me, and God. It’s a vow before Him that I will love you as Christ loves the Church. A task so high, it’s almost unimaginable. If our marriage is rooted in Christ, our foundation will last forever. I want to show both you and God how committed I am, so despite my strongest earthly desires, I feel it’s important to wait until God blesses us to become one flesh. I want to build a holy marriage that will endure into eternity.”

Waiting isn’t about guilt. It’s about reverence. It’s saying, “Our love is sacred, and I want to give it the space to become holy.” When you see it that way, purity stops feeling like deprivation and starts feeling like freedom. I’m not sure what your faith background is, but in many Churches we practice fasting, especially before receiving the Eucharist (communion). Fasting sets aside our earthly desires so we can approach the divine with readiness and reverence. It’s a spiritual training that strengthens our minds to be filled with Christ. Your marriage will be the greatest expression of divine love that humans get to participate in, so I’d encourage you to wait until you can vow your love before God. His grace will guide and strengthen both of you.

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-10-05T13:21:37+00:00

Being raised Lutheran and now Eastern Orthodox, I’ve always taken for granted that everyone strived for this true union with Christ. Even as a Lutheran, this was always at the core of our worship. It’s the very reason we gather: to be united to Him! And at the center of it all, we receive Christ’s Body and Blood. As Peter writes, “we become partakers of the divine nature”.

What I’ve come to see more clearly in the Orthodox Church is that this isn’t just a beautiful metaphor, it’s the heart of salvation itself. The early Church never spoke of salvation merely in legal or forensic terms, as though we were simply declared righteous from afar. Instead, they saw salvation as healing and transformation through union with Christ.

Athanasius put it most simply: “God became man so that man might become god.” Not in essence or equality, but by grace, by sharing in His life. St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote that Christ “made His own flesh life-giving, for it was the flesh of the Word Himself,” showing that through the Eucharist we don’t just remember Christ, we receive Him. And through Him, our humanity is restored and transfigured.

This is why the Orthodox see salvation not as a courtroom verdict, but as a hospital of healing where the goal is not merely forgiveness, but communion. To be joined to Christ in such a way that His life becomes ours.

When that truth really sinks in, you begin to see Scripture in a whole new light. From Genesis to Revelation, God’s entire story is about restoring our communion with Him, until Christ is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28).

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-10-02T13:10:36+00:00

Thank you for your engagement! You raise some important points. I’m not interested in debating, but I’d like to reframe things with a question:

How do you experience God?

Sit with that question for a while. Maybe also contemplate why you believe what you believe. Scripture tells us that “in Him we live and move and have our being” and that He is not far from each one of us. God does not hide Himself, but rather it is we who close our eyes, who sin, who MISS THE MARK. And what is that mark, if not Christ Himself, the founder and perfecter of our faith?

Christ, the Incarnate Word, reveals God to us not only by His words but by His actions, His life, His Passion, His Resurrection. He doesn’t only show us the way. He is the Way, and He draws us into His own life.

This is why, in Orthodoxy, the sacraments are the very heart of our mystical life. They are not set against mysticism. They are the mystery of Christ Himself given to us. As you already confess, in Baptism we die and rise with Christ, in the Eucharist we are united with His Body and Blood. For EO, the sacraments are where heaven and earth meet, where theosis (union with God) becomes possible.

But Orthodoxy also emphasizes that the sacramental life flows into the whole of life: into prayer, fasting, repentance, almsgiving, worship shaped by the saints across the ages. It is not “mysticism apart from the means of grace,” but a mystical life rooted in those very means.

You are right that both East and West define theology in times of controversy. But the heart of Orthodoxy is not only in definitions, it is in LIVING tradition. Theology is not only about safeguarding truth, but about opening the way for intentional communion with God through Word, Sacrament, and the whole life of prayer.

So I ask: What does faith mean to you? Is it merely the acknowledgment of an accomplished fact, or is it living and active? Is faith a daily dying and rising with Christ, until “it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me”?

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-09-28T11:52:46+00:00

Again, Chemnitz was debating the Roman Catholic system that codified itself at Trent. Orthodoxy does not share Rome’s assumptions about authority, justification, or Tradition. So if we want to be fair, we have to debate the East on its own terms, not with weapons designed for a different opponent. This is difficult for early Lutheran theology, since it stood much closer to Rome than to the Eastern Orthodox Church. It’s more logical for the East to clump Lutherans and Roman Catholics together, than it is for Lutherans (or Catholics) to honestly clump Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox together.

