This Sunday, June 10, 2007 my wife Emily and I were confirmed at Concordia Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) in Louisville, KY. Our decision to leave the Baptist tradition and join the Lutheran church was not an easy one. It has been a source of disappointment for some of our family and our friends. It was a long process of discussion and debate with both Baptists and Lutherans. Ultimately, we are convinced that Lutheran distinctives are more faithful to Scripture and the necessary inference of Scripture than are Baptist distinctives. Most of the disagreement that I came to have with Baptist doctrine centered primarily on baptism and tangentially the Lord’s Supper. For this reason, I wrote a paper addressing the Lutheran view of baptism. Still, there are numerous reasons beyond the sacraments for which I became a Lutheran, and Emily and I have spent much time discussing our reasons. Here’s what we’ve come up with so far…
Christ-centered
Confessional Lutherans are clear that the test of our worship is, “Is it Christ-driven?”. Is Christ exalted in our midst while we are abased? Though it is so common to the point of being cliché for Christians to speak of being Christ-centered, Lutheran theology makes a careful distinction that I find to be absent in most other forms of Christian theology. Lutherans distinguish between being faith-centered and being Christ-centered. Much of what passes for Christ-centered is really faith-centered. What Christ will do for us is often said to depend on the greatness of our faith. When talk of assurance of salvation ultimately comes to focus on the question “How do I know I have faith?” or “What is the evidence in my Christian living that I am saved?” one can be sure that the power of one’s faith has become the center and taken priority over Christ.
We must not gather together to celebrate our faith but to celebrate Christ as the object of our faith and to receive the grace he gives to renew and increase our faith. Liturgy, sacraments, and absolution, and the preached word all come together in Lutheran worship to more highly exalt Christ than worship services where I have seen these absent in some measure, or where they only have significance in proportion to the strength of our faith. The Baptist view of baptism for example exalts the power of faith to make Baptism real rather than exalting the power of God in baptism to make faith real.
Sacraments
Perhaps more significant for me than any other Lutheran distinctive is the Lutheran theology of the sacraments. If I had to present a single reason why I am Lutheran, it would be the sacraments. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are for the weak. I need the sacraments because I am weak. I need what the sacraments give. In the sacraments I have “forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.” In preaching, baptism, and the Eucharist the Word of God comes to me, and in the Eucharist the whole person of Christ is present and given for me. This is certainly the most difficult pill of Lutheran doctrine for other Protestants to swallow. Yet, the theology of the sacraments is far too vital for the life of Lutheran churches to be downplayed. The sacraments are means of grace by which the work of Christ is further mediated to us.
A theology of sacraments however is not optional for any denomination. When we reject those means of grace which God has identified, we substitute them with makeshift sacraments of our own device. Whether it is speaking in tongues, raising hands in worship, “personal devotions/quiet time”, evangelistic invitations/altar calls, churches are constantly building up extra-biblical sacraments by which they believe God dispenses grace. Luther sees this as a consequence of sin.
Such is the deplorable perversity of our nature that we do not keep what God commands or value it highly; but whatever the devil commands, this we receive and observe [with] the utmost eagerness and deference; we erect altars, chapels, churches; we run to Rome and to St. James. But meanwhile we slight Baptism, the Eucharist, absolution, and our calling (Martin Luther, Luther’s Works 4: 179 quoted in Jonathan D. Trigg, Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994], 25).
To be Christ-centered is to be sacrament-centered (though the reverse is not necessarily true). If we want Christ alone, then we must seek him in those which God has chosen that he be found and not places of our own invention.
Liturgy
Baptists have always relished the fact that the pulpit is in the center of their platform because it pictorializes their belief in the centrality of preaching in the Baptist church. Many Lutheran churches, however, have their pulpit to the side of the chancel to make room for the altar and the lectern. This arrangement of ecclesiastical furniture is not by accident. For a confessional Lutheran church, Christ himself must take precedence over the preaching of Christ. Furthermore, with the lectern in balance with the pulpit, we visually convey that the reading of Scripture and the public confession of faith is no less important than the preaching of God’s Word.
A church without a formal liturgy is too dependent on the preaching of one person. Where the preaching is clear, biblical and instructional a high dependence on one person’s preaching is, or course, less problematic. But preaching that fits this description is far too uncommon in churches, and even the best preachers are prone to idiosyncrasies, tangents and weaknesses. Liturgy can guard us against all of this. Where liturgy is present, it guarantees that people will hear and confess the Word of God even when preaching is unsound and weak.
It’s true that liturgy can become repetitious and lifeless, but that’s no reason to fault the liturgy. Any activity in the church has this potential. Still, even in cases where the recitation loses its passion, liturgy is still advantaged, since what is confessed in the liturgy remains true and calls us to rejoice in the truth. For myself, the more I confess the liturgy of my church the more I come to value it.
Historic Confession
Though liturgy is closely related to creeds and historic confessions, liturgy may, however, be modern and does not necessarily indicate the confession of a historic expression of faith. For this reason, confessional Lutheran churches place a great deal of importance on historic creeds and celebrating theological heritage. The Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed are all included in the Lutheran confessional documents known collectively as The Book of Concord. These historic documents along with the rest of the Lutheran confessions identify the theology of Lutheranism and unite confessing Lutherans around more than simply a particular view of baptism.
Synod Leadership
I have a fixed opinion on the importance of congregational rule in the local church. And while Lutherans typically hold that the final authority in each matter belongs to the membership of each local church, churches in the LCMS have the further advantage of the Missouri Synod which serves in an ancillary capacity to find pastors, interview candidates and report to local churches in search of a pastor. Consider that independent churches are left to their own devices in finding a pastor, and how many churches and pastors are ruined due to self-serving motives or naiveté. A major purpose of the Synod is to help prevent many of these scenarios. After extensive interviews, the Synod recommends several candidates that they believe best suited for a particular church. In the Missouri Synod, it’s customary for churches never to interview a candidate and never to hear him preach. Since the decision of calling a pastor rests with the congregation, they may select one or none of these candidates.
This process has the benefit of protecting an otherwise unsuspecting church from calling a pastor who has not been forthright or has been deceptive during candidate process. It is less likely that someone who is not suited for this church (or any church for that matter) will be able to put his best foot forward just long enough to get the job, only to cause deep conflict and trouble for the church in months and years to come. The Synod prepares a thorough report on past ministry success, ministry struggles and weaknesses, financial status, family life, preaching abilities (the good, the bad, and the ugly). It prevents a particularly influential member from putting a relative, friend or hand-picked candidate in place.
