What's the difference between Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian?
Scott B. Moore
My family and I are starting back to church but I'm not sure which one to
attend? Can someone tell me the difference between Lutheran, Methodist and
Presbyterian denominations? I was born and raised a Cathlioc but it was never
the warm, loving falily atmosphere of some of the other churches I attended
while in the Navy. Thanks in advance for your help with this.
Scott
birk
I would there are several differences. It depends on the individual
churches within the different denominations, the individual pastors in the
different churches, etc. However, there some fundamental differences. One
of them is the concept of law. The three churches you mention have a
somewhat different understanding of this notion, even though they are not
mutually exclusive. In a short answer like this, the answer will also be
somewhat simplified. But it seems right to point to the following
differences:
The Lutheran church understands law in two categories, as a political law
and as leading to Christ. Focusing on the latter, we can say that the law
has its function before getting to know Christ. The law reveals the sinful
nature of man and thereby his need of redemption in Christ. When forgiven
in Christ, the law is no longer the guiding principle of the Christian
life. Christ lives in the Christian, why the law shouldn't be necessary any
longer. Brought down to its basics, this seems to be an essential aspect of
Luther's understanding of law. However, it is important to distinguish
between Luther and Lutheran. For many Lutherans (historically close to
Luther and contemporary) the law also had a function in the life of the
Christian, but that is a different story.
The Methodist church seeks a different path. John Wesley was very inspired
by Luthers understanding of law. But he was also worried that this
understanding of law would lead to an unorderly life. For Wesley it was
very important to maintain the holiness of the Christian life. Therefore,
he followed Luther in his understanding of the law as leading to Christ.
However, he maintained the necessity of sanctification of the Christian
nature. For Wesley the redemption of man's sin was the entry to a life,
where he was called to live a holy life. The holy life was considered the
aim of the Christian. As was the case for the Lutheran church, the
contemporary understanding of these issues can vary.
The Presbyterian church has a resemblance to the Methodist. They maintain
that the law is a necessity in the Christian life. One can speak of the
Christian function of the law. Whereas the Lutheran church can fear that
the law in the Christian life can put Christ out of focus, the Presbyterian
church will maintain the necessity of the law as a guiding principle for
the Christian. The Christian needs a law to be educated and to learn how to
live a Christian life.
These are some very tentative remarks on your question. One could have
pointed out many other aspects. If you care for some further reading, try
to get hold of Alister McGrath's: Reformation Thought. An Introduction.
I hope some of this can help you out.
Ulrik Birk Nissen
Scott B. Moore <sc...@buffnet.net> skrev i artiklen
<6esr2d$ncb$1...@buffnet2.buffnet.net>...
fro...@albany.net
On 20 Mar 1998 04:24:45 GMT, sc...@buffnet.net (Scott B. Moore) wrote:
>My family and I are starting back to church but I'm not sure which one to
>attend?
May God bless you in your prayer and meditation to find an appropriate
Church Home.
in the Lutheran church you will find a liturgy that will seem familiar
to you coming from Catholicism as we retained the form of the mass and
the celebration of the Eucharist, which although described differently
by theologians, is still for Lutherans the True body and Blood of Our
Lord giving us his Physical and Spiritual Presence in the Sacrament.
Although there are many similarities and other differences amongst the
groups you mention, this should be brought to light if you are
interested in a church home where this sacrament is offered., as
Lutherans as Catholics and Anglicans and Orthodox see it as central to
our worship.
Soli Deo Gloria
JFP
Charles Hedrick
sc...@buffnet.net (Scott B. Moore) writes:
>My family and I are starting back to church but I'm not sure which one to
>attend? Can someone tell me the difference between Lutheran, Methodist and
>Presbyterian denominations? I was born and raised a Cathlioc but it was never
>the warm, loving falily atmosphere of some of the other churches I attended
>while in the Navy. Thanks in advance for your help with this.
The Lutheran and Presbyterian churches represent the two traditions
that go back to the original magisterial Reformers. The Lutherans go
back to Luther, the Presbyterians to Calvin and Zwingli. The
Methodists are based on Wesley's work. They are an evangelical
offshoot of the Anglicans, which emphasized "heart religion" more than
theology. Here are some of the major differences:
Lutherans and Presbyterians together:
emphasize the role of God's call in salvation
are confessional churches: expect leaders (at least) to operate
in the context of the Reformation theological confessions
believe in the Real Presence in communion
Lutherans
single predestionation
believe that the bread and wine are literally Christ's body and blood
I don't know much about their government.