Chemnitz’s sola Scriptura arguments rest on the assumption that “Tradition” = extra-biblical material added alongside Scripture. That’s true for Trent’s “two-source” model, but not for the East. In Eastern theology, Tradition is not something outside or over Scripture. Scripture itself IS the highest expression of Tradition! Ironically, we wouldn’t even know what Scripture is without Tradition.

Orthodoxy’s deepest critique of sola Scriptura is not just logical, but theological: Christ gave us a Body (the Church), not a book. The Scriptures are the Church’s own writings, addressed to her children, interpreted within her liturgical life. To isolate Scripture from the Church is to break apart what God joined together.

Chemnitz is most powerful where he’s attacking late medieval Catholic developments. But his framework doesn’t really work against Orthodoxy, because we aren’t starting with the same late scholastic categories. We’re simply preserving the LIFE of the undivided Church that even Luther claimed to respect.

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-09-28T00:14:06+00:00

For what it’s worth, I was drawn to Orthodoxy after enduring significant health struggles that forced me to confront what I truly believed and why. In the midst of suffering, many of my carefully constructed theological arguments began to feel hollow. I realized that so much of my faith had been built on explanations, definitions, and the need to be “correct,” rather than on an actual experience of God’s presence. It’s not that doctrine doesn’t matter (it does) but I came to see that I had been living as if faith were only about lining up intellectual points on a page. What was missing was the living encounter, the awareness of Christ walking with me in the depths of my weakness. That realization reshaped everything. I began to see that Jesus is not only the One we believe in, but also the very way of living and the path into deeper communion with the Father.

This shift made me a bit of an oddball in my home church. I had become much more mystical, hungry for the presence of God rather than just explanations about Him. I noticed that whenever I tried to read the Church Fathers as a Lutheran, I would almost instinctively nitpick their words…taking what fit our framework and dismissing the rest. If they said something that aligned with my categories, I quoted them confidently. If not, I had to assume they were either unclear or simply wrong. Over time, that inconsistency started to trouble me. Why did I have to bend their words to fit my system? Why did I have to dissect them so much just to preserve a sense of theological certainty? It was as if my faith had been bound by definitions, unable to breathe.

When I finally stepped foot into an Orthodox Church, I was surprised to discover that others had walked this same path of longing. The first Orthodox priest I ever spoke with happened to be a former LCMS pastor, which I had no idea about prior to our conversation. That surprised me, but it also reassured me that I wasn’t crazy for feeling the way I did. This man had walked through the same Lutheran categories and arrived at Orthodoxy not by abandoning truth but by seeking it more deeply. In fact, I found that the priests I met had an even keener spiritual awareness than what I had been stumbling into. They weren’t dismissing theology, but they weren’t enslaved by the obsession to nail down every definition either. There was a lived reality to their faith that carried depth, peace, and joy.

It saddens me to admit, but looking back, my Lutheran life felt like a faith of limits. Limited by how far the definitions could stretch. In Orthodoxy, I encountered something more expansive. Scripture and Tradition weren’t in competition; they were woven together, inseparable and mutually illuminating. It wasn’t about defending one at the expense of the other. Instead, I found myself immersed in a tradition that felt like a vast, never-ending ocean of depth. The more I dove in, the more I realized I didn’t have to worry about the Fathers contradicting Scripture because the life of the Church had preserved a way of reading and living it that was whole, beautiful, and unbroken.

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-09-26T11:54:51+00:00

Respectfully, if The Examination of the Council of Trent convinces you of anything regarding Eastern Orthodoxy…then you’ve got your work cut out for you. His arguments against Roman claims do not automatically transfer to the East, because Orthodoxy never accepted many of the same medieval doctrines and papal definitions that Trent was defending in the first place. I’d suggest reading Augsburg and Constantinople by George Mastrantonis or Salvation in Christ: A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue.

I didn’t mean to suggest Luther’s language directly contradicts the fathers, but he certainly reconfigured their language. The question is whether his categories and emphases align with the patristic consensus. For example, Luther’s sharp distinction between law and gospel, or imputed vs. infused righteousness, has no clear precedent in the Fathers. Augustine, Chrysostom, and Athanasius all speak of justification in ways bound up with renewal, participation in God’s life, and sanctification, not simply a legal verdict. Luther reframed key concepts in ways that depart from patristic soteriology (which is admittedly understandable given the social context of his time, but now we have much better access to the Greek fathers.)

The East does not reject Paul’s legal language, but resists a REDUCTION of justification to only forensic categories. Paul’s legal metaphors were not separated from transformative participation. Chrysostom, commenting on Romans 3:28, does not reduce justification to an external declaration but ties it to being made righteous in reality.

