Talk:Lutheranism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Stephen Colbert

So, was Stephen Colbert right on his show tonight? It certainly looks that way.Michael Dorosh 06:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article on the word he invented is actually longer than the article on a major christian sect.

Well, let's get editing and change that. -Fsotrain09 16:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you say "Dance, Monkey" in German? I have no idea, but I suspect Colbert might. ;) In all seriousness, though, I think any impetus for improvement is a good impetus. Looking forward to reading the expanded article. My Lutheran aunt probably would be too. Michael Dorosh 16:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tanzen Sie, Affe. :) Fishal 21:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

May I say... Huh? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion - The Colbert Report announced that the population of elephants in Africa has tripled in the last six months. Details are sketchy but there was some kind of rumour about a Lutheran Miracle or somefink. You'd have had to have seen the show last night.Michael Dorosh 16:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

On the show, Colbert said the article on truthiness is longer than the article on Lutheranism. Unless I missed it, there was no mention of a Lutheran miracle...

Thanks! That helps. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a video of said report. --geekyßroad^{. meow?} 03:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia = PWNT by Stephen Colbert! Superior1 00:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Heavy vandalism in the opening and history. Let's do something about that.

Largely Colbert Report-related; see discussion below above. -Fsotrain09 02:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that there was a revert that (probably accidently) introduced earlier vandalism; it should be fine now. Peyna 02:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested -- and received -- and S-protect until Colbert notices other articles. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 03:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Lord's Supper...

This comming from an LC-MS perspective... Should the last sentance of Pgph. 5 under Centeral Doctrines: "Lutherans believe that the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are the true body and blood of Christ given to Christians to eat and drink, instituted by Christ Himself." read more along the lines of Luther's Small Chatecism (i.e. Lutherans believe that the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are "...the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and the wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink."(Luther's Small Chatechism (c)1986 Concordia Publishing House)

The comment you do not believe is adequate is in fact a direct quotation from the Smalcald Articles, by Martin Luther. They are part of the Lutheran Confessions, as equally authoritative as the Small Catechism. Check it out at [1].

Comment poseted by unsigned IP 64.12.116.202 signature added by Jazzdude00021 03:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it more accuratly portrays Lutheran beliefs on The Lord's Supper without getting to doctrinal/theological plus it comes directly from the chatechism. I am not sure if this is the exact view of ELCA or LCWS or international denominations and would like feedback. Jazzdude00021 05:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally we try not to quote as much as possible, since this is an encyclopedia. We also need to write these things so they are understandable to someone completely unfamiliar with Christianity and/or Lutheranism. Peyna 14:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Point conceded. I was aiming for a more direct source. I was not trying to say the current one was inadequate but could be perhaps clarified using LSC. I was not aware of the Book of Concord ref. Perhaps a link to either the Small Chatechism or Smalcald Articles is appropriate by this statement, and could also be a source for further reading for anyone interested. Jazzdude00021 03:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Infant Baptism

I hope that my contributions will not be removed from this page, as they have been repeatedly removed from the article. The article fails to mention the significant fact that infant baptism is never commanded or practiced in the bible. The article is deliberately misleading when it states that baptism is performed on infants and adults. It is very rare to have an adult baptism in a Lutheran church. If infant baptism was valid, why wouldn't Jesus have commanded parents to do this? These are facts and not a POV as claimed by the authorized editors of this article. Significantly, I recieved a written threat of banning from a catholic administrator!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Repentance (talk • contribs) 16:30, December 6, 2006

The claim that infant baptism is not valid is problematic because your interpretation of the Bible to mean that infants should not be Baptised is POV. There are so many Christian faiths with so many interpretations of the Bible; are you saying that each faith's article should contain a point-by-point refutation of that faith's doctrine? The disagreement over whether or not children or infants should be baptised is already covered in the article on Baptism; adding such a strongly worded discussion of the topic here is unnecessary.