Presbyterians
double predestination
believe in "spiritual presence": that in communion we have contact
with Christ's body and blood, but through the mediation of the
Holy Spirit
church government is primarily through elected officers, at all
levels. There are no bishops
Methodists:
emphasize the role of our response in salvation
not as much emphasis on theology
tend to be regard communion as symbolic
church government is a combination of hierarchical and democratic
The local church is primarily governed by a board. There are
regional and national boards that determine many issues of policy.
However assignment of clergy is done by titular bishops, and
district superintendents (sort of a local version of a bishop)
have significant authority.
The Lutherans and Presbyterians are theologically closer to each other
than to the Methodists, because Lutheran and Presbyterians are both
confessional churches going back to the theology of the magisterial
Reformers. The differences between Luther and Calvin were fairly
subtle. In contrast, The Methodists are non-confessional, and
Arminian.
However I have to tell you that, at least in the liberal versions
(ELCA, Presbyterian Church (USA) and United Methodist Church), the
differences in theology aren't all that significant. I suspect that
most of the membership of the PCUSA is actually Arminian, and doesn't
give much attention to the confessions. Perhaps the ELCA is a bit
closer to the Lutheran confessional tradition.
For most people, the primary differences will be that the Lutherans
tend to be more liturgical than Presbyterians, and that the churches
are governed in slightly different ways. But frankly the differences
most people care about aren't between denominations. They're between
different congregations. The "feel" of a church depends upon its
size, the particular skills and orientation of the pastor, the
priorities of the congregation, etc. Within a few miles of each other
we have a 1100 member Presbyterian church with a large choir doing
classical music, a good preacher, and an active program, and a very
small Presbyterian congregation (I don't know the size, but I'd be
surprised if it's more than 100 members) with very conservative
theology, and services based on rock music. These churches might as
well be in different denominations.
There are conservative versions of these churches, where the
differences will be more visible. The conservative Methodist and
Presbyterian churches are fairly small, so you may never run into one
of their churches. Conservative Lutheran bodies, such as the Missouri
Synod and Wisconsin Synod, are more visible. The conservative groups
stick a lot closer to the original confessional theology, and
interpret the Bible more literally.
To give you an idea of how things work, the PCUSA and ELCA are
offically in communion with each other. However the more conservative
Presbyterian churches are not in communion with the Presbyterian
Church (USA). Theologically, they are probably closer to the
conservative Lutheran churches than to the PCUSA.
In summary, I think the answer is that for most people there isn't
much difference between Lutheran, Presbyteran, and Methodist (at least
in their liberal versions), but there may be significant difference
among individual congregations and between the liberal and
conservative versions.
Brother B
Scott B. Moore wrote:
>
> My family and I are starting back to church but I'm not sure which one to
> attend? Can someone tell me the difference between Lutheran, Methodist and
> Presbyterian denominations? I was born and raised a Cathlioc but it was never
> the warm, loving falily atmosphere of some of the other churches I attended
> while in the Navy. Thanks in advance for your help with this.
>
The best advice. Pray and seek the Lord Jesus and ask
Him to lead you. He knows better than anyone what church
you should attend, but more importantly, get to know Him.
It's simple just go into your closet, shut the door and
ask Him. He is Faithful and True. It is more important,
your relationship with Him than the church you choose.
I earnesly beg you to seek Him first.
--
Faith that cannot be tested,
cannot be trusted.
Don the Norski
Deb,
You might want to get out your Book of Concord and double check just what Lutherans DO believe about the Body and Blood of Christ. What you told our visitor seems to contradict the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
Dona Nobis Pacem
Don the Norski
A Student of Life <always-...@somewhere.in.life> wrote in article <6ev75g$f...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> hed...@nbcs.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) wrote:
>
>
> >some clipping
> >
> > Lutherans
> > single predestionation
> > believe that the bread and wine are literally Christ's body and blood
> > I don't know much about their government.
> >
>
> No ... we do not believe the wine and bread are literally Christ's
> body and blood. That is a bit too Catholic for us. The term thrown
> about Lutheranism is transubstantiation.
>
> Deb
>
A Student of Life
hed...@nbcs.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) wrote:
>some clipping
>
> Lutherans
> single predestionation
> believe that the bread and wine are literally Christ's body and blood
> I don't know much about their government.