The Synod also prepares a report on the life of the church for each candidate to read. This has the further benefit of protecting, say, a young pastor from a congregation that puts its best foot forward in the interviews and only after being called does he find out what is the true nature of the church.
This process seems to be working. The LCMS has seen a remarkably small number of church splits in its nearly 200-year history.
Lutheran History
I’d be lying if I said that Lutheran history does not interest me more than Baptist history (though Baptist history is interesting in its own right). From Lutheranism’s roots in the Reformation to its divided support for and opposition to the Third Reich in Germany to American Lutheran support for the civil rights movement in the twentieth-century, Lutheran history is packed with rich drama. Because of the history of Lutheranism, the history of the world will never be the same.
Christian Liberty
Though there are numerous aspects to Christian liberty, I’ll look only at one matter that relates to this subject. For years I have disagreed with the common Baptist practice of prohibition of alcoholic beverages. However, I simply considered the reasons that Baptists offer to be an isolated point in Baptist theology. I now see prohibition as a serious feature of contemporary evangelical Baptist theology. Though prohibition is not part of historic Baptist practice, the fact remains that most contemporary Baptists themselves do not consider it an isolated point but instead treat it as integral to proper Christian living.
Martin Luther considered alcoholic beverage to be a gift from God which should not be despised. Today, Lutherans likewise see that we may rightly enjoy all gifts of God, but that we must not abuse them. Drunkenness is only one of the ways to abuse God’s gift of alcohol. Despising it and naming it as a sin is the other. It is not only true that one is free to drink alcohol, rather one should be careful that in not partaking one does not despise what God has called good (Psalm 104:15). Whatever other reasons that a person may have for not consuming, believing that it is a sin to drink must not be among them.
__________________
I’ve found that many evangelicals are unaware of what it means to be a Lutheran. Though there is much more that could be said, I think that I’ve summarized the major distinctives of Lutheran doctrine and practice (at least within the LCMS). For further explanation on what it means to be Lutheran, I recommend Daniel Preus’s Why I Am a Lutheran: Jesus at the Center.
I am open to dialogue and any questions you may have about my decision. Feel free to comment or if you’d prefer to do so privately, please e-mail me at johnfraiser@gmail.com.
John,
I have nothing new to add to our discussions at this point, but, now that you’re completely out of the closet, I’ll throw a few of my responses out for everyone.
Liturgy: I admit that Baptists–and most other Evangelicals–tend to have an unreasonable amount of scorn for liturgy in general. As you admit, Liturgy can be abused–and thus made into something bad. I think the negative attitude about liturgy initially arose out of reaction to abuses of liturgy. From there it became a “baby and bathwater” error.
I have to admit that Baptists are generally naïve about the issue of liturgy. They are intentional about shunning any liturgy which resembles Roman Catholicism, but they suppose doing so makes them free of anything liturgical. What it has actually done is caused them to develop–unconsciously–a sort of liturgical form. Unfortunately, that form is generally not well-considered and can be extremely shallow.
However, anti-liturgicalism is no more entailed by Baptist distinctives than Arian supremacy is entailed by Lutheran distinctives. You may be making the same error you identify in Baptists–only in reverse.
Historic Confession: Regarding historic confessions, I again have to admit that most Baptists fall far short of ideal. The Book of Concord, from what little I know of it, is a laudable effort to prevent such a shortfall for Lutherans. But, Baptists are heirs just as much as Lutherans to the most important historic confessions. And, again, the failure of many Baptists regard them rightly is an error of certain Baptists, not an entailment of the things that distinguish Baptism from Lutheranism.
It would probably be fair for you to say that many Baptists are unaware of anything that unites them aside from a particular view of baptism, but the contrast you draw between Baptists and Lutheranism is not. Most of what you find valuable in The Book of Concord, etc. unites Baptists as much as Lutherans. Any unity of significance is a function of that which unites, not of our literature about–or even our awareness of– those uniting factors. I’m not saying that awareness and clear statements are unimportant, but it is incorrect to imply that unity cannot exist without them–they are statements about what unites, not the uniting factors themselves.
Church Government: Your view of Church Government is essentially Baptist with an appreciation of LCMS tacked on. I agree that Baptists might well benefit from a system like that of the LCMS. But this does not appear to be a distinguishing mark. Baptists would be no less Baptist if they adopted a system like that of the LCMS (at least the part you describe here–I don’t have a thorough knowledge of LCMS), and the LCMS would be no less Lutheran if it discarded it.
Christ centered: While I tend to shy away from such phrases because they almost inevitably turn into empty clichés, I (as a Baptist) am in full agreement with your point–and I think all Baptists should be. Again, not really a distinguishing mark so much as a principle common to both groups even if generally better honored among one.
Sacraments: This truly is the great divide between the two groups. Certainly it is true that “we must seek Christ in those places in which God has chosen that he be found and not places of our own invention.” The problem is that the places Luther identifies (his view of Baptism, and particularly his views of Eucharist and absolution) may well be places invented by men. Baptists could easily–and just as effectively–turn Luther’s own rhetoric against him, saying that he despises the scripture and has invented notions of baptism, etc. to fill the void. The real question to be answered is, “Is Luther’s labeling of baptism, the Eucharist, absolution, etc. as “the word of God” and the power and function he, consequently sees in them scriptural?” Having concluded that they are, you are a Lutheran. Were it not for that, you would still be among us.
Lutheran History: I am a bit puzzled by your mention of this. Isn’t this really just a reason why you like being rather than a reason why you became a Lutheran?
Beer-drinking: Almost thou persuadest me to become a Lutheran! I confess that I would like being a Baptist a great deal more if more Baptists drank beer. But there is reason to hope that the silly, legalistic allegiance to teetotalism among American Baptists is crumbling. Until it does, I’m deeply thankful for Lutheran (and other non-Baptist or non-American) friends!
KWR
Congratulations on your decision. I appreciated a chance to read about your decision and appreciate your thinking on these issues. I grew up in the “Heart of Dixie,” deep in the “Bible belt” of the South. I knew many Southern Baptists and have nothing but respect and admiration for faithful Baptists who are passionate about their relationship with Christ and their zeal to spread his word. They are profoundly wrong on several key points of doctrine though.
I appreciate your book recommendation: Why I Am a Lutheran. That is a great book to help people understand what Lutheranism is all about.
If you are not familiar with another resource, I thought I would direct your attention to a special edition of the Lutheran Confessions designed to help people understand the Book of Concord better: Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions: A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord.
http://www.cph.org/concordia
The peace of Christ be with you.