And incidentally, I did not threaten to ban you, I just asked you to review our policies and explained why edits like this one are problematic. -- Vary | Talk 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for not completely deleting my contribution or banning me from the site. I am not a vandal, but I got ruffled when my post was immediately deleted as a “POV diatribe”. These are established comments and criticisms of Lutheranism. Upon reflection however, I agree that there is a better way of doing it than with a point-by-point refutation of a faith's doctrine within the main body of the article. They have a right to make their points without obtrusive intervention. I see that the approved method is to create a new section at the bottom of the main article labeled something such as “Controversy” or “Criticism”. I see examples in the articles for Amway and WalMart. Such disent should not be relegated to a separate article. (After all, Martin Luther did not post his disenting 95 thesis on the door of a Lutheran church, but a Catholic church). O.K. you knew Martin Luther, and I am no Martin Luther. But I do have years of experience attending Lutheran churches.

Would the creation of such a section at the bottom of the Lutheranism article be acceptable? I understand that any comments must not be inflamitory. Repentance 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

While, in principle, a section summarizing common criticisms of a body of religious practice is probably acceptable, I don't see a need to include this specific dispute with Lutheran practices & point(s) of view. At most, it's reasonable to note that Lutherans practice infant baptism, which is not true of many Christians. This ground is already covered, and I think we can take it as a given that some body of Christians, somewhere, would have problems with most of the practices described in the article. Brennen 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion that Lutherans have no basis for the doctrine related to infant baptism is mislead. Stating so is very misleading. Please do not damage this article by making such misleading statements. SauliH 19:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Presumably this was in reply to Repentance, above - I've removed one level of indentation for clarity. Brennen 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for responding on this issue. I notice that there are sections for criticism of some other denominations on Wikipedia, both Catholic and protestant. However, it is worthwhile to discuss some points here first.

• What is the biblical basis for baptising people without their knowledge or consent?

• If it were that easy wouldn't Jesus have commanded it, or at least mentioned it?

• Shouldn't we round up non-believers and baptise them?

• Isn't it true that within the Lutheran church, almost all the people who are baptised actually infants and children, even though there is no example of it in the bible, and many examples of baptising adults?

Let's discuss it. Repentance 20:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you're more interested in debating the issue itself than debating what should or should not go into the article. We're not here to debate whether or not Lutherans are correct in allowing infants to be baptized, we're here to discuss the article itself. So your, my, or anyone else's opinion on the subject of infant baptism is not in any way germane to the subject at hand.

We can not use the Bible as a source for any criticism of Lutheran doctrine, because that's original research. Obviously, Lutherans feel that their doctrine is supported by the bible. We would need a credible source that specifically criticizes the Lutheran practice of baptizing infants before we can even discuss adding anything of that sort to the article.

But sourcing aside, the issue of infant baptism is already in the article on baptism - and note that it simply says who believes what and why, and does not in any way imply that any position is right or wrong. The catholic church baptizes infants as well, but that particular issue isn't mentioned in the main article or the article on criticism of the catholic church. Some Christian faiths support baptism of infants, and some don't. It's important to state in each religions article what they do and don't' believe in, but going into whether or not those beliefs are valid is not, I think, the sort of thing that's appropriate in an encyclopedia. -- Vary | Talk 20:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I was attempting to follow the Wikipedia guideline to discuss things upon which there is disaggreement, prior to posting! What is the problem with that? Why is criticism of WalMart, Amway, the Roman Catholic Church, and some other protestant religions allowed but none for the Lutheran religion? Once again, what is the biblical basis for baptising people without their knowledge or consent? If it were that easy wouldn't Jesus have commanded it, or at least mentioned it? Isn't it true that within the Lutheran church, almost all the people who are baptised actually infants and children, even though there is no example of it in the bible, and many examples of baptising adults? Therefore, isn't it misleading to state that the Lutheran church baptises "founded on the word and promise of Christ; thus it is administered to both infants and adults."? Repentance 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Read my comment again, please. We're not here to discuss theology, we're here to discuss the article. I do not have to give you biblical sources to justify the beliefs of Lutherans; they support baptism of infants, and that's all that's required for that information to go into the article. The full text of the line you quoted:

The Lutheran catechism teaches that Holy Baptism is a work of God, founded on the word and promise of Christ; thus it is administered to both infants and adults.