>
no .. we do not believe in predestination... we believe that God has
knowledge of the past, present and the future, but not that he has
predestined anything. It is a bit complicated... but think about it.
God has to know what you will "choose" because he is all-knowing. He
doesn't force you to choose. He exists in a totally different level
than we do, and when we try to force him into ours, it just doesn't
make a lot of sense to us. So he knows what you will choose, you
don't ... but he doesn't make your choice for you.
No ... we do not believe the wine and bread are literally Christ's
body and blood. That is a bit too Catholic for us. The term thrown
about Lutheranism is transubstantiation. Don't worry about it too
much. Christ, when he instituted the sacrament, said to the apostles,
this (the bread) is my body. The apostles did not presume that the
bread became physically Christ, and neither do we. But Christ said
it, so we believe it... he is present in and through the bread, but it
is not flesh and blood..
The government ... the politics. I detest politics in religion, but
to have an organized body of believers, I guess it is a necessary
evil. I cannot speak for the various Luthern sects, I belong to the
ELCA. We have a president, and some other officers. Each synod, a
synod is a workable geographical locale... some states are divided
into multiple synods, some states are all one synod ... depends a lot
on population data; any way each synod has what is called a bishop,
not to be too confused with the Catholic bishop. The bishop is
elected, serves a set number of years and can be re-elected. At this
time there are no bishops-for life.
We allow ordination of men and women. We have two sacraments, the
definition being that a sacrament had to have been commanded by
Christ. He commanded us to remember this as oft as we do it, as he
presented the bread and wine at the last supper... so communion is a
sacrament. He commanded that we go out and baptize and so baptism is
the second sacrament. Sacraments are to be done only by ordained
clergy. We also believe in infant baptism.
Now, to the point of the original poster. I believe that individual
congregations of the denominations listed are drastically different.
At least in the Lutheran church you will find it so. It was mentioned
that the Lutheran liturgy is similar to the Catholic one. Yes, it is.
However, not all churches use the full liturgy all the time. You will
find some very modern services and some very old-fashioned services.
What I would do, is visit a few churches, not just once ... but enough
to get an understanding of their practices, what is important to
them... is the letter of the law important, or is the spirit of Christ
important. Do not rule out Catholicism, although I personally could
not be Catholic, it might have something you would find comfortable
and enticing to return to. Do not rule out some of the
non-denominational, but be careful there.... make sure they are rooted
in the Word and not in themselves.
I guess that is the important thing, the church that I need to belong
in, has to be based on the Word...
Welcome back to the family ... you were missed.... no matter what
church you decide to try, find something that suits you, that
challenges you to grow further and that is fun.
Deb
Observer
Scott B. Moore <sc...@buffnet.net> wrote in article
<6esr2d$ncb$1...@buffnet2.buffnet.net>...
> My family and I are starting back to church but I'm not sure which one to
> attend? Can someone tell me the difference between Lutheran, Methodist
and
> Presbyterian denominations? I was born and raised a Cathlioc but it was
never
> the warm, loving falily atmosphere of some of the other churches I
attended
> while in the Navy. Thanks in advance for your help with this.
>
> Scott
>
From church to church within denominations there are differences. However,
with respect to styles of worship, GENERALLY:
Lutheran - High Liturgy i.e. many unison and responsive readings, prayers
and sung responses.
Presbyterian - A bit more moderate in liturgy.
Methodist - Similar to Presby's, perhaps a bit more moderate than them.
Though I'm a Methodist, my recommendation is: don't worry too much about
denomination. Some rules of thumb:
1. VISIT churches
2. ASK about beliefs
3. PRAY about where to go
4. DON'T go only by first impressions - which goes either way. Give each
church a chance
5. EXCEPT when you suspect you've visited a cult. Then RUN.
Finally, there are some excellent independent churches out there - but be
aware that some are disasters about to happen due to no oversight.
Likewise, don't get too upset about what you read about a denomination in
the paper. They'll only give you the worst spin on things and fail to
follow up if things turn out all right.
Blessings and Good church shopping!
Mike
A Student of Life
Being just a lay person with not much theological back ground, I stand
corrected. I *knew* that, I just didn't say it correctly. What I was
tyring to combat was the impression that we believe that the bread and
wine transform into body and blood. Yes, since Christ said "THIS IS
MY BODY" and "THIS IS MY BLOOD" we believe that it is what he
claimed. Again, I am afraid I cannot explain the whole concept...
except to say ... that Christ is present in, on and through the
substance and we call it transustantiation and not transformation.