Kevin,
I had hoped your evaluation of my decision would make it on here. Some of it is a valid critique. The majority of it, however, doesn’t stick.
You wrote, “Anti-liturgicalism is no more entailed by Baptist distinctives than Arian supremacy is entailed by Lutheran distinctives. You may be making the same error you identify in Baptists–only in reverse.”
I never said that Baptist distinctives entail anti-liturgicalism, and I can’t see that my post implied this either. Whether Baptist distinctives entail anti-liturgicalism or not is irrelevant. The fact is that Baptists historically, and even more so recently, are generally anti-liturgical (as you admit) regardless of what their theology entails.
Let’s take your Arian supremacy argument. If a particular group of Lutherans hold to Arian supremacy, it matters not whether it is entailed by Lutheran theology. The fact that they claim this is reason enough to seek another group. And if the vast majority of Lutherans historically claimed this and practiced this, one could rightly associate Lutherans with Arian supremacy. But of course, there’s enough evidence to the contrary in Lutheran history so that one cannot rightly associate Lutherans with Arian supremacy. But one can rightly associate Baptists with being anti-liturgical and the matter of what each group’s doctrine entails need ever enter into the discussion.
None of my reasons for becoming a Lutheran mean that Baptists could not believe or practice the same thing qua Baptists, but the fact is that they don’t, or don’t to the degree that many Lutherans do, and that’s what counts.
Your focus seems to be on what Baptists technically could do if they wanted to. I’m not interested in that. If someone so values the Baptist churches that it wants to reform them, I applaud the effort. My decision concerns what is actually practiced.
You disagree with my subtle comment that Baptists are united around a particular view of baptism. I suppose I could have added that they unite around a Zwinglian view of the Lord’s supper and a rejection of the magisterium of the church, too. If there is more that unites Baptists I’m curious to know. Perhaps you could elaborate on what else unites Baptists.
You comment on what I say about church government: “Your view of Church Government is essentially Baptist with an appreciation of LCMS tacked on.” My view may not be distinctly Lutheran but this view was Lutheran before it was Baptist. You also state that Baptists could adopt a similar practice. Agreed. But this once again rases the issue of what Baptists could do on technicality vs. what they actually do. Of course the LCMS would not be less Lutheran if they stopped this practice, however, they do practice it and for this reason it enters into my reasons for why I became Lutheran.
If Lutheran theology is more Christ-centered than typical Baptist theology, this is a distinctive. It is not irrelevant that it is “generally better honored” among confessing Lutherans than Baptists.
“Baptists could easily–and just as effectively–turn Luther’s own rhetoric against him, saying that he despises the scripture and has invented notions of baptism, etc. to fill the void.” Yes, this accusation could be (and is) made. However, if Luther is wrong in his view of baptism and the Lord’s supper, he has elevated them higher than they ought to be, but he has not invented baptism, the Eucharist and absolution the way that makeshift sacraments have been invented by others. The argument that Luther despises Scripture in order to elevate the sacraments would indeed be unparallel to my argument that many evangelicals have despised the true sacraments and created their own. It is unparallel because Luther had a high view of Scripture and viewed it as a means of grace, unlike evangelicals who do not view baptism and the Supper as a means of grace and have clearly invented other sacraments. Can any accusation that Luther despised Scripture be taken seriously when the evidence is clearly contrary?
I mentioned Lutheran history as a reason for becoming a Lutheran because, well, it was a reason for becoming a Lutheran. It can also be a reason <i>why I like being</i> a Lutheran, but of course, so can every other reason I mention. However, before it was a reason that I like being a Lutheran, it was a reason that assisted my becoming a Lutheran since I had to become a Lutheran before I could like being one.
As for the beer-drinking I can only say: Come to Louisville and spend lots of time drinking and discussing with me and the Lutherans. Perhaps we’d make some headway on this discussion over a pint.
Rev. McCain,
Thank you for your encouraging words. I am glad to hear that you appreciate the work of Southern Baptists for the kingdom. There are many wonderful, godly men and women that God has established in that denomination.
Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions was given to me by Pastor Curtis Peters when I first began conversation with him over Lutheran doctrine. I have read a great deal of it in the past few months and have found the editor’s notes and introductions enormously helpful in understanding the Lutheran Confessions. I greatly appreciate the work you put into this resource as the general editor. May God continue to bless your labor for him.
Besides your one recommended work, and the recommended work by Rev. McCain, what other sources would you recommend on Lutheran Sacramentology? Thanks so much. pEace
John,
My points about all but the sacrament (the ones you say “don’t stick”) were not critiques but agreements. I agree on all those things, but that doesn’t make me a Lutheran. These are things which you like about certain Lutherans (those you have come into contact with), it may even be that a larger percentage of those who call themselves Lutheran than those who call themselves Baptist perform well in these areas, but they are not things which commend Lutheran theology to you over Baptist theology, because they are not differences. To be more precise, they commend Concordia Lutheran Church to you over Clifton and and various other Baptist churches, but they do not commend Lutheran theology over Baptist Theology. Most of your responses are appeals to “guilt by association“–which is not a valid theological method. If it were, mid-twentieth century Germany performed badly enough to rule out Lutheran theology for many centuries to come.
My point about unity is that the only unity of significance is not a function of possession of The Book of Concord (most anyone can have that unity–the book retails for under $30), but a function of union with Christ. That book may be an excellent statement about the gospel and the unity of believers in Christ, but it is not substance of that unity. Many people who have never heard of The Book of Concord or who could not formulate an intelligent statement about Christian unity are a part of the unity which God has created in Christ. When you speak of “uniting around” such documents, you seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that Christian unity is something that we can create by our own devices. It is most emphatically not so.
On the issue of sacraments, you argue that Luther is immune to a reversal of his own rhetoric because he didn’t invent baptism. But, if his view of Baptism isn’t scriptural, then he did invent something–the fact that he labels it with the name of a Christian ordinance makes no difference. If a person declares that “hand raising” is “baptism” and then makes a sacrament out of it (no more a stretch than sprinkling), he is no less guilty of invention by his co-opting of the word. In fact, he may be more guilty. This is the same principle that Paul lays down in Galatians. Adding things to the gospel is not just “elevating them” to a higher place than they deserve, it is the creation of a new, perverted gospel “which is really no gospel at all.” The fact that valid Christian ordinances are the starting point of Luther’s creativity doesn’t mean that he was not inventing something, and it doesn’t clear him of his own charge of preferring his own invention to God’s command.