Note the first four words: The Lutheran catechism teaches. That's true. The article does not say "Jesus said it's okay to baptise babies," it says "Lutherans think that Jesus wanted us to baptise babies." Two very different things. The former would be taking a position on the matter, and would not be acceptable. The latter is a fact, and does not need to be defended on this talk page.

There's nothing wrong with criticism sections, so long as they're sourced and the information is germane to the article. I have already stated why I don't think that including this particular criticism is appropriate to the article (and I note again that there's very little criticism on specific doctrine in the Catholicism article, either), and you still haven't even provided a source for the criticism - and I say again, I'm looking for a verifiable source, not quotes from the Bible and your interpretation of them, because that, once again, is original research. -- Vary | Talk 21:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience!

I get your point about The Lutheran catechism teaches not "Jesus said it's okay to baptise babies," and "Lutherans think that Jesus wanted us to baptise babies." I agree that those are important distictions.

Earlier in the article, it states "The formal principle of Lutheranism is the Bible. Lutherans believe the Bible is divinely inspired and is the final authority for all matters of faith and doctrine." Yet they state that The Lutheran catechism teaches to justify infant baptism. Isn't this circular logic? Is the article to be edited only by Lutherans who accept these conflicting views (that the Bible is the final authority, AND then using the Lutheran catechism to justify infant baptism), or may we point out the inconsistancy?

Shouldn't it be the Lutherans who respond to this, and not a Catholic? Repentance 21:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the validity of Lutheran beliefs, then yes, you should probably find yourself a Lutheran. If you want to discuss how those beliefs should be presented in the article, then I'm your girl - or at least, I'm as good as anyone else. As I said before, we're not discussing the matter of whether or not infant baptism is acceptable, we're discussing whether or not it's presented appropriately.

I see no circular logic. The article isn't justifying anything; it's stating what Lutherans believe. Lutheran catechism teaches that infants should be baptised because they feel it's supported by the Bible. You, clearly, do not. But just because you disagree with their interpretation of the Bible does not mean that there's any inconsistency that needs to be pointed out.

And once again, verifiable sources are needed before anything is added to the article. -- Vary | Talk 21:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No. The religious affiliation of the folks editing the article is, in theory, irrelevant to the discussion. Obviously it will influence our take on the subject matter, but we are not trying to describe our beliefs about the bedrock reality of the universe. We are trying to describe the beliefs, practices, and history which constitute Lutheranism. Brennen 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your contention that the "religious affiliation of the folks editing the article is, in theory, irrelevant to the discussion" is just a theory, which is contrary to the observed reality of anyone who reads it. The article was created and edited by Lutherans. It certainly has the appearance of deliberately crafted unpaid advertising, right down to announcing the new hymnals. I accept the challange to post verifiable sources as the basis of any criticism. Repentance 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's more that it's both a matter of Wikipedia policy and a fundamental intellectual posture. In general, I'll simply lend my support to the more detailed responses by Vary, above. It's true that the article has had a lot of input from practicing Lutherans, and doubtless this has colored the language. If actual bias can be addressed in a way that improves the article, I don't see a problem. This doesn't have much to do with espousing one's personal views on matters of doctrine or practice.

To address one other point, I'm not sure how "announcing hymnals" constitutes "advertising". At least among the subset of Lutherans I know best, the hymnal has always been a major component of the culture and a regular point of contention. I fail to see how the subject is anything but germane. Brennen 22:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been a little busy and didn't notice this discussion. Since I'm a Lutheran pastor, a librarian for a Lutheran seminary. and adjuct professor of theology for a Lutheran university and a freelance author for Lutheran publications, I'd be happy to respond.