Is that better Don?
Deb ... an American bred Norski
"Don the Norski" <dab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Deb,
>You might want to get out your Book of Concord and double check just what
>Lutherans DO believe about the Body and Blood of Christ. What you told our
>visitor seems to contradict the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran
>Church.
>
>Dona Nobis Pacem
>
>Don the Norski
>
>
>
>A Student of Life <always-...@somewhere.in.life> wrote in article
><6ev75g$f...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>> hed...@nbcs.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >some clipping
>> >
>> > Lutherans
>> > single predestionation
>> > believe that the bread and wine are literally Christ's body and
>blood
>> > I don't know much about their government.
>> >
>>
>> No ... we do not believe the wine and bread are literally Christ's
>> body and blood. That is a bit too Catholic for us. The term thrown
>> about Lutheranism is transubstantiation.
>>
>> Deb
>>
Kevin Dickover
On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 23:18:01 GMT, always-...@somewhere.in.life (A
Student of Life) wrote:
>Being just a lay person with not much theological back ground, I stand
>corrected. I *knew* that, I just didn't say it correctly. What I was
>tyring to combat was the impression that we believe that the bread and
>wine transform into body and blood. Yes, since Christ said "THIS IS
>MY BODY" and "THIS IS MY BLOOD" we believe that it is what he
>claimed. Again, I am afraid I cannot explain the whole concept...
>except to say ... that Christ is present in, on and through the
>substance and we call it transustantiation and not transformation.
>
>Is that better Don?
>
>
>Deb ... an American bred Norski
Deb, I think you are searching for *consubstantiation* rather then
transubstantiation.
From Encarta
Consubstantiation, a teaching used to explain the Christian experience
and conviction that Christ is truly present with his people in their
celebration of the Eucharist. Consubstantiation was developed in the
Lutheran wing of the Protestant Reformation during the 16th century.
The idea appears in Martin Luther's own writings; the word itself was
first employed by his younger contemporary, Melanchthon.
Consubstantiation rests on the same philosophical assumptions as the
medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, which it opposed. Both
doctrines depend on Aristotle's teaching that matter consists of
accidents, which can be perceived by the senses, and substance, which
the mind grasps and which constitutes essential reality. Both agree
that, in the Eucharist, the accidents of the bread and wine remain
unchanged. Unlike the doctrine of transubstantiation, however, that of
consubstantiation asserts that the substance of the bread and wine is
also unchanged, the ubiquitous body of Christ coexisting "in, with,
and under" the substance of the bread, and the blood of Christ in,
with, and under the wine, by the power of the Word of God.
Luther illustrated consubstantiation by the analogy of iron put into
fire: Iron and fire are united in red-hot iron; yet the two substances
remain unchanged.
Contributed by:
Charles P. Price
"Consubstantiation," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c)
1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Transubstantiation, in Christian theology, dogma that in the Eucharist
the bread and wine to be administered become, upon consecration, the
actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, even though the external
manifestations of the bread and wine-shape, color, flavor, and
odor-remain. It is thus opposed to other doctrines, such as the
Lutheran doctrine that the body and blood of Christ coexist in and
with the bread and wine, which remain unchanged. See
Consubstantiation.
The term transubstantiation was adopted into the phraseology of the
church in 1215, when it was employed by the Fourth Lateran Council.
The dogma was reconfirmed (1551) by the Council of Trent, as follows:
"If any one shall say that, in the most holy sacrament of the
Eucharist, there remains the substance of bread and wine together with
the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and shall deny that
wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread
into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood,
the species of bread and wine alone remaining, which conversion the
Catholic Church most fittingly calls Transubstantiation, let him be
anathema" (Session 13, Canon 2).
In his encyclical Mysterium Fidei (Mystery of Faith, 1965), Pope Paul
VI restated the traditional teaching to correct the views of some
modern Roman Catholic theologians that the change consists merely in a
new religious finality ("transfinalization") or significance
("transignification"), resulting in either case in little more than a
symbolic divine presence.
Transubstantiation is a doctrine not only of the Roman Catholic church
but also of the Orthodox church. At the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), the
doctrine was confirmed as essential to the faith of the entire
Orthodox church. The dogma was repudiated by the Church of England.