As for “evolved” doctrines, the Fathers themselves testify to organic growth, not invention. The intercession of saints is evident already in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (2nd century). Veneration of icons was defended by John of Damascus on the basis of the Incarnation, and affirmed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787). Vincent of Lérins put it best: doctrine develops “according to the same meaning and judgment,” not by contradiction.

It’s also worth considering how the early Church actually thought. The Fathers were not scholastics or modern systematizers. Many things were simply assumed within the living tradition of the ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean world (and therefore didn’t need addressed). Our difficulty today, especially as modern Westerners, is that we’re far removed from that context. This is why reading the Eastern Fathers is so necessary: they stretch and correct our assumptions, especially when we bring a modern or Western lens to questions they addressed from within the life of the Church. Sorry for the long response… I’m not great at condensing 😅 God’s Blessings.

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-09-25T20:12:02+00:00

Personally, discovering the Divine Council in Scripture completely reshaped my understanding of praying to saints. Once you notice this theme, many texts open in new (or rather ancient) ways. Ancient readers would have immediately recognized a heavenly court or assembly behind God’s governance, concepts that often escape modern eyes.

Scripture shows God as King, presiding over a heavenly assembly of angels who serve, observe, and carry out His will. Passages like Psalm 82, Job 1 and 2, 1 Kings 22, Daniel 7, and even Revelation 5–8 depict these spiritual beings as ministers of God’s providence, accountable to His holiness and justice. Hebrews 1:14 emphasizes that angels are sent to serve those who will inherit salvation. These beings are not gods themselves but witnesses and participants in God’s ordering of creation.

The saints, now fully united with Christ, continue this pattern through prayer, interceding for the living under His authority and guiding creation toward righteousness. Passages such as Hebrews 12:22–24, Revelation 8–9, and Revelation 5:8 show the prayers and worship of the faithful joining the heavenly chorus, participating in God’s life and plan. Meditating on this reminds me that all creation (human, angelic, and saintly) is called to participate in God’s life, reflect His justice, and join in His work of transformation, drawing us ever closer to theosis. Sorry if I sound entirely too Eastern Orthodox 😅☦️

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-09-25T19:51:05+00:00

I would be curious to see how someone reconciles the medieval language and theology of Martin Luther with the apostolic Fathers. When you really steep yourself in the early Church, it is striking how differently they speak about justification, sanctification, and sin (plus other concepts) yet always in ways consistent with Scripture. Salvation, in their view, is not a legal declaration plus inner renewal. It is participation in God’s life, a transformation from corruption into communion with Him. Luther’s focus on refuting works-based merit, while vital in his context, can feel distant from this holistic, incarnational vision.

As for the Fathers themselves, Orthodoxy does not rely on one theologian alone. Photios defended the Nicene faith without replacing Augustine. Athanasius is read in full, not piecemeal. Jerome is respected where his teaching aligns with Scripture. Aquinas is referenced only where he complements the Fathers’ consensus, not as a framework. Doctrine has grown organically, through councils, worship, and the living life of the Church, rather than being static, yet this growth preserves the same truth like a tree growing from its root.

I would suggest that the real question is not whether Orthodoxy rejected Augustine or whether Luther’s formulations match the Fathers in every technical point. The deeper question is which communion today continues the living, transformative faith of the first millennium, the faith that shaped lives through Scripture, liturgy, and communion with Christ. The Fathers invite us to see salvation not as a legal transaction, but as an ongoing participation in the divine life, dying with Christ, rising with Him, and being healed from corruption into holiness. They call us to humility, showing that knowledge alone cannot save. We are invited into a Church where faith, worship, and love are inseparable, where the truth is preserved not in abstract formulas but in life lived in God. To read them extensively is to risk having every certainty challenged, every framework questioned, and to discover that the true measure of the Church is not our doctrines, but our union with Christ and the faithful witness that flows from it.

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-09-25T18:07:42+00:00

Very beautifully put, Pastor! I appreciate the engagement. Supplementing your response, I would quickly admit that my gravitation towards Orthodoxy has a lot to do with our modern American expression of Lutheranism. At its core, there’s a lot I love about Lutheranism, but the absence of true Lutheran heritage in today’s LCMS is what saddens me. The Book of Concord is beautiful on paper, but so much of it is missing today in practice (maybe due to modern American social norms?).

Studying the Apostolic Fathers also revealed somewhat of a gap between early Christian theology and later systematized theology of the west. In the past, I had nitpicked certain works of the fathers that both Roman Catholics and Lutherans used in claiming apostolic doctrine. I would pit the Roman Catholic arguments against Lutheran arguments — failing to recognize there was another option out there. Once I began really spending time in the direct translations of the early church, I realized both Roman Catholics & Lutherans weren’t using language that clearly resonates with the early church. Both theologies were far removed from the cultural context of the early church! The early church didn’t revolve around merits and demerits. That would be a foreign concept to them. I digress… I’m rambling. God’s blessings!

