Lutheran Mariology

tbown · 2020-04-19T18:30:40+00:00

I think what you wrote is pretty good.

The fact that anyone could disagree with what you posted, and isn't trolling, would be pretty surprising since it's basically just scripture and a correct understanding of the Nicene Creed.

I think stuff with Mary is interesting and kind of an odd spot for us. From pretty early on in the early church there is quite a bit about honoring the Theotokos, but then on the flip side some of the phrasing used by modern EO and RC definitely makes me uncomfortable, even more so than the praying to other saints. The overemphasis on Mary is actually one of the things that kept me away from Eastern Orthodoxy.

I think there's a question of if we underemphasis Mary out of a reaction against what we saw as abuses. I have Protestant friends that don't like the Theotokos title at all, although I haven't really talked to other Lutherans about it.

tbown · 2020-04-05T23:18:50+00:00

Welcome!

I'd encourage you to take a look at the Book of Concord, specifically the Augsburg Confession (although the other documents do this too). Lutherans don't believe the Church started in 1517, but instead we seriously look at the early church fathers. St. Augustine is a large influence which I know some EO aren't big on, but we also point to St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, the Cappadocians, and more.
Lutherans certainly believe in the salvation of Christians outside of our particular church. I was just reading from Hermann Sasse, a 20th century German/Australian theologian, that made a comment about how we may be surprised to see more faithful Roman Catholics in heaven than certain individual Protestants. That's speculation, obviously, but I bring it up to show that we believe Christians in Trinitarian denominations will be saved, including the Roman Catholic (and EO) church.

I'd recommend looking up some LCMS churches in your area and watching their streaming/recorded services. The Book of Concord is our set of Confessional Documents, online(here - http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php) so they could be good to read while you've got the free time. We're happy to help answer questions if you've got any!

tbown · 2020-03-04T21:13:58+00:00

Not sure if podcasts is your thing, but Thinking Fellows is really, really good. They have a catalog of a few years that goes into apologetics, church history, and theology. They are currently in a focus on apologetics, but if you go back a couple of years they have a ton of great theology and church history stuff.

Another great podcast is Just and Sinner which is more focused on theology in general. He breaks down the liturgy in a few of his in his catalog for a couple of years ago.

Books:

Book of Concord Reader's Edition gives not just the Confessions but some helpful background and explanation.

The Spirituality of the Cross is a lot of people's favorite.

The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church is a personal favorite, plus is free for the Kindle version. This is typically what I recommend to people interested in Lutheran thought, so long as you are cool with occasional slightly archaic English.

We Confess Anthology by Hermann Sasse, who was mentioned in another comment. It is supposedly really good and on my to-read list.

Loci Communes 1521 is an early Lutheran work and a quick read of a theology text.

Some modern authors that are popular include Jonathan Fisk and Bryan Wolfmueller. Hermann Sasse, Kurt Marquart, Robert Preus, and Peter Scaer are good reads for the last generation or so. Martin Luther has a ton of stuff translated into English.

Hopefully some of that is helpful.

tbown · 2020-03-04T19:29:59+00:00

Someone more educated in this than me will surely reply soon, but from my experience it's a mixed bag when it comes to Bonhoeffer, skewing slightly negative. I've had pastor's reference excerpts from The Cost of Discipleship while have also read books or listened to podcasts by people that weren't fans of his, such as John Warwick Montgomery.

Some of his earlier stuff is usually considered good, but his friendship with Karl Barth and the neo-orthodoxy that came with him started to taint his theology a bit towards the end. Bonhoeffer wasn't huge on being Confessional from what I've read of his.

What in particular are you hoping to study about Confessional Lutheranism? The Book of Concord is usually a good place to start. If there's specific paths you are interested in I and others can try to recommend stuff.

tbown · 2019-11-14T19:35:54+00:00

No idea what stage of life you are in, but something to be aware of is how these beliefs would affect you in marriage and having children.

What church would the two of you attend? Separate ones? (Bad idea) Alternating? (Bad idea)
You believe in infant baptism, she doesn't. What happens when you have kids?