My point is that Luther’s rhetoric seems powerful only because you are assuming his view. If his view isn’t assumed, then all his rhetoric is meaningless frothing and foaming. If my view were assumed, I could vociferously condemn Luther for not being satisfied with what God has given (scripture) and cast aspersions at him for adding his own innovations to the true commands of baptism, the lord’s supper, confession and forgiveness, etc. But I don’t think that would help anyone to think clearly about the real issues, and I don’t think Luther’s rhetoric does either.
Thank you for the invitation. I look forward to taking you up on it this fall!
KWR
Kevin,
You write, “My points about all but the sacrament (the ones you say ‘don’t stick’) were not critiques but agreements.” Yes, you agreed with these points, but you use your agreement on these points as leverage for a critique by saying that since you, as a Baptist, agree in principle with these things they can’t really work as reasons to for me to become a Lutheran. I’m glad we agree on these points, but this doesn’t prevent them from entering as valid reasons for departing from life with Baptists.
You continue, “These are things which you like about certain Lutherans (those you have come into contact with), it may even be that a larger percentage of those who call themselves Lutheran than those who call themselves Baptist perform well in these areas, but they are not things which commend Lutheran theology to you over Baptist theology, because they are not differences.”
I have become Lutheran not simply for theological reasons but also for what I see in much of Lutheran church life. You seem to think that theological reasons are only what counts and since Baptists technically could practice in a similar way to Lutherans then what I highlight are not differences.
Consider, however, group (L) who believes (x) and group (B) who believes (y). Group (L) commonly practices (m). Group (B) does not commonly practice (m) but instead commonly practices (p). Practice (m) does not contradict Group (B)’s belief (y) but commonly Group (B) has an aversion to (m). Someone from group (B) finds that to practice (m) is better than to practice (p). While he recognizes that (m) doesn’t contradict (y), the strong aversion that so many in group (B) have for (m) encourages him to become part of group (L) where (m) is a highly common practice. This person does not leave group (B) because of a contradiction with (y) but because of (m) is a more common and promoted practice in group (L).
Replace any of these variables with actual groups, beliefs and practices of your liking. In no case need one have a reason of belief for leaving one group to join another. A difference in practice can serve as a reason even where there is not inconsistency of beliefs. So you are right that several of the points I mention “are not things which commend Lutheran theology to [me] over Baptist theology”, but you are wrong that “they are not differences.” They are differences of common practice regardless of whether they are differences of theology. Most Baptists, however, do disagree with me ideologically on matters of liturgy, tradition, and confession in spite of the fact that Baptist theology does not entail disagreement with me on these matters. You can continue to protest that my reasons (aside from the sacraments) are not valid reasons to become a Lutheran because of the technicality that Baptists could practice these things, but my reasons go beyond the question of what Baptist theology will let you get away with. I am interested in participating with a group that is not dominantly suspicious of a formal liturgy and the confession of a historic faith, and so I maintain that this is a valid reason to leave the Baptist tradition and join the Lutheran tradition.
I went back to look at what I said about unity to make sense of your criticism. I said, “that the Lutheran Confessions unite confessing Lutherans around more than simply a particular view of baptism.” You say that any unity of significance does not mean possessing a copy of the Book of Concord which could be purchased for $30 retail. This is a nice piece of rhetoric, but I never said or implied anything about unity resulting from owning a copy of the BoC. So to present an argument that actually makes a connection with what I said more is needed.
As for the rest of your views on unity you seem to be confusing union and unity in Christ with all other talk of unity, such that someone has to only speak of unity in Christ for their talk about unity to be worth anything. But this is an absurd limitation of a person’s vocabulary. My statement that the Lutheran Confessions unite Lutherans does not mean that I cannot also hold that believers are united in Christ. You and I are united in Christ as a Baptist and a Lutheran, but we are not united on our views of baptism, for example. Yet, it is absurd to say that the only unity of significance is unity in Christ. Though less important than unity in Christ, unity in belief in baptism is not insignificant. I don’t see that discussing what is an appropriate and inappropriate understanding of unity is very relevant to the discussion at hand.
It’s hard to tell whether or not you are really saying that Luther is adding to the gospel. It would be a serious accusation against the Lutheran understanding of the gospel. I’d be interested to know if you truly think this.
Luther’s criticism of those who despise the sacraments is not simply rhetoric. What sets him apart from those who invent extra-biblical sacraments is that even if Luther is wrong about his view of the sacraments he’s guilty of understanding grace to be present activities mentioned in Scripture. He’s not inventing activities which are clearly never mentioned in Scripture and assigning the communication of grace to them. Once again, it is hard to take seriously an argument that says Luther was not satisfied with Scripture, when his regard for Scripture can be shown to be higher than many Baptists who think that Scripture is the only formal means of grace.
To go back to the real heart of our disagreement, you are insistent that only those things which a Baptist could not believe or practice can count as valid reasons for becoming Lutheran. I think that a practice which is highly uncommon in Baptist life whether it contradicts Baptist theology or not also can be a factor for siding with confessing Lutherans. Perhaps you can make clearer why this doesn’t count.
John,
I just realized that there has been a surprising amount of misunderstanding. Given the fact that you are interacting with a Baptist regarding a post titled “Why I Became a Lutheran,” I suppose I should have realized that there would be a tendency toward defensiveness–but I’m not always so quick on those things.
Anyway, my point about all the “group” distinctions (vs the theological ones) was not that they are invalid. Rather, I was saying that they are secondary. The primary issue is the theological disagreement, which centers on the issue of the sacraments–that is “the real heart of our disagreement.”
I was dismissive regarding all the other points not because I thought them invalid, but because I think they are not issues of serious disagreement. I am much more concerned about your conversion to Lutheran theology than I am about your desire to have a more meaningful liturgy. In fact, I largely agree with you on those secondary points, so there is little for us to argue about in them. What disagreements we do have on those issues are, I think, trivial compared to that of Lutheran vs Baptist theology.
So, to follow your language, I acknowledge that (m) vs (p) is important and can be a valid reason for considering whether or not (L) is superior to (B). But I think it is much more important to discuss (x) vs (y), and (m) vs (p) is just a different issue from that.
Regarding Unity: Actually, you wrote “These historic documents along with the rest of the Lutheran confessions identify the theology of Lutheranism and unite confessing Lutherans around more than simply a particular view of baptism.” It certainly appears that you were saying that this unity (which you criticize Baptists for not having) is a function of the possession of those documents. My point was that possession of documents does not create a significant kind of unity. I suppose the unity would be a bit more meaningful if you say that Lutherans not only possess these documents, but generally approve of them–but a very small bit.