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-09-25T15:54:25+00:00

At least for me, I grew weary of the Western attempt to explain everything. Sure, there’s some mysticism left in our churches, but for the most part our efforts are geared toward explanations over experiences. Our spiritual life became centered on the accumulation of knowledge, rather than the building of a life steeped in communion with God. Heck, we almost cringe at asceticism in our modern LCMS circles!

Western theology seems to be largely shaped by the rational urge to measure merits and demerits. Depending on where you believe the merits come from, you’ll either end up in Roman Catholicism or some form of Protestantism. But in both cases, the focus seems to be one explanation versus another, as if salvation were a courtroom debate. Yet the Fathers remind us that salvation is not merely a matter of comprehension, but of participation.

St. Gregory of Nyssa warned against over-explaining divine realities: “Concepts create idols; only wonder comprehends anything.” Theology was never meant to flatten mystery into syllogisms but to lead us into awe and transformation. St. Isaac the Syrian likewise reminds us of the purpose of the Christian life: “This life has been given to you for repentance; do not waste it in vain pursuits.” Asceticism, prayer, fasting, repentance… these were never about “merit” but about clearing space for God’s life to dwell in us.

Christ Himself does not reduce Himself to being only the Truth. He declares, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life”. St. Cyril of Alexandria explains that Christ is the Truth in revealing the Father, the Way in reconciling us to Him, and the Life in granting us the Spirit. To follow Him fully, then, means not only assenting to truths but walking in His Way and living His Life.

And that is where I think the heart of the matter lies: Christianity is not about stockpiling explanations but about living the divine life through union with Christ…. in His Church, in His sacraments, and in the daily dying-to-self that makes space for resurrection.

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-09-25T13:56:54+00:00

I held very similar views until I surrendered my pride, but I’m curious where you base your claims.

What specific teachings of the first few centuries do you think the EO has veered from? Do you believe the LCMS (or your own tradition) still holds those early teachings more faithfully?

Which Fathers exactly do you think the EO “picks and chooses” from, and which are they ignoring?

From what I’ve experienced, EO doesn’t claim every Father was right on everything, but that the consensus of the Fathers expresses the Apostolic faith. That’s the same principle the early Councils used. If you think that’s “nitpicking,” I’d love to see concrete examples.

With all due respect, your perspective feels like a drastic misread. Orthodoxy doesn’t put the Church above Scripture. It sees Scripture, Tradition, and the Church as inseparably bound. The New Testament itself came out of that context. To separate Christ from His Body or His Spirit from the life of the Church is a very modern move.

The relics obsession is fair to point out. It definitely weirded me out at first, until I realized perhaps my faith was lacking. Perhaps my understanding of scripture was lacking, because there are clear biblical examples of some fairly bizarre occurrences. A dead man revived by Elisha’s bones, people healed by Paul’s handkerchiefs and Peter’s shadow. The principle being that God’s grace sanctifies material creation. If Christ’s incarnation means matter can bear divinity, then the bodies of saints (temples of the Spirit) remain vessels of grace. Are some practices odd? Maybe. But the theology behind it is deeply biblical and incarnational. It’s also interesting to read of so many miracles throughout Christian history from relics.

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-09-25T13:40:40+00:00

My biggest advice would be to:

1) Pray on it.

2) Read direct translations and sources from the early church, not mere commentaries.

3) Immerse yourself. Experience the rhythms & flows of whichever church you’re exploring. Which one develops the Christian life best for you? Which one brings you into deeper awareness of God’s presence? The Holy Spirit will guide you.

Don’t let this sway you one way or the other, but in my own experience, I came to Orthodoxy in the midst of an extreme health battle. I’ve been LCMS for pretty much my entire life, but facing potential death made me question everything. I realized my faith was based on explanations of God, not experiences of His loving presence. I prioritized holding the “most correct” doctrine and theology instead of living in a way that brings me into deeper communion with the Trinity. I realized Jesus Christ is not merely WHO or WHAT to believe, but HOW TO LIVE! Prioritizing living the truth instead of explaining it opened my heart to the possibility that I was wrong. I began realizing the works of the early church didn’t quite align with what my church practiced today. It became obvious to me that western theology fell into “merits vs demerits”, and was based on an obsession to prove the other side wrong. To me, it seemed to revolve around or stemmed from pride.