"Transubstantiation," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c)
1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
>"Don the Norski" <dab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Deb,
>>You might want to get out your Book of Concord and double check just what
>>Lutherans DO believe about the Body and Blood of Christ. What you told our
>>visitor seems to contradict the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran
>>Church.
>>
>>Dona Nobis Pacem
>>
>>Don the Norski
>>
BTW Don, most of us don't have a copy of the Book of Concord at home,
or even the LBW for that matter. :-)
Romans 8:38-39(NASB)
For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels
nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come,
nor powers, nor hight, nor depth, nor any other created thing,
will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in
Christ Jesus, our Lord.
Kevin Dickover
<)))><
Dan
Although the concept of "substance" was defended by Aristotle in
his "Metaphysics", it is incorrect to say that the Catholic
understanding of this is derived from the Greek philosopher. The
early Christians, including the NT writers found that they could
not even talk about the incarnation without using the language of
Greek philosophy. This does not mean that their doctrines came
from the Greeks, as Luther and some many subsequent Protestants
and cultists would later charge. Rather, it meant that they
needed to use the language which the Greeks had developed in
order to discuss the reality of Christ. Hebrew was inadequate for
the job. For example there is no word for "nature" or for
"person" in Hebrew.
Luther wanted to get rid of Aristotelianism and so he wanted to
purge his brand of Christianity from the language of Greek
metaphysical discussion. His friend, Melancthon warned that to do
so was to invite barbarism. (Melancthon's exact words) Luther did
not want his new Protestants thinking with these Greek
philosophical concepts because he knew that to do so was to
retain an ability to comprehend the Catholic faith i.e. to
understand Christianity the way that the early Christians had.
Protestants today do not realize what horrendous intellectual
robbery was committed upon them by the leaders of the
"Reformation".
Hebrews 11:1 says that faith is the "substance" of what we hope
for. Luther changed that to faith is the
"assurance". This has been a devastaing mistranslation because it
has taken an objective reality and turned it into a subjective
feeling. with the result that much of Protestantism is mired in
the analysis of personal feelings as the be all and end all of
the Christian experience. But anyway here is that pesky word
"substance" that Protestants do not like or understand showing up
right in the Bible. Why?
Substance means that every particular thing (including particualr
individual people) participate in a larger identity. Let's use a
human person as an example: You can point to a particular human
being; you can say something about his or her height, weight,
color etc. (i.e. accidents) but can you point to "human nature",
to 'humanness", or to "humanity"? No. These are substantive
identities. The question here is: Does an individual participate
in a larger substantive identity? Is this larger identity real?
Luther said no. It is just a word or "name" with no reality
behind it. He was a nominalist. The Catholic Church says yes.
"Humanity" is a real thing, even if all I can touch see and hear
are individual human beings, there has to be a real substance
which is human nature that underlies (stands under or
substantiates) my calling them human.
Faith is a substance as the Bible (correctly translated) says
because faith is the participation of an individual in the
identity of a real (substantial) nature. It begins with God
Himself, revealed as three divine Persons who partake of one
Divine nature (the Holy Trinity) and flows from the heart of the
Holy Trinity to us by the second Person identifying with our
human nature by taking upon himself our nature in order that we
might share in His nature. If there was no substance of "human
nature" then Christ would have had to, in turn, incarnate and die
for every one of us individually. This incarnational act of God's
identification with and redemption of His creation is perpetuated
in the Mass, and is also the means by which we as individuals are
made to partake of our identity as part of the body of Christ.
See 1 Cor 10: 16, 17.
I hope that this helps give some background to the discussion of
transubstantiation going on here.
Mary
Kevin Dickover wrote in message
<3515aeca...@news.erols.com>...
Charles Hedrick
always-...@somewhere.in.life (A Student of Life) writes:
>Being just a lay person with not much theological back ground, I stand
>corrected. I *knew* that, I just didn't say it correctly. What I was
>tyring to combat was the impression that we believe that the bread and
>wine transform into body and blood. Yes, since Christ said "THIS IS
>MY BODY" and "THIS IS MY BLOOD" we believe that it is what he
>claimed. Again, I am afraid I cannot explain the whole concept...
>except to say ... that Christ is present in, on and through the
>substance and we call it transustantiation and not transformation.