We agree that unity in Christ is important, but it seems you believe it to be insufficient, for your criticize Baptists for not having an additional unity which can be derived from certain kinds of books and documents. But, where does scripture teach us the importance of creating and fostering additional types of unity to our unity in Christ? It is important for us to understand and seek to live out the implications of our unity in Christ, but it is still that unity which holds all the importance. However, this is still a secondary issue–and one on which I suspect that we mostly agree. We should really be discussing “(x)” vs “(y).”
I think you must have read my point about Luther’s rhetoric too quickly. I gave the fictional example of someone who decrees that “hand raising” is “baptism.” Such a person would be no less guilty of innovation by the mere fact that he called his innovation by the name “baptism.” Similarly, if someone invents a ritual of regeneration involving water, labeling that as “baptism” does not make him any less guilty of innovation. My point from Galatians was not that Luther was adding to the gospel, but that adding foreign ideas to something valid (in this case baptism) is the invention of a different thing (just like adding to the gospel was the invention of a different gospel).
So, Luther’s condemnation of invention is meaningless unless there is an assumption made about what is the original. His rhetoric has no function except that of making those who already agree with him dislike those who don’t–it offers nothing to explain why others should agree with him. To use your language, it is like saying, “(y) is really really bad because it is not (x).” That says nothing to address whether whether either (x) or (y) is true.
KWR
Dee Rock,
For a work on the Lutheran view of the Eucharist you can do no better than Herman Sasse’s work, This Is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar. I’d also highly recommend Jonathan Trigg’s work, Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther.
For a single-volume discussion of all the sacraments I recommend the current work, The Preached God: Proclamation in Word and Sacrament (Lutheran Quarterly Books) by Gerhard O. Forde, Mark C. Mattes, and Steven D. Paulson. I have not read this book but have heard that it is excellent.
Thanks for asking.
Thanks for posting this. This has been a fascinating read for me, as lately I’ve been reading up on Lutheran church, and the more I read about the Missouri synod and it’s pratices, the more I’ve been compelled to start attending the local denomination (coming from a Presbyterian background, I’ve also noticed that there are many similiarities.)
God’s blessing,
Rob
A book I would highly recommend to anyone on the Lord’s Supper is Martin Chemnitz’ “The Lord’s Supper.” It is awesome. It was written in the 16th century and it is not a “light read” but it will offer you an astounding treasure of truth on the Supper. After reading it, if you are not beating down your pastor’s door asking him for more opportunities to recive this gift…well, just read it and see what you think.
http://www.cph.org
We publish it and sell it.
The peace of Christ be with you all.
Paul McCain
Kevin,
Realizing that there has been misunderstanding only means that understanding has been acheived, otherwise we’d have no knowledge that there was misunderstanding in the first place. Hopefully more understanding will follow.
You’re right that I’m defensive about my reasons for becoming Lutheran, but I’m defensive only in the sense that I’m defending the validity of those reasons not in the sense that I’m thin-skinned about it. I’m grateful for the degree to which you and I agree on these matters, but as you say they are secondary reasons and do not take primacy in the way that the differences between Baptist theology and Lutheran theology does (such as our differences on the sacraments). They are not irrelevant though. One may agree theologically with Lutherans and yet remain part of the Baptist group. Theological agreement does not a Lutheran make. This is why I withheld calling myself a Lutheran prior to my confirmation. I agreed with Lutheran theology before my confirmation but was not a Lutheran until the church receives me. I don’t think being a part of a denomination comes by simply either agreeing with the doctrine or by joining the group. Both are necessary. If I had agreed with the Lutheran view of the sacraments but could not stomach their practice on any of the other points I mentioned, I’d probably never have joined the group known as Lutherans. So while the theology takes primacy it does not take ultimacy.
You believe that my statement on unity indicates that the possession of documents is what gives a particular group unity. I do not believe this. If my statement led you to that conclusion, then I will have to say it differently. Unity is of course unity not from owning a particular set of documents, but from believing the truths the documents communicate.
We still disagree on whether one can rightly use the word “unity” to describe believing the same doctrines. You seem to want to reserve all meaningful use of that term to unity in Christ. As I said in my previous comment, that unity is primary but it does not mean that there is no such thing as unity in any other sense of the word. You and I are not unified on our view of baptism, but we do share unity in Christ (the latter being far more significant).
I don’t think that Scripture speaks of us adding to the unity we have in Christ. Here again, however, I think that you press the use of the word unity to an unnecessary restricted sense. (I’m beginning to wonder if you have a problem with calling them the United States). The fact that I can say that believing the Lutheran Confessions unites Lutherans around other beliefs beside a view of baptism does not require that I believe unity in Christ to be insufficient. It seems to be an obvious point that Lutherans are more united with one another in their view of the sacraments than they are united with Baptists. Scripture does command us to preserve the unity of the Spirit (Eph 4:3), and we are told that officers of the church have been given to the church “for the building up of the body of Christ until we all attain to the unity of the faith” (4:12-13). This indicates that we do not yet possess all the unity we can possess. But does this mean, therefore, that the unity we already have in Christ is insufficient? Of course not. There is an already/not yet tension that both provides us unity in Christ and yet says that we must attain to it. Thus I find it entirely responsible to and consistent with Scripture’s teaching on unity to say that by believing these common doctrines Lutherans possess unity. These Scripture verses are not simply commands to “live out the implications of our unity in Christ.” Instead they speak of the body growing up into Christ, maturing in unity. There is yet a further unity to be attained.
I understand your point that calling an innovation “baptism” is still an innovation and not baptism. I’m simply pointing out the asymmetry of someone who wants to maintain practices (he believes) are found in Scripture as the means of grace compared with others who are disinterested in whether their means of grace are grounded in Scripture or not. Thus, Luther’s insistence to be faithful to the means of grace found in Scripture is a laudable point to make against those who seek to create means of grace clearly outside of Scripture. You are at least saying that Luther’s view of the sacraments is debatable. But an altar call, for example, as a means of grace is virtually beyond debate, and Luther is right to fault those who have clearly gone beyond what is taught in Scripture (and I think you can agree with this point). It is not simply rhetorical fluff, because Luther is not saying “(y) is really really bad because it is not (x).” Rather, he’s saying “(y) is bad because it’s not biblical, you’ve invented what we don’t find in Scripture as the means of grace, and I think (x) is what we find in Scripture.” I trust you can see the difference.
Hopefully, we are making headway in this conversation.
John,
I wasn’t suggesting that you are thin-skinned. I was merely pointing out that you were trying to defend positions that I wasn’t trying to attack. But the misunderstanding did come from both sides.