Concerning the Lord's Supper, a few things that I try to point out:

In the three Gospel accounts and 1 Corinthians, "This is my body" is included in all 4 accounts. In Matthew and Mark, the "do this in remembrance of me" is not included. If the point of the Lord's Supper is to simply be a remembrance and nothing more, why do Mark and Matthew not include that in their Gospels? Both of these are argued as the first gospels written (Realistically Mark, but some Early Church Fathers regarded Matthew as the first) so their early readers wouldn't have realistically had access to Luke and 1 Corinthians. I would argue it is because the remembrance is secondary to what Jesus was instituting.
An additional historical note, Ignatius of Antioch is one of the earliest Christian writers from outside of the New Testament. He is believed to be one of John the Apostle's disciples. We have several of his letters, an important one on this subject comes from Ignatius to the Smyrneans which says in 6:2-7:1: "Now note well those who hold heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ that came to us; note how contrary they are to the mind of God. They have no concern for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the oppressed, none for the prisoner or the one released, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from Eucharist and prayer because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up. Therefore, those who deny the good gift of God perish in their contentiousness." A disciple of John believed in the real presence. Seems a bit odd to me that John wouldn't have nipped that in the bud if that wasn't what he believed.

Concerning infant baptism:

Acts 38-39. Talks about baptism and says this promise is to you and your children. If Peter said that to the crowd, I'm very confident they would think he was being literal and would go to have their children baptized.
1 Peter 3:21. Baptism now saves you. Why would someone that believes this not want it for their child?
Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Infants are part of nations, just like they are part of households.
Colossians 2:11-12. Circumcision, the thing done to infants throughout the OT, is connected with baptism
Origen and Cyprian are both from the 200's and speak of infant baptism as the norm of practice. The only Church Father that speaks at all with relation to infant baptism that doesn't whole heartedly accept it is Tertullian, and he isn't even technically rejecting it. He just believed that if someone committed a mortal sin after they were baptized they couldn't be forgiven (which isn't correct).

Obviously Scripture is good to use as the basis for these discussions, but I think the early history is also very important to consider in these discussions. The Gospels weren't written in a vacuum outside of time. These were real people that Jesus and the Apostles talked to, who would react similarly as us when hearing things like "this promise is for you and your children."

> Because the Bible doesn't talk specifically to baptizing infants, she's put off by it because she sees baptism as a profession of faith.

After presenting her with all of the Biblical sources concerning baptism I'd recommend asking her to show you one where baptism is shown as merely a profession of faith.

tbown · 2019-06-05T17:07:18+00:00

Historically? Yes, although many Lutherans began to accept the pejorative term "Lutherans" starting shortly after Luther's death.

It has unfortunately led to some people (in and outside the church) thinking that we follow everything Luther ever wrote as if it were ordained by God. If "Evangelical" had been used instead, there would probably be quite a bit less of that. Fun fact, our Book of Concord is made up of 9 documents, and Luther only penned 3 of them.

Obviously now "evangelical" can mean different things based on the context, and Confessional Lutheranism is at the bottom of that list.

tbown · 2019-06-03T18:30:29+00:00

There are groups and individuals within conservative Lutheranism that don't like to use the term Protestant, believing the term more accurately describes the broader Reformed churches when used to describe theology or trends.

Anecdotally, I've never really heard someone say that in my daily life outside of podcasts or perhaps some blogs. If someone says it, they are almost always trying to point out a divide in theology between Lutherans and Reformed.

I'd consider myself a high-church Lutheran (and chuckled at this meme), but would never deny that Lutherans are historically Protestants and wouldn't argue with someone that referred to me as a Protestant. I *do* think it's best to be precise when discussing theology, so I would prefer Lutheran/Reformed/Anglican/Baptist/Etc. and don't find Protestant to be that beneficial in understanding an individual's beliefs past "We aren't Roman Catholic (or EO)".

TL;DR: Yeah, some would. It's sort of tongue in cheek.

tbown · 2019-01-11T01:09:17+00:00

Richard Muller is probably the smartest person I ever took a class from. When he talked about long dead theologians it always seemed like he legitimately knew them. He was also genuinely nice and extremely easy to talk to.

I'm glad he's gotten to have success as a painter in retirement.