I hate to tell a Lutheran what Lutherans believe, but this is
confused. The Lutheran position is that the bread and wine are
Christ's body and blood.
This is not the same as transsubstantiation. Transsubstantiation is
the Catholic position. It says that the substance of the bread and
wine are replaced by the substance of Christ's body and blood, so that
they are no longer actually bread and wine. However the appearance
and physical properties of the bread and wine remain.
The Lutheran position is sometimes called consubstantiation. However
my best source on Lutheran beliefs objected to this term, as being not
quite accurate. Luther himself seems to have believed that it is not
possible to completely explain the way in which Christ is present. He
regarded it as a mystery. He simply took literally Christ's statement
"this is my body". Here is the relevant section from Luther's Large
Catechism:
Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar!
Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and
under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word
of Christ to eat and to drink. And as we have said of Baptism that it
is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and
wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at
the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the
Word of God.
It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament,
so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body
and blood of Christ. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et
At sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element it becomes a
Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well
put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a
Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element. Now, it is
not the word or ordinance of a prince or emperor, but of the sublime
Majesty, at whose feet all creatures should fall, and affirm it is as
He says, and accept it with all reverence fear, and humility.
With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a
hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush
forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of
Christ? etc., I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as
wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now here stands
the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it;
this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would
like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make
it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you
take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing
but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them as they
shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and
blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as
He can never lie or deceive.
I think you also should look into predestination again. I
characterized the Lutheran position as single predestination. Double
predestination (which is the Calvinist position) says that God has
decided who he will save and who he will damn. Thus he intends both
the salvation of the elect and the damnation of those who are not
elect. He establishes the means necessary for both. (This is an
oversimplification, which does not make it clear why someone might
think this is a reasonable position. I'm just trying to explain the
terminology.)
Single predestination says that God has chosen those who are saved.
The others are simply passed over. The clearest brief statement I've
seen is from the confession of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod:
By the election of grace we mean this truth, that all those who by the
grace of God alone, for Christ's sake, through the means of grace, are
brought to faith, are justified, sanctified, and preserved in faith
here in time, that all these have already from eternity been endowed
by God with faith, justification, sanctification, and preservation in
faith, and this for the same reason, namely, by grace alone, for
Christ's sake, and by way of the means of grace
Note the statement that those who are saved were chosen in eternity,
and endowed with all that is necessary to be saved. That is
predestination. It is single rather than double, because there is not
a corresponding statement that God positively wills that the rest be
damned, and set things up to accomplish that. Luther's position is
that those who reject God are condemned because of their own sin.
Charles Hedrick
"Ryan Constien" <Ryan.C...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>is not the same as transsubstantiation. Transsubstantiation is
>>the Catholic position. It says that the substance of the bread and
>>wine are replaced by the substance of Christ's body and blood, so that
>>they are no longer actually bread and wine. However the appearance
>>and physical properties of the bread and wine remain.
>>
>>The Lutheran position is sometimes called consubstantiation. e
>Are you sure James? The Catholic's view and the Lutheran's view of
>sacraments are usually the same. Are you using the current Catholic
>catechism, The Second Vatican catechism? Roman Catholics have several
>catechisms and the Catholic church is using the current catechism, the
>Second Vatican. Now I am not a Catholic, but according to our church history
>Lutheranism derives from Roman Catholicism. I really doubt Martin Luther
>came up his own ideas on sacraments. Here is his words from my catechism
I'm not James, but I wrote the text prefaced by >>
Yes, I am sure. See section 1373 ff from the CCC. (The Catechism of
the Catholic Church was issued in 1995, with direct papal authority.
It's the most recent detailed presentation of Catholic doctrine. I
don't believe there is a second Vatican catechism. Vatican II was a
pastoral council, not a doctrinal one.) The CCC reaffirms all the
traditional Catholic concepts about transsubstantiation, quoting the
key definition directly from Trent. Thus the Catholic ideas have not
changed significantly since Luther's time.
I would suggest that you consider getting a new book on church
history. I hope that doesn't sound like I'm being sarcastic. I don't
intend it that way. But if your source says that Luther's ideas of
the sacraments are derived from the contemporary Catholic ones, you
need a new source. Disagreement about the sacraments was one of the
major issues involved in the break.
Here is a summary of Luther's view of the Catholic Mass, from the
Smalcald Articles:
That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible
abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief
article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has
been the chief and most specious.