On the infant baptism issue, Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches infants may be baptized. More later. Gotta run. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am Lutheran and was baptised at the age of 12 or 13. Perhaps a more significant focus regarding Lutherans and baptism is that for Lutherans, baptism is one of only two observed sacraments, the other being Holy Communion. So, I believe what is important is baptism, not infant baptism per se. (Roman Catholics observe more than the two sacraments that Lutherans observe.) Yes, most baptised are infants. A subset of those will complete Confirmation class sessions in their early teenage years. Completing this is often interpreted as a reaffirmation of one's baptism. Other parts of individual services and seasons during the church year also encourage personal remembrance and reflection on one's baptism. Whenever a baptism is performed, all present are generally encouraged to remember their own. Some individuals may choose to remember their baptism each time they encounter water, for instance when washing one's face. Keesiewonder 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the age of baptism is not quite as important for Lutherans than that one is baptised. Having said that, Lutherans strongly encourage infant baptism and it is normal practice to baptize children within a few weeks of birth -- much sooner if the life of the infant is in danger. In Lutheran theological writings, much is made of infant baptism as an important witness to what is seen as the Biblical concept of infant faith, the nature of faith itself, what is happening in the sacraments (including possibly confession and absolution, which many Lutherans also view as a sacrament), etc. The point is that Lutherans see baptism itself as an act of God breaking into the life of a person, making that person a child of God, creating faith in the hearts of unbelievers, granting them the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation. Now, I'm not sure how much of this we really want in a general article, but what is certain is the practice is part and parcel of what it means for a church body or congregation to be Lutheran. . --CTSWyneken^(talk) 09:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for elaborating on baptism; your points mesh nicely with my understanding. Can you provide references or discussion this, though: "including possibly confession and absolution, which many Lutherans also view as a sacrament?" While I can agree that there are Lutherans who may personally feel confession and absolution are sacraments to/for them, this is not, as I understand it, how Luther saw it or how any ELCA church of which I've been a member has seen it. Are the Missouri and Wisconsin synods more apt to observe more than two sacraments? Are the folks who view confession and absolution as sacraments in the Lutheran church former Roman Catholics? If you find a reply is more appropriate for my talk page or email than here, that's fine. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 11:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If time permits, I'll do so. The Confession and Absolution as sacrament view is a distinct minority position within all branches of Lutheranism. It is held mostly by higher church pastors and has more to do with how one defines a sacrament than anything else. It is argued that Jesus established the act of confession and absolution (sins you retain... sins you forgive...), but there is no physical element to dovetail with it. Luther himself went back and forth in the Babylonian Captivity of the Church --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting! Thank you. You've given me enough so I can proceed on my own, i.e. I should read Luther's Babylonian ... Please don't burden your to do list. Thanks for the dialogue. Regards, Keesiewonder 16:54, 9 December

2006 (UTC)

Luke 18:15-17

[15] People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. [16] But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. [17] I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

If Jesus didn't want infants to approach him, he would have let the Apostles have their way. Also for the Baptists, read the story of the good thief on the cross, he was not baptised but "And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise” (Lk 23:39-43).

Controversy section

Repentance: first, you can't use links to other Wikipedia articles as references. You can use the references that the other articles use if the information really needs to be duplicated. For example, you're using unattributed direct quotes, with just a link to the articles where you found them. Essentially, even though the text is in quotation marks, using a direct quote without saying who said it and giving a context for the quote is the same as treating the quote's claims as a statement of fact.