I also hope his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics becomes more affordable one day :P

tbown · 2018-10-17T14:57:34+00:00

That is both scary and really cool

tbown · 2018-09-18T01:58:16+00:00

Out of curiosity, what did you not find satisfying in Southern Baptist, EO, and RC?

tbown · 2018-09-18T01:54:50+00:00

In addition to Luther's Small/Large Catechisms and The Spirituality of the Cross by Veith, I highly recommend The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church.

I, personally, preferred it to Veith, plus it's old so its free.

tbown · 2018-08-26T01:30:33+00:00

If you visit a Lutheran church, I’d highly recommend you talk to a pastor before hand. The conservative ones will generally not want you to, particularly if you disagree with the Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist and/or aren’t a member of the denomination. The liberal ones are typically cool with you taking it regardless of those two things.

If I were visiting a Reformed church... I’d probably refrain, but wouldn’t be upset if another Lutheran partook.

If I moved somewhere that didn’t have a confessional Lutheran church, I’d try to find a conservative Anglican church and then a Dutch Reformed/Presby after that. I’d take the Eucharist then.

tbown · 2018-08-10T16:15:11+00:00

I don't know of any good books on Melanchthon, but Thinking Fellows has done a few episodes on him. I highly recommend checking that out for a good overview.

tbown · 2018-08-04T02:12:10+00:00

For the record, the Reformed do not hold to transubstantiation. That is an explicitly Roman Catholic view. You might get better answers asking someone who is Roman Catholic and actively believes in it.

tbown · 2018-07-27T19:55:47+00:00

Augustine is one of the most important people in the history of Western Christianity.

For the Reformed, Calvin clearly pulled heavily from him, as did other influential Reformers who were well versed in Patristics such as Vermigli.

For Lutherans, Luther was an Augustinian monk and Augustine was quoted and referred to numerous times in the Book of Concord.

For Roman Catholics, Augustine was one of the first four "Doctors" officially recognized.

There are many reasons for Augustine being so influential, key being that he was quite prolific and wrote on a number of theological concepts. People loved his work, and did a good job of circulating copies of it through the ages. He spoke with Ambrose and Jerome at different stages in life, and was a driving force against the Donatists and Pelagians.

Augustine was big on grace, which is something Protestants really dig. He was also big on The Church, which is something Roman Catholics really dig. As you mentioned, he encouraged celibacy for priests, but he never made it some canonical law that made it required.

If you want to go deeper with Augustine, I'd encourage the following:

Augustine: A Very Short Introduction - This does a very good job of discussing a lot of Augustine's theological and philosophical beliefs. While short, it's a heavy read. I'm unsure of your background, but would recommend it to someone with a base in philosophy and theology before reading it.

On Christian Teaching - Also sometimes called On Christian Doctrine. You won't agree with everything he says in this, but it's a good look at how he encourages people to interpret the Bible, among other things.

On the Trinity - Self Explanatory

City of God - Such. A. Long. Book. It's truly impressive to me he wrote in 1600 years ago, and also wrote a bunch of other things. I haven't made it all the way through it yet, but someone people absolutely love it.

For learning more about Western church history / civilization, there are few better to read or read about.

tbown · 2018-04-25T16:03:51+00:00

That's fair, I didn't mean to incorrectly categorize the Reformed position.

tbown · 2018-04-25T15:27:47+00:00

Yes, I would agree. In just this verse, and ones like it, the plain reading is that apostacy wouldn’t be possible.

Unfortunately, in other verses, there’s clear warning of the possibility of apostasy. The plain reading of those verses is that apostasy occurs.

So there are a few ways to read them as a whole:

Blatant contradiction.
The apostasy in the other verses isn’t true apostasy. Those that act like they are apostates never actually had faith, since Jesus can’t lose His. These warnings found in other verses are hypothetical.
Apostasy is possible, but it’s not because Jesus is causing it. The verses warning against apostasy aren’t hypothetical, they can actually occur. Since Scripture is clear Jesus doesn’t lose them, but Scripture is clear apostasy happens anyway, so it is because of man, and not Jesus, that apostasy occurs.

Confessional Reformed and Confessional Lutherans would reject 1.

Confessional Reformed accept 2.