From a later section, here is his evaluation of transsubstantiation:
As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical
subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their
own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and
color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement
with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul
himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10, 16: The bread which we break. And 1
Cor. 11, 28: Let him so eat of that bread.
Luther would say that his views come from Scripture, and also that
they agree with the Church Fathers. The Fathers taught the Real
Presence, but not explicitly transsubstantiation.
It is true that of all the Reformers, Luther is the closest to the
Catholic view of the sacraments. He believes in a rather literal Real
Presence, while Calvin believed in "spiritual presence" and Zwingli
probably didn't believe in the Real Presence at all. However
"closest" doesn't mean identical. He had serious disagreements, and
those disagreements had very practical consequences. E.g. Catholics
believe in adoration of the consecrated elements. Luther regarded
that as idolatry. Catholics regard communion as a sacrifice. Luther
objected to that, because Christ was sacrificed only once. (This may
be a misunderstanding, but both Luther and Trent regarded it as a
major difference.)
>James, compare these quotations from the Large Catechism to the Second Vatic
>an catechism and tell me when you find out.
I find significant differences.
fro...@albany.net
>Consubstantiation rests on the same philosophical assumptions as the
>medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, which it opposed.
Although it must be said that it predates Medievalism as it can be
traced back to the orginal church as is evidenced in the persistent
doctrine of the Orthodox Churches which also believe that it is truly
the Body and Blood of Our Lord , mysteriously transformed through the
intercession of the Holy Spirit. This is basically the same as
Lutheran theology, although some Lutherans in Germany and America
through Prussian decree or historical association, assumed a more
Calvinistic approach...some going so far as to seeing the Holy
Eucharist as 'symbolic" rather than actual...and basically the same as
Anglican/Episcopalian....the Roman CAtholic stance is the most recent
when seen in these terms. For the laity of the Catholic, Lutheran,
Anglican,and Orthodox Confessions there is much more which binds them
than separates, as one rarely "Thinks" how it became this wonderful
mystery, but rejoices in Christs physical and spiritual presence as a
foretaste of His Coming Again. Elizabeth the First realized that the
nuances of theological debate were unnecessary to the laity also and
is quoted as saying, "God said it, God brake it, and I take it."
In all of the liturgical confessions holding it as the True Body and
Blood, through trans, -consubstaniation or miracle of the Holy Spirit,
we are good to desire a more often reception of it and take strength
in Christs presence.
Soli Deo Gloria
JFP
and Orthodox
fro...@albany.net
>
>Here is a summary of Luther's view of the Catholic Mass, from the
>Smalcald Articles:
>
> That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible
> abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief
> article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has
> been the chief and most specious.
>
But we must be calm here in seeing the exact nature of Luther's
Criticism, and it was not the mass as such as we Lutherans still refer
to a service with Eucharist as "mass"...such as the "Deutsche Messe"
and in many comtemporary church announcements--i.e. St. Matthew
Lutheran Church. Celebration of Mass at 11 am. etc.,
But in the Smalkald Articles he is referring to private masses for
money and the buying of masses to affect changes in a person's
purgatorial status..in other words for Luther a misappropriation of
the good and true mass...often Lutherans, especially those who have
had historical influence from Calvinism, see Catholicism as truly a
foreign type of Christianity, in effect, Luther saw us an alternaive
rite of the Holy Catholic and Apostalic Church, much as the Anglicans
who differ so very very little from orthodox Lutheranism, when seen in
its entire Confessional form.
Soli Deo Gloria
JFP
Charles Hedrick
"Dan" <mko...@mindspring.com> writes:
...
>Luther wanted to get rid of Aristotelianism and so he wanted to
>purge his brand of Christianity from the language of Greek
>metaphysical discussion. His friend, Melancthon warned that to do
While this is surely part of what is involved, I don't think it's the
main issue. Luther took "this is my body" very literally. He took it
to mean that the bread was Christ's body. That would seem to be the
literal reading.
The primary problem with transsubstantiation isn't that it uses
Aristole's language, but that it denies that the bread and wine are
Christ's body and blood, because it says that the bread and wine
vanish.
I'm not necessarily arguing for Luther's interpretation. I'm a
Calvinist, after all. But I think he would have rejected
transsubstantiation no matter how it had been formulated.
Mary
Charles Hedrick wrote in message
<6fn2bu$dle$1...@geneva.rutgers.edu>...
