|
|
 |
This site reflects only my own understanding and appreciation of the teachings of Martin Luther. It is in no way authoritative. (But that's Dr. Luther, not me, at the left.)
I was raised in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (the "LCMS") but left it in my early twenties for the Pentecostal world. After spending more than twenty years there, I very happily returned to Lutheranism and the LCMS. There's a link on the left to an article named "My Story" that tells why.
I've also continued to post on the Web discussion board run by people from one of the Pentecostal churches of which I was a member, and I am not shy about posting my reasons for returning to the Lutheran church. As a result, I get asked a lot of questions (to put it politely) about Lutheranism and I've developed some stock answers to the questions with which I am frequently confronted. In addition to that, I've also collected a lot of material that illustrates, to me at least, the value of Luther's teaching on various questions I've had myself.
This has given me more than enough material for starting my own Lutheranism FAQ, so I've decided to make a formal Web page of it. I hope this helps you as a visitor to this site to better understand Luther and his teachings.
Steve Born
~ Lutheranism ~
Frequently Asked Questions
~ Answers ~
Q. Isn't Lutheran theology Calvinistic? I heard that they don't believe in free will.
|
A. Lutheran theology does hold that man cannot choose freely in spiritual matters prior to his regeneration by God - he's spiritually dead and his will is bound up completely in sin. Calvin and Lutheran developed this idea separately by studying the New Testament - they knew very little of each other's theology. Their teaching on the inability of man's will to cooperate with God in conversion was in opposition to the Roman Catholic teaching that held man's will to be free and to be able to cooperate in conversion. Luther regarded his rejection of this doctrine to be very nearly the core of the Reformation and of his disagreement with Rome. The doctrine that man can and should cooperate in his conversion was the root of the Roman system of piety that he came to despise.
Of his own works Luther thought his book The Bondage of the Will was the best and most significant. It was a response to the work Diatribe or Collation Concerning Free Will, written by Erasmus on behalf of the Roman church. I recommend reading Luther's work, if only to get an understanding of the issue.
Calvinism is usually defined with reference to the well-known acrostic T.U.L.I.P -Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
Of these, Lutherans accept only the first, defined on one Lutheran Web site as follows: Calvin correctly taught that because of original sin, all human beings are conceived and born totally corrupt (depraved) in spiritual matters. In other words, all people are born spiritually dead and blind, and therefore they are unable to seek God or contribute anything to their salvation. People do not have freedom to seek or choose God. This agrees with our Lutheran teaching (see Gen 6:5; 8:21; Ps 14:1-4; Mt 19:25-26; Mark 7:21-23; John 6:44,65; Acts 26:18; Rom 1:18-21; 3:9-19,23; 8:7; Eph 2:1-10; 1 Co 2:14; 12:3; 2 Co 4:4). The Web page from which I got this quote is a good comparison of Lutheranism with Calvinism. It's at http://www.orlutheran.com/calvinisttheology.html. (Back to questions.) |
Q. I grew up in a Lutheran church and never even knew a person could be born again and have a personal relationship with Jesus until I heard it at a revival the Baptist church was having in our town. Then I went forward in response to an altar call to accept Jesus, and my life has completely changed! Why don't Lutheran churches teach people to be born again?
|
A. Lutherans believe it best to teach people the Biblical meaning of being born again instead of leading people to believe it comes by their own decision to "accept Jesus." In its Biblical context, being born again is a result of the Holy Spirit working through the Word and baptism, as shown by John 3:3-5 --Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Even before I began my return to Lutheranism, I began to suspect that most if not all "decisions for Jesus" made at revivals were induced by manipulative or emotionalistic preaching rather than by a pure work of the Holy Spirit. I think that because some Biblical truths are preached at revivals, the conversions that occur at them are probably genuine, but that the people who are converted there are given an unstable foundation by the leaders who are in fact preaching an emotion- and experience-centered religion rather than the pure Biblical faith. The believers saved in their meetings are immediately led astray. Having started by believing they were saved by their own decision to "accept Jesus," the validity of which was proven by the intense emotion surrounding the moment, they constantly depend upon their own works, feelings, and experiences to prove the validity of their continued faith and life in Christ rather than depending upon the means shown in the Bible - the Word and sacraments given to them by God through His ministers.
I believe (based both upon observation of several different types of revivalistic Christianity and upon personal participation in one) that relying upon one's own works, feelings, and "spiritual" experiences is unstable and uncertain, and leads eventually to burnout, cynicism, and despair. (Back to questions.) |
Q. Good grief. You've settled for a lifeless, dead "churchianity." Can't you see that Lutheran theology results in whole churches full of people who do nothing but who think they're saved just because they were baptized as infants?
|
A.That was precisely the thinking that at one time led me out of the Lutheran church. I have since realized that I was being incredibly judgmental about people who I really knew nothing about, other than the fact that they didn't like to raise their hands in worship and sing loud Gospel choruses like the Pentecostal church that I had begun to visit. I realized that those things were not true measures of what was going on in their hearts and lives. People who by temperament liked to clap, raise their hands, and sing loud Gospel choruses turned out to be just as capable of hypocrisy (if not more so) as those who preferred hymns and organ music.