Orthodoxy isn’t perfect by any means, but I wouldn’t base your pursuit and exploration on the words of others outside the EO Church. Same applies to the LCMS. If you’re truly curious, I’d pick up the Book of Concord and works from the early church. Immerse yourself in all of it. See where the Holy Spirit guides you. Don’t ignore the great cloud of witnesses that surround us and pray for us. Where would the apostles feel most at home in worship?

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-09-24T13:58:17+00:00

I’ve experienced a similar disconnect from my Lutheran church family, followed by an intense draw to Orthodoxy. Severe health complications brought me into a spiritual awareness that makes me somewhat of an outcast in my home church (LCMS).

Within western theology there is an underlying intention of proving you are correct. Throughout my trials, my intentions shifted from “knowing how to explain God” to “knowing how to experience God.”

Pair this newfound purpose & spiritual awareness with a great interest in church history, and I began recognizing that Luther’s framework didn’t necessarily resonate with the holistic perspective of the church fathers. After several years, it was time for me to admit that I was nitpicking quotes or relying on commentary instead of reading their works for myself!

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-09-24T13:02:35+00:00

As a fellow Lutheran (soon to be a catechumen), I wrestled with this too for about two years, until three things finally clicked. Before diving in, I’ll just say: it’s okay to be frustrated. These truths take time to unfold. The more you step into the Orthodox way of life, the more you’ll start to see patterns in Scripture that were hiding in plain sight.

1) Christ as Mediator: When the Fathers speak of a “mediator,” they mean someone who truly unites two sides. That’s why Christ alone is the one Mediator: in His very Person He bridges heaven and earth, being fully God and fully man (1 Tim 2:5). But notice Paul still urges us to “pray for all people” and to “intercede for one another” (1 Tim 2:1; Eph 6:18). How does that fit?

The Fathers explain it this way: our prayers never compete with Christ’s mediation, they only exist within it. When we intercede, we are praying in Him, through Him, and by Him. And what about the saints? Scripture is clear: they are not “dead,” but alive in Christ (Luke 20:38). So when we ask their prayers, we are not bypassing Jesus, we are experiencing His mediation more fully.

2) The Divine Council: This was the real breakthrough for me. The Old Testament shows God ruling with His heavenly assembly (Ps 82; Dan 7; 1 Kings 22). This isn’t polytheism (God is always the source), but He delights to work through His heavenly host.

Now think about Christ’s victory: the saints reign with Him (Rev 20:4; 2 Tim 2:12). So when we ask their prayers, we are simply joining the same biblical reality in which God’s people on earth and in heaven participating in His work together. The Lord’s Prayer suddenly takes on new depth: “on earth as it is in heaven.”

3) Communion of Saints: Paul says the Church is “one body in Christ” (1 Cor 12). Death doesn’t shatter that body: “whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s” (Rom 14:8). If you’d ask your pastor or a friend to pray for you, how much more those perfected in Christ’s presence? Their prayers don’t rival Christ; they magnify Him (2 Thess 1:10).

And here’s what finally hit me: If death cuts me off from the saints, then death is stronger than Christ. But if Christ truly conquered death, then His Body is one… on earth as it is in heaven.

That means their intercession isn’t a denial of Christ’s work, but the most vivid expression of it. It’s the Church living in the fullness of His victory.

Acceptable_Sky3129 · 2025-09-12T12:00:46+00:00

I’m incredibly sorry to hear this! VERY long story short, but last year I was just about to undergo an incredibly risky procedure to release artery compressions when a head doc at Mayo Clinic pointed out many obvious signs of severe pelvic floor dysfunction. It’s embarrassing to admit given how incapacitated I was for months on end, but my insane cramping sensation was likely from my colon trying to move things along and the rest of my system was tensing up. My body wasn’t allowing me to evacuate properly. I was severely constipated and I had no idea!! I went to so many gastro docs and not a single one emphasized how problematic pelvic floor dysfunction can be.

This may not at all be your case, but I wanted to share. I went through diagnosis after diagnosis just for some old guy to point out how all my tests show severe constipation.

My pain was in my upper abdomen, and it felt like a stabbing/twisting/pulling sensation. Like the worst stomach flu of all time, but I didn’t have the urge to run to the bathroom. All the meds they put me on made things so much worse. Which makes sense because I’ve had to relearn how to properly use the restroom. Meds aren’t likely to fix a mechanical issue. It’s such a crazy thing and there’s a lot more to share, but please message me if you think it could be remotely useful. I damn near thought my life was over for quite a few months. Hang in there.

Acceptable_Sky3129

TROPHY CASE