>"Dan" <mko...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>...
>>Luther wanted to get rid of Aristotelianism and so he wanted to
>>purge his brand of Christianity from the language of Greek
>>metaphysical discussion. His friend, Melancthon warned that to
do
>
>While this is surely part of what is involved, I don't think
it's the
>main issue. Luther took "this is my body" very literally. He
took it
>to mean that the bread was Christ's body. That would seem to be
the
>literal reading.
>
>The primary problem with transsubstantiation isn't that it uses
>Aristole's language, but that it denies that the bread and wine
are
>Christ's body and blood, because it says that the bread and wine
>vanish.
This is incorrect. It is understood that the accidents
(appearance) of bread and wine remain.
>
>I'm not necessarily arguing for Luther's interpretation. I'm a
>Calvinist, after all. But I think he would have rejected
>transsubstantiation no matter how it had been formulated.
The debate of the Lutherans with the Calvinists is an extension
of this problem. Luther had argued that when Jesus said to Peter
"Upon this rock . . ." that the "this" referred back to Himself."
Zwingli applied the same logic to "This is my body . . ." Luther
was horrified to find his own arguement turned against him. His
scatological condemnation of Zwingli is a matter of public
record. Luthers rejection of transubstantiation went over his own
head as he could not understand the logical extensions which
would follow -- among them Calvinism.
Mary ( who used to be a Lutheran and is grateful to the Holy
Spirit for leading her into the Holy Catholic Church)
>
fro...@albany.net
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:52:55 -0500, "Mary" <koc...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>>>Luther wanted to get rid of Aristotelianism and so he wanted to
>>>purge his brand of Christianity from the language of Greek
>>>metaphysical discussion.
But consubstantiation, which is closer to the Orthodox and
pre-transubstantiation dogma (17th century?) is also Aristotelian in
basis. Mary, we orthodox Lutherans feel very close to Catholics as
were at the beginning of the Reformation the German rite as compared
to the Roman rite of the same, catholic church, hence almost
synonymous with Anglicans who accepted the 16th century confessions of
the Reformation.
I failed to ask what Lutheran body you belonged to , as in a 1920
"Lutheran" catechism of Ev-Lutherans in North America, the Catechism
has explanations, not from Luther, but by the editor, saying the
Eucharist is NEITHER trans-or consubstantiation...this would be not in
synch with Luther and Melancthon's theology and probably reflects
Calvinistic influences due to the Prussian King's mandate that
Lutherans and Reformed in his kingdom come to accord. As you know,
many Saxon/Thuringian Lutherans refused to do this and are
"Alt-lutheraner" or in USA/Canada known as LC-MS. The theologies of
the LC-MS and other Lutheran ( Lutheran with Prussian Reformed) were
divergent from the time of the Kaisers decree but seem bewildering to
some Lutherans in this country as both call themselves "Lutheran". I
may be wrong:I am under the impression that the LC-MS accepts the
entirety of the 16th century Lutheran Confessions and is henceforth
called "confessional" whereas the others are semi-confessional. I will
see if I can do some more research.
by the way, the main influence in Lutheran monasticism in this country
which resembles Catholicism or high Church Anglicanism is basically
Scandanavian and LC-MS from the USA (they are located in
Michigan...St. Augustine Community.
Soli Deo Gloria
JFP
Charles Hedrick
"Mary" <koc...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>Aristole's language, but that it denies that the bread and wine are
>>Christ's body and blood, because it says that the bread and wine
>>vanish.
>This is incorrect. It is understood that the accidents
>(appearance) of bread and wine remain.
I believe that's what I said. The appearance remains, but there is no
actual bread and wine.
>The debate of the Lutherans with the Calvinists is an extension
>of this problem. Luther had argued that when Jesus said to Peter
...
>Zwingli applied the same logic to "This is my body . . ." Luther
I trust you are aware that Zwingli and Calvin had very different ideas
on the eucharist. Calvin accepted that there is some identification
between the bread and the body, although he believed that it was in
the realm of the Holy Spirit rather the physical.
This is very close to the Catholic view: Both agree that in terms of
physical properties we still have bread and wine and on a spiritual
level we have Christ's body and blood. I've always had the suspicion
that we're talking about the same thing using different metaphysical
language. I'm not so sure that this is true of Luther. I believe
he had in mind a more literal identification.