The vast majority of what's been added is about Martin Luther in particular, though, and not about Lutheranism itself. All of that absolutely does belong in the article on Luther, and it's all already there. But just listing a series of points with links to Martin Luther's article and calling it controversy over Lutheranism not appropiate. For example, discussion of John Calvin's political machinations and alleged abuse of power are confined to his article, and aren't covered in the article on Calvinism. Another example: look at the way Scientology handles its criticism section. L. Ron Hubbard's personal views on things like psychology psychiatry are mentioned, but they're used to support criticism of Scientology itself. The article on Scientology doesn't just say "Hubbard hated doctors", it shows how Hubbard's personal opinions are reflected in Scientology's actual doctrine and current practice, with sources from CoS literature and from critics of Scientology.

At the very least, you need to digest all of that into a cohesive paragraph, with actual references. In order to link the problems people have with Luther to Lutheranism in general, especially to the extent that you have here, you need sources that show that the problems people have with Luther are cited as problems with the church he founded as well. So, you need to cite sources linking (for example) Luther's anti-semitism with Lutheranism today. Also, I'm note sure that the fact that most Nazis were Lutherans is all that relevant. If most Nazis were Lutherans, they were also Christians. Is that relevant to the article on Christianity? You need to provide a source that shows that, when people criticize Lutheranism, they cite the fact that most Nazis were Lutherans and show that fact to be relevant to the church and its practitioners.

I still don't see how the fact that some people disapprove of infant baptism is relevant to this article. Do you think that the same information should be added to the article of every faith that baptises infants, and that a similar line saying that some people do think infants should be baptised should be added to the article of every Christian religion that is opposed to baptising infants? Should we also add to the controversy section that Jewish people don't believe that Christ was the Messiah, that some people don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God, and some don't believe in any god at all? It's an article about a religion. The purpose of the article is to describe what Lutherans believe, and when we talk about belief as opposed to fact, it kind of goes without saying that there are some people who believe exactly the opposite. I am removing all the baptism references. The rest, if it's to stay in the article, needs to be properly sourced as stated above and related to actual controversies about Lutheranism and not just about Luther himself.