More to the point, however, Luther did not discount the importance of believers doing good works in obedience to God. What he did was to distinguish between obedience that is required in order to merit salvation (not possible) and the obedience that comes from gratitude for the salvation we've already been given (if not present, shows we are not really saved.)
It should be clear to any Christian that obedience to God's laws is good, but that it is not the means of salvation, for nobody can completely fulfill those requirements except Christ. Being in him is the only way we obtain the righteousness needed for eternal life. If both faith and obedience are required, we are just as lost as the rich young ruler, because the "requirements" of God are not any more simple in the NT than they were in the OT.And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
(Mark 10:17-27 KJV) We can't obey our way into salvation. Obedience is the fruit that follows salvation, not a requirement of salvation, not the way we get there. God has to give us salvation and righteousness as a free gift of his grace in Christ, then obedience follows out of gratitude.
I like Luther because he taught me to look at everything I do and receive as a total gift and work of the Holy Spirit in me. My own ability to turn and repent, the forgiveness of my sins, righteousness, faith, salvation, and eternal life - they're all gifts given to me by God in His Word and in the sacraments he instituted in His Word, not things that I qualified for by my obedience to a set of requirements. If that's what would have qualified me, I would have failed. Now I no longer have to produce works or a "deeper spiritual life" to prove my standing before God. I do find myself spontaneously obeying God, and wanting to obey God, more than I ever have, but I don't depend upon my record of obedience for anything in particular. In the final analysis, it's imperfect and inconsistent. I will always stand in need of the Gospel - the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, granted to me by God's grace.
Jesus' response to the rich young ruler was not to reveal a work that the young man could do in order to inherit eternal life, but to reveal that nobody is capable of earning it by works because nobody is capable of truly obeying the entire law of God required for eternal life. Remember that Jesus' words came only after the young ruler had first claimed he had perfectly kept all the commandments. However, there's always something that reveals you aren't really obeying God's law no matter how well you think you are. If it's our obedience to God's requirements that we're looking at as a means of gaining salvation, then it's impossible to get. That's why I think a Gospel that requires obedience is no Gospel at all - it pollutes the Biblical Gospel by not only viewing faith as a requirement that man has to perform from out of his own ability, but on top of that by mixing obedience into it as another requirement. That's known to be a burden that man cannot successfully bear. (Back to questions.) |
Q. In Luther's time, his followers persecuted and put to death Anabaptists. Blood was shed in the name of the doctrine you defend. How can you possibly justify that?
|
A. No blood was shed in the name of Luther's doctrine. What blood was shed was shed by the state enforcing state laws against blasephemy (which included heresy) and sedition that carried the penalty of capital punishment. Though long before Luther's time the church had had a hand in writing the laws against blasphemy, and in determining the guilt of offenders, violations were punished by the state. This situation was inherited, not created, by Luther and the early Lutherans. The problem was not Lutheran doctrine, but a society in which the church had been linked to the state for over a thousand years. Because Luther could not untangle it in twenty-five or thirty years is not his fault. For the first four or five years after he posted the Ninety-Five Theses, he was in danger of becoming its victim just as much as the Anabaptists were.
As for Luther's involvement or cooperation in the persecution of the Anabaptists, here is what he wrote in 1528 to two Catholic priests who had actually asked his opinion:Since there has not been much occasion here for it, I have not, for my part, given much thought to these baptizers. But it serves you right as papists (I must call you such, as long as you are under your tyrants). You will not suffer the gospel, so you will have to endure these devil’s rebels, as Christ says in John 5[:43]: “I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, him you (i.e., the ones who are among you) will receive.” Still, it is not right, and I truly grieve, that these miserable folk should be so lamentably murdered, burned, and tormented to death. We should allow everyone to believe what he wills. If his faith be false, he will be sufficiently punished in eternal hell-fire. Why then should we martyr these people also in this world, if their error be in faith alone and they are not guilty of rebellion or opposition to the government? Dear God, how quickly a person can become confused and fall into the trap of the devil! By the Scriptures and the Word of God, we ought to guard against and withstand him. By fire we accomplish little.
Luther, M. (1999, c1958). Vol. 40: Luther's works, vol. 40 : Church and Ministry II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (Vol. 40, Page 230). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Later, in 1535, the Anabaptist known as John of Leyden proclaimed himself king of the new Jerusalem in Muenster, Germany, took sixteen wives, instituted a reign of terror, enforced collectivization of all property, and forced all Lutheran residents who did not flee the town to be rebaptized, executing some who resisted. Luther then realized what the Anabaptists were capable of. When in 1536 his associate Melanchton recommended to the prince of his territory that Anabaptists receive the death penalty, Luther reluctantly added his signature. (Back to questions.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