When I said they were secondary, I meant only that. I did not say or mean that they are irrelevant, and I acknowledged their importance for certain considerations. But, I still think those considerations are generally secondary. I still think that while all those things strongly encouraged you to become a Lutheran, the acceptance of a Lutheran theology of the sacraments compels you. What I mean is that before accepting Luther’s view on the sacraments you had the option of considering whether Lutheranism suits you better than “Baptistism”, but having accepted it, you really have no choice. You would no longer fit into the membership of a sound Baptist church any more than I would fit into the membership of a sound Lutheran church.
I also didn’t say that only one kind of unity exists. Rather I said that only our unity in Christ is ultimatelysignificant. Obviously, there are all sorts of unity, and every unity is only as significant as the uniting factor (even if that factor is something so trivial as the enjoyment of fried catfish or the possession of an automobile).
Unity is a bit like zeal. Zeal for zeal’s sake is nothing more than agitated confusion. In order for zeal to be commendable, it must be zeal for a good thing (“It is fine to be zealous, provided that the purpose is good”). And, when zeal is for something the zealot’s focus is completely removed from the zeal itself to the object of his zeal. So it is with unity.
I’m not saying that creeds, etc. are useless, but that they are valuable because they attempt to focus on and declare the truth. Unity is a byproduct, to be sure, but one whose quality tends to degrade the more it is focused upon. Because of that and because I still think we have little if any real disagreement on the subject, I’ll leave you the last word on unity to you.
Regarding Luther’s quote; I see your point that promotion of things that obviously have no foundation in scripture (you example of “altar” calls is a good one) is a failure of a higher order than misunderstanding concepts that really do come from scripture.
Having looked more carefully at your citation, I’m not sure I understand Luther’s attack. He is criticizing those who look to building projects, pilgrimages, etc., as means of grace. But it seems like he is only criticizing them for not trusting completely in “Baptism, the Eucharist, absolution, and our calling. Catholics (who seem to be the target of his criticism–those who emphasized buildings, pilgrimages, and the like) also view “Baptism, the Eucharist, absolution, and our calling” as means of grace. So, it seems that–in this citation–Luther intends specifically to criticize those whoadd other means rather than those who argue that those things are not means in the sense that he proposes.
If that is true, then I think you may have posed a false dichotomy. While it is true that many non-Lutheran Evangelicals do invent things which they (just as much as Catholics) treat as means of grace, it is not necessary that those who disagree with Luther’s view of the sacraments must (by virtue of their rejecting those things as means of grace) create extra-scriptural alternatives.
Your offer to entertain questions about your decision of course does not rule out questions of other sorts. But (as reflected by our many conversations on the subject) the only important questions I have about your decision to become a Lutheran have to do with sacramental theology. I suspect we are yet many pints away from agreement on that one.
I know; beer doesn’t necessarily generate agreement–but it can’t hurt!
KWR
Kevin,
Thanks for clearing up the confusion. I understand your point and am glad that to know that you don’t consider the non-sacramental points I raise to be irrelevant reasons to being Lutheran.
As far as our discussion on unity goes, we both agree that unity is found in Christ, but I think we continue to disagree on whether all other unity worth having is a further expression of our unity in Christ or a further unity that comes by maturing in the faith for those already united in Christ. I’m disposed toward the latter view.
About the Luther quote I gave, you write: “It seems that–in this citation–Luther intends specifically to criticize those who add other means rather than those who argue that those things are not means in the sense that he proposes.” I agree, but I’m not sure what difference this makes for critiquing those makeshift means of grace that some people elevate. In either case — whether a catholic who adds other means of grace to Luther’s list of sacraments or an evangelical who unwittingly invents means of grace while consciously holding that preaching and reading Scripture is the only proper means of grace — they are still heaping up improper means of grace in both cases. Either way it warrants criticism. I know you agree. I think Luther’s quote applies to evangelicals as Catholics of the 16th century because both groups “slight Baptism, the Eucharist, absolution, and our calling.” Inventing means of grace by definition means that someone finds the true means of grace (whatever they are) inadequate.
I have not proved that those who despise the Lutheran means of grace must necessarily invent their own means of grace. I’m not sure that’s even provable. But it is a particularly evident phenomenon in evangelicalism, and it was just as much (if not more) of a phenomenon even in a time when evangelicals were at the peak of their regard for Scripture (altar calls were replete and “quiet time” was all the rage). I suspect that this will always be the case for a group that despises the means of grace held by Lutherans, but, no, I can’t prove it. I’m not sure where the false dichotomy comes in though.
We may not ever come to agreement on the sacraments but we can certainly come to better understand one another’s reasons. I think we’re getting there. I’m curious to know how the written and preached word of God can work as the all-encompassing sacrament. I’d rather see the word of God as the all-encompassing means of grace manifest in different forms (I’m sure some regard this as necessarily leading to Barthianism), but this is a huge topic for another time. I’m sure it will get tossed around over a pint and a couple of cigars at some point.
John,
The false dichotomy I suggested would come in applying Luther’s criticism to any who reject the notion that baptism and Eucharist are means in the Lutheran sense.
Certainly Luther’s critique would apply to those Evangelicals who create alternative means, but there is a third group (my group, of course) which rejects the Lutheran view of the sacrament and does not add additional means to scripture. Not all who reject Luther’s view must invent alternative means.
Regarding your last point: I agree, it is a big one, and I doubt I fully understand the question. From what I think I understand, I would ask: How is the perceived problem eliminated even if two or three other means are allowed? Could not the same question be asked of Luther? What makes baptism, Eucharist, and absolution necessarily adequate where one might accuse scripture of being (for whatever reason) inadequate? If God can work through 4 means, why could he not through 1? And if he can’t work through 1, what is to make someone so confident about 4?
KWR
Kevin,
You are correct that applying Luther’s criticism to someone like yourself who rejects the Lutheran view of the sacraments only works from an assumption of the Lutheran view. You are not running to Rome and to St James (or walking aisles or observing your “quiet time” like a talisman), but I do think that you are slighting baptism, the Lord’s supper and absolution, but here my Lutheran assumptions are showing.
I’m still not sure why you call this a false dichotomy. If anything, applying the same criticism both to your view and the broader evangelical view would be a false monotype by grouping those that should be distinguished under the same criticism.
I’m tempted to answer the questions you raise but I’m going to resist the devil for now since it would likely launch us into more discussion than I can commit to at this point. Perhaps we can save it for personal conversation.
John,
What I referred to as false dichotomy is that you seemed to be implying that either one accepts the Lutheran sacramental view or one slights baptism and invents substitutes. That would be a false dichotomy because a third group exists which does not accept Luther’s view but also does not invent other things.