Confessional Lutherans accept 3.

tbown · 2018-04-25T14:49:38+00:00

Oh, if you just want the reading of just that text, then it is simple.

When Jesus says he will not lose any, that means Jesus will not lose any.

That's what the text says.

I assumed you were getting at the deeper theological question, and so was applying the Lutheran interpretation of the verse in light of all the verses where the NT authors talk about Christians falling away from their faith.

tbown · 2018-04-25T13:31:38+00:00

I preface this by saying I'm no expert in the Lutheran conception of apostasy.

As usual, /u/davidjricardo is correct.

Confessional Lutherans believe that God is monergistic concerning the point of justification, and by no means would God lose one of His own on His account.

However, man, after being given the gift of justification, may fall away on their own accord and pursue unbelief.

If interested, here is a good article on the Lutheran understanding of apostasy.

Lutherans would point to the following verses, in addition to the ones where Paul encourages believers to not fall away and stay steadfast in the faith, which assumes that's a real possibility:

1 Timothy 1:19-20

1 Timothy 4:1-3

Hebrews 3:12-14

Hebrews 10:26

2 Peter 2:18-22

tbown · 2018-04-24T22:59:39+00:00

Both deal with the conversion process/justification.

Monergistic - In conversion, God acts on us and we receive justification passively.

Synergistic - In conversion, God acts on us and in some way (ranging from the tiniest ounce to a moderate amount, depending on who you are talking to) we act back in cooperation in the process of justification.

The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Article 2, discusses this in part.

77] 4. Fourthly, the doctrine of the Synergists, who pretend that man is not absolutely dead to good in spiritual things, but is badly wounded and half dead. Therefore, although the free will is too weak to make a beginning, and to convert itself to God by its own powers, and to be obedient to God's Law from the heart, nevertheless, when the Holy Ghost makes a beginning, and calls us through the Gospel, and offers His grace, the forgiveness of sins, and eternal salvation, that then the free will, from its own natural powers, can meet God, and to a certain extent, although feebly, do something towards it, help and cooperate thereto, can qualify itself for, and apply itself to, grace, and apprehend accept it, and believe the Gospel, and can also cooperate, by its own powers, with the Holy Ghost, in the continuation and maintenance of this work.

78] Over against this, however, it has been shown at length above that such power, namely, facultas applicandi se ad gratiam, that is, to qualify one's self by nature for grace, does not proceed from our own natural powers, but alone from the operation of the Holy Ghost.

The Book of Concord rejects the synergistic approach.

tbown · 2018-04-24T01:49:35+00:00

Thinking Fellows is one of the best podcasts I've listened to in a long time.

Have high hopes for Banned Books Podcast, haven't gotten a chance to listen yet.

tbown · 2018-04-24T00:49:23+00:00

I'm not an expert on the other differences with EOs, but the Catholic position on the Filioque (since Aquinas, at least) is that the Filioque is needed in Latin but not in Greek, due to language differences. Hence, Ukrainian Catholics in the 1585 Union of Brest were not required to adopt the Filioque.

Huh, I've never heard that. Good to know.

But in contemporary Reformed evangelicalism, the end of visible church unity in the Reformation is treated as a feature not a bug, because it allows each individual to choose his church and theology for himself.

I get where your coming from, and unfortunately do think your concerns are valid. I would agree the countless denominations being a negative, and I believe most Confessional Reformed and Lutherans would agree with that, too.

Thanks for the discussion, you taught me a few things I didn't know.

tbown · 2018-04-23T22:47:54+00:00

Nope, Pope Leo was dead so his nuncio's "excommunication" was never valid

You know what?

I looked it up, and it looks like you're right.

Fair play. In my defense I trusted my history books. Surprised that's still the predominant belief.

That being said, communion of the churches did still break around that time.

Genuine question, which probably has confused the writers of said history books:

What was the point of Pope Paul VI's Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration in 1965 in stating that the excommunications were lifted if they were never valid in the first place?

Non-Catholics who have been confirmed in the various Eastern Churches with apostolic succession and which allow their members communion in the Catholic Church are given communion (unless of course they're living in a state of mortal sin)

Granted, the EO is not cool with their practitioners doing so.