I completely agree with you on the other question. While blogging is great, it suffers some rather pronounced handicaps when compared with actual conversation.
KWR
[...] John’s article on why he became a Lutheran is found here. Bookmark and Share:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
Hey John (dogg),
Congratulations on your transition into the Lutheran Church. I sure the road away from baptist theology towards Lutheranism was both challenging and rewarding for you and Emily. May the Lord bless you both richly as you worship and draw near to the Triune God through prayer, the word, and sacraments.
Tom
From another CCC-grad gone Reformed, welcome to the riches of God’s glorious Grace found in our humble tradition.
One of the saddest things that has ever happened in Christianity is false teaching that Jesus does not save through the sacraments. For the first 1500 years after the resurrection, there was agreement that the holy waters of baptism had God’s saving grace associated with them and thus, we had no problem in infants being baptized. This was God’s means of washing and rebirth and in no ways was it the work of man. Then the Anabaptists challanged this truth and said that people needed to be rebaptized in order to be saved. In that very moment in history, we took God out of the sacrament and replaced it with the work of man. We said that a person must come to believe and make a choice to “earn” salvation. I would rather know that I am saved by grace alone through faith and not the work of any man including myself.
John,
Glad to hear of you transition. What’s up with all the CCC kids going Reformed?
Jonathan,
Perhaps you are using Reformed in the broadest sense possible (which would have to include Baptists), but Lutherans do not consider themselves Reformed. This is the badge worn by those who identify with Calvin and his successors. Still, if you want to know why I think not only CCC grads, but many others as well, are leaving evangelicalism, see my post: http://chaosandoldnight.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/what-evangelicals-can-learn-from-francis-beckwiths-conversion-to-catholicism/
Hey John,
Not sure if you remember me, but we attended Clifton together and you were the grader (and sometimes teacher) for Barry Joslin when I took Greek. Anyways, I’m excited to hear about the big changes in ya’lls life. My family and I made a similar move about a year and half ago and it was one of the hardest things I ever did. Talk about anxiety, I don’t know about you, but I grew up in the SBC, so it was all I knew – outside of books! I should tell you, when you were filling in for Barry when his mother died, you made some comments in class that caught my attention at the time. I was in the midst of struggling through some issues – specifically sacramental issues – and while I don’t remember what you said, I do remember thinking, “Is John really a baptist?” Well, I’ve got a few things that I would love to discuss with you – but I would rather do it by e-mail – I didn’t see your e-mail posted anywhere on the blog, though. Oh, and one more thing, as I was searching for an e-mail, I saw where you mentioned that you and Emily met while in college in Tampa… did you go to USF? That’s where my wife and I went – about 10 years ago – we grew up in the Brandon area. Well, take care, and I look forward to talking with you.
Brian McLain
Oh, btw… Excellent paper on baptism!!!!
Brian,
Of course I remember you! Unfortunately, I’m not sure how much you remember me. I did not grade for Barry Joslin or ever substitute teach for him. You might be thinking of John Moody. I think he may have filled in for Joslin during that time.
As far as leaving the Baptist tradition, yes, it was a very difficult decision, but one I felt I made after serious inquiry into both the Baptist and the Lutheran view of the sacraments. I can say in good conscience that my motive was to be faithful to the word of God and obey the Savior.
Emily and I did not go to USF, though I went to quite a few USF Bulls football games. We both attended Clearwater Christian College. If you want email, my address is johnfraiser@gmail.com
I hope that you and Denise and your children are doing well. I grew up in Montgomery and just drove through Birmingham a couple of weeks ago while going down to visit family. Thanks for your well-wishing.
[...] be difficult for us to disagree with this statement. You can read the rest of Fraizer’s post here. [...]
I am happy for you and your family. God bless. Your stuff on the sacraments, and liturgy is right on.
Grace and Peace.
Yeah, I’m a dork. That was Moody. You know, I’ve only been gone from seminary for a year and half, but it seems like a lifetime sometimes. Well, if Moody ever reads this blog, hopefully he won’t be offended that I questioned his “baptist-ness”
Brian
Well delivered, John. Although I believe there is a measure of grace to be received from God in “personal devotion/quiet time”. Unless I am deceived I know I find much grace in my own.
I nearly became a Lutheran myself for all the reasons you mention. Today I’m an Anglican for similar reasons. Especially the beer drinking.
May God bless you on the journey and fill you with his own life through the comfort of the sacraments. Pax.
Jamey,
Thank you for your kind regards. Most of all, thank you for the great work that you and others are doing over at Wittenberg Hall.
Joel,
My apologies for taking so long to reply to your comment. I’ll explain further what I mean when I criticize “devotions/quiet time” as a means of grace. In my experience evangelicals have turned Bible-reading into a daily obligation whereby they believe that if they miss a day they are not as blessed or do not enjoy the same level of grace that they would have had they read their Bible that day. The Bible is certainly the voice of God and is certainly powerful, but simply sitting down with it and reading through it won’t do anything of significance. It is the Spirit of God working with the word of God that is effective.
Furthermore, the Bible has not always been as accessible in previous generations as it is in ours due to our technological advancements in printing and distribution. People have not always been able to have their “daily devotions.”
To consider daily Bible-reading a means of grace is a makeshift sacrament. The word of God when believed, obeyed and cherished is certainly a means of grace, but there’s nothing about reading it that communicates grace. Evangelicals who treat the Bible this way have an ex opere operato view of grace similar to the ex opere operato view of the Catholic mass that they would never accept.
From what I know of you, Joel, I do not think that you treat Bible-reading in the typical evangelical fashion. So my criticism of Bible-reading as a sacrament is not aimed at you.
Thank you for encouraging me to think about this further.
Thanks John. Your statement is clear now.
[...] John’s article on why he became a Lutheran is found here. [...]
Hey, loved reading your story, too!
Christ, beer, and cabbage! Yay!