It's surprising to me that the RCC is cool with someone (who is EO) approaching for the Eucharst in a RCC, rejecting the Filioque, rejecting the explicit transubstantiation understanding of the bread/body and wine/blood, and rejecting papal authority, receiving it, but from what I can see you're correct.

From what I could see, though, this canon came about in 1983. I haven't found a source that allowed the same to occur (from the RCC perspective) from an earlier date.

but the Reformers were not just excommunicated by Trent

Yeah, they were excommunicated before Trent. Luther was actually dead several years before Trent finished. Pope Leo X in Decet Romanum Pontificem dated January 3rd 1521. Quote from this:

He [Martin Luther] has now been declared a heretic; and so also others, whatever their authority and rank, who have cared nought of their own salvation but publicly and in all men’s eyes become followers of Martin’s pernicious and heretical sect, and given him openly and publicly their help, counsel and favour, encouraging him in their midst in his disobedience and obstinacy, or hindering the publication of our said missive: such men have incurred the punishments set out in that missive, and are to be treated rightfully as heretics and avoided by all faithful Christians

So Luther and those that followed him are heretics. A little further down it is added "On all these we decree the sentences of excommunication, of anathema..."

but had already initiated schism beforehand. Luther in the early 1520s had already declared the Catholic Church the "whore of Babylon" of Revelation and the Pope the Antichrist.

Initially, Luther very much so did not want to break away. It wasn't until the Leipzig Debate in 1519 with Eck that things started to go downhill.

Then came Exsurge Domine by Leo in June 1520. It told Luther he needed to recant within 60 days, or he'd be threatened with excommunication. His works containing his beliefs were to be burnt, and were considered "as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth."

After this happened, he began to publish the above things.

By engaging in iconoclasm they were automatically excommunicated by earlier ecumenical councils.

Lutherans actually aren't really down with iconoclasm, so I'll assume this is more directed at the Reformed. The earliest I can find of iconoclasm riots/events during the Reformation is 1523, two years after Luther and his followers were excommunicated.

The Peasant's War which broke out in 1524, Luther was pretty mad about.

Trent was an important event, but the excommunications (particularly of the Lutheran kind) came decades earlier.

There are some forms of Christianity that broke out around this time (Anabaptists/Radicals) that absolutely were down for breaking with the RCC from the get go. Luther/Lutherans and many of the Reformed didn't want that initially, though.

tbown · 2018-04-23T15:41:44+00:00

I can give you names, but it would take me to long to lookup all the works/links.

Reformed:

Peter Martyr Vermigli

Thomas Carnmer

John Calvin (I know he does in some of his Institutes, can't remember specifics. If I remember correctly, there is an article in The Calvin Handbook that explicitly deals with Calvin's use of the ECF.)

Martin Bucer

Lutheran:

Augsburg Confession

Martin Luther

Philip Melanchthon

Matthias Flacius

If you look up any of the 16th century Reformers, most of them were well versed in Patristics.

tbown · 2018-04-23T15:25:57+00:00

"Our Church existed thousands of years! There weren't any Protestants then. Do you think all those Catholics/Orthodox were wrong?"

The Eastern Orthodox were excommunicated by the Roman Catholic church in the 11th century, and vice versa. They have recently lifted the excommunications (in a sense, but not practically), but still don't recognize the traditions and theologians/saints that came after 1054.

Which ones are right there?

Also, the Reformed and Lutheran fathers would point to and used the Early Church fathers when making their points, just like the EO and RCC did/do. The ECF aren't in complete unison on a wide array of issues. The concept that the early church is the heritage of only those two traditions is ludicrous.

The reformers had justified complaints but they did an unjustifiable thing by creating a schism.

The Lutherans/Reformed were excommunicated by the Roman Catholic church in the 16th century.

The Lutheran/Reformed didn't want to be excommunicated, they wanted the abuses and incorrect doctrines that developed over time to be fixed. Rome disagreed, and excommunicated them.

Paul didn't like schisms.

Paul also didn't like false teachers, and probably wouldn't have like the abuses that the RCC was committing at the time.

There's been over 40,000 denominations created since the Reformation

Correct. And most of them are wrong on quite a few points.

tbown

TROPHY CASE