God Bless,
LL
Bro. Fraiser
Thanks for sharing your story. I too am at a point of converting to Lutheranism, for similar, but also different reasons then yourself. My struggle has been with the the way in which some of the Baptist brethren conduct themselves as Christians and the Legalism involved in becoming a local church member. I personally am a King James Bible believer, as some of the brethren would classify me (King James Only). I find intriging that these “brethren” talk about how Biblical and how the Bible is their absolute final authority, but when you pin them down an regards to how they view the preservation and perfection of the KJV they will say only the “original autographs” were perfect. The problem with that statement is that we don’t have the originals. On top of this debaucle they fail to recognize that God has never cared about originals he promised to preserve His word. (Psalm 12:6-7 Matt 24:35). Remember the ten commandments that were presented to Israel were not the originals, the conversation between Moses and Pharaoh were originally in Egyptian, the Hebrew of this conversation is a translation Exo 34:1-4). For other examples of this see (Jer 36, 51:60-64, Acts 18:28,21:40;22:22). Another inconsistency I find is how a Baptist will make a sacrament out of the Morners bench and dont even realize it. The way of thinking for the most part is if a believer does not come forward after 20 stanzas of “Just as I am” to confess there sins and short comings for the week they are not right with God. The other instance is unless you have been baptized in a Baptist church by a Baptist minister your Baptism (Alien Baptism) is invalid and you must be re- baptized to become a member of the local Baptist church. I know of people who were denied membership into the Baptist assembly that had been Baptized (fully immersed) after profession of faith simply because a non Baptist performed the Baptism. This cannot in any way be justified by the Scriptures. Some of the local assemblies will not allow you to take Communion unless you have been water Baptized. I would not have a problem with this way of thinking if Baptists believed that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were a means of grace. However, being that they don’t recognize either as Sacraments, why put so many unbiblical benchmarks upon them? I too find great peace and joy in the liturgy and piety of the Lutheran service. I’m not totally on board with Lutheran Theology, but I see an integrity, reverence and great spiritual value within Lutheranism particularly (LCMS) that is lacking in most Baptist congregations. I do see a sanctifying grace to the Lord’s Supper for the believer in Jesus Christ as their Saviour. I still have a problem applying “original sin” to infants and people who are unable to make an informed conscious decision to accept or reject. See Rom 3:20,4:15,5:13, 7:7-10, Ezra 8:1-12,I Kings 14:12-13, II Sam 12:23. However, at the same time I think I understand from going through the Luthern confessions (some in there entirety) that Luther wanted to cover all the bases. May the peace of our lord Jesus Christ be upon you and may you continue to grow in grace.
David
David,
I too originate from a legalistic, fundamentalist church background and am grateful for some of the things I was raised to believe and for baptizing me. I have tried to have a balanced appreciation for the churches in which I grew up as well as a biblical and cultural critique of their doctrine and practice. I have not always been fair to these groups in what I have said. I don’t always treat them fairly. On some issues I have criticized them wrongly and on some issues I have not been hard enough on them enough.
Your point on the morner’s bench or “old-fashioned altar” is spot on. There are many things that have been made into sacraments, particularly “devotions”. This is a time in which one is encouraged to have an existential experience with God by reading the Bible. Of course, reading the Bible is good to know what God has said and to hear the gospel, but nothing magical happens simply by reading the Bible and I have nearly unequivocally been given this impression by Baptist groups.
I’m glad to see that you aren’t leaving your Baptist experience because you expect your Lutheran experience to be perfect or even close to perfect. It won’t be. However, in terms of theology and worship, confessing Lutherans are much more biblical than Baptists.
I doubt you will find a KJV-only Lutheran church but perhaps I am mistaken.
I have known many King James only Christians in my time. I once had church members calling for me to be fired from a church position because I prepared my sermon from something other than a KJV. I have debated countless hours with KJV-only Christians and find their arguments entirely unconvincing. Also, after studying the history of the Textus Receptus and KJV I became even more solidified in my view that the KJV and is not God’s only inerrant inspired word. As you point out, we do not have the autographs, but neither do we have a word from God that the KJV is the only inspired translation. It seems an arbitrary choice to pick the KJV. Why not Die Luther Bibel? Seems one could argue for it’s sole inspiration just as well as the KJV. I would encourage you to reconsider your interpretation of God’s promise to preserve his word. Most Christians can confidently hold a responsible translation of the Bible and say that God has in fact preserved his word with no worry over claims about “missing verses.” That’s my word on the matter, but I don’t want to get distracted too much with our difference on this issue.
How are your family and friends responding to your transition? It was difficult for some of our family and particularly some of our friends, but the Lord has been gracious to us, and we (for the most part) have maintained Christian fellowship.
Thank you for telling your story and for your conviction to follow the word of God. Perhaps we can continue to dialogue on Lutheran issues. I praise the Lord for his work in you.
-John
John
Thanks for your thoughts. As far as the response from family and friends I don’t get alot of criticism face to face. The biggest issue that one of my family members has is the traditional rejection of pre-millenialism. However I have pointed out to them that there have been pre-mill Lutherans in the past such as Joseph Seiss who was a Lutheran pastor from Maryland. He wrote a number of books dealing diverse issues. There was also lesser known pre-mill Lutherans such as George Peters.
As far as the Bible version issue goes I too don’t wish to turn this into a Manuscript evidence debate. The only things I will point out regarding your comments is that I have no problem with Luthers Bible being the word of God to the German people. For one reason it was translated primarily from the T.R. (AKA Antiochan Text) just as the A.V. Secondly It was what God wanted the German people to have or as you would say it was soley inspired at that time. I also have no problem when the KJV translators deviated from the T.R. to translate something. The last thing I will point out regarding this issue is to remember that Egypt in the Bible is a type of the world and nothing favorible is spoken of it. This is where the manuscripts ( only 44 in number) from which the modern translations are based (Alexandrian Text). Luther, Olivetan, Reina, A.V. etc are all from Antioch where you have over 5000 manuscripts to witness, and where they were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). But anyway that’s all I have to share on this matter.
What synod are you affiliated with? Do you still adhere to any Baptist Theology or have you adopted Luthern Theology in it’s entirety?
The other thing I really like about Luthern worship and practice is the fact that they don’t just look to preaching as the only way to recieve grace and spiritual growth. As you pointed out in your blog, preaching is fine if you have the right preacher. I believe it can be potentialy dangerous for a young Christian to be soley at the mercy of preaching. I have become convinced that if a person is seeking for truth that the Lord will reveal Himself to them.
I have also noticed that you don’t see the egocentric, arrogant in behaviour Lutheran’s as you see in the Baptist’s. I’m sure you know what I mean when I say this.
Hope to hear from you soon.
David
John
Correction on my first question, which district do you belong?
I spent the first 50 years of my life as a Lutheran and then became a Baptist because I honestly feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Baptist church and didn’t in the LCMS church. I felt I was just going to the motions at the Lutheran church. I had the service so memorized I didn’t even have to think about what I was saying. The sermons were scripture based but so boring I couldn’t remember what was said an hour later. I am sure that there will be Lutherans and Baptists in heaven but I honsestly feel when I leave the Baptist church on Sunday I am more prepared to fight Satan for another week.