And regarding your last comments, it sounds like you're trying to imply that other editors are more biased than you and that their contributions are thus less valid. You began by criticizing my involvement in the article because I'm Catholic (a fact which I do state on my user page in the simple interest of full disclosure) and not a Lutheran, and then stated that you feel that it's a problem that there are Lutherans editing the article, while at the same time you are showing a clear anti Lutheran bias in your own article edits and talk page comments. Brennen's point, I think, is that everyone is free to edit any Wikipedia article, regardless of religious affiliation or personal feelings on the subject, so long as they abide by Wikipedia's policies on Neutrality and Verifiability. -- Vary | Talk 15:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely concur. This article is about Lutheranism, and not Luther. There is a huge difference. I have consolidated some, and about the most that can be said from a Lutheranism perspective is that they have distanced themselves from Luthers writings. To put a long list of points in this article implies that Lutherans by association are anit-semites. I take offense to that. Enough! SauliH 15:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I did some additional consolidation, but just because I had some time on my hands. Everything in here is about Luther the man and not Lutheranism, the denomination. LloydSommerer 18:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Let's be careful in our writing ... Being a Lutheran does not include being anti-semitic. Some (historical) people identified as being anti-semitic have also identified themself as being Lutheran. Keesiewonder 15:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree. There may be a place for mention of Luther's more problematic stances, if there's reputable work to be cited, but generally the Luther article is the place for that sort of thing, just as the article on infant baptism is the place for any discussion of controversies over the practice. It's certainly possible that there's interesting/useful stuff to be written about the interaction of Lutheran churches with the Nazis in Germany, since I don't know if that's already been handled anywhere on Wikipedia and don't know the subject well. Nevertheless, I do not think the section by Repentance is a productive approach. Brennen 15:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brennen. I believe there is information that meets this criteria (It's certainly possible that there's interesting/useful stuff to be written about the interaction of Lutheran churches with the Nazis in Germany.), but I haven't looked much for it yet on WP. As with a lot of issues, there's the bad, and the good. There were probably some professed Lutherans on Hitler's favored staff; and then there are folks like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Niemoller and the Confessing Church. Regards, Keesiewonder 16:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been my impression as well. I would assume that both the established Catholic and Lutheran churches in Germany significantly accomodated the regime, but also harbored a lot of ambivalence and pockets of active resistance. Unfortunately, I just don't know the history. If anyone knows any good lit on the subject, I'd certainly be interested. Brennen 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Thank you all for your comments. Many of your points are valid. My reference about the Catholic editor was that the Lutherans were not responding at that point (other than to just delete my contributions). My point is that Martin Luther and Lutheranism are very closely linked. Lutherans write the man's name on all their churchs. This is unprecedented in other denominations. Lutherans use his writings in worship services. Lutherans celibrate his birthday in the church. Your editings of this article now include the unverified claim that all north american lutheran organizations have repudiated Martin Luther's dangerous and inflamitory writings. Lutherans have become the target of recent media scorn and ridicule because of the hateful writings of Martin Luther. Notice that Stephen Colbert put "Lutherans" "on notice" because Martin Luther is already dead. Who else associates themselves so closely with him? Others have ridiculed Lutherans (once again, not Martin Luther) at / Lutherans. Do you think that an denomincation that uses his name on the door, uses his writings every day, and celibrates his birthday every year distance themselves by a lukewarm repudiation that was not even issued by all Lutheran synods? If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. Repentance 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Stephen Colbert. Now this whole thing is starting to make some sense to me. LloydSommerer 20:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What kills me is that I still can't tell earnest impressionability from faux-sincere deliberate irony. This is getting depressingly postmodern. Can someone just tell me if I'm being had? Brennen 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we're being had. Vary has done such an excellent job of patiently and precisely explaining how to edit an article, and the new edits keep morphing into something that falls just within the rules while completely missing the spirit. The whole thing no longer seems reasonably plausible to me. Well done, to be sure, but waring thin on the edges (and on my nerves). As the (near) consensus here seems to be that this all belongs --and exists-- in other articles, I'm going to remove the section. LloydSommerer 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly possible, but I'm still undecided because it feels like such a convoluted and roundabout approach to take - I mean, infant baptism as an intentional gateway for Nazi-link slinging? Anyway, I don't have a problem with treating it as deliberate vandalism. The practical effect is roughly the same either way. Brennen 16:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If we wish to have a section on those things in Lutheran teaching and practice that are criticized by others, that is fine. You might begin with the views of the Papal Confutatation, the Marburg Colloquy, etc. There is quite a bit of disagreement and criticism of Lutherans available.

The material extracted from the Luther article is irrelevant here, since Luther's views about the Jews were virtually unknown prior to the Nazi era and repudiated by Lutherans following the second world war. (I can provide references to that effect. Now there is plenty of room to document Lutheran antisemitism. I move the material be removed completely and our new editor do some reading before adding something to this section. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

An LCMS repudiation can be found in the April 2004 "Lutheran Witness" magazine, beginning on page 12. Link: https://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Lutheran%20Witness/Apr04.pdf ELCA repudiation is here: http://www.elca.org/ecumenical/interreligious/jewish/declaration.html WELS repudiates here: http://www.wels.net/sab/qa/luther-07.html Would someone include these in a citation? I'm not quite sure how.--Preachrboy 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get the cart before the horse, please. Does anyone object to removing the material as is? Then, if someone wants to take up the subject of anti-semitism in Lutheranism as a whole, we can find proper citation. (references are (or were) available at: Martin Luther and the Jews). --CTSWyneken^(talk) 09:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The peace of the Lord be with you all. I searched the WELS site and found this. "Q: Has the WELS officially repudiated most of the anti-semitic statements and writings made by Martin Luther in his last years, as have the ELCA and LC-MS? A: I am not aware of any formal repudiation similar to what you are apparently thinking of. Our synod seldom makes formal statements of that nature, so it is not likely that this was ever done..." "2 4 6 8 we do not repudiate" Repentance 07:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that WELS hasn't issued a statement saying they don't agree with those statements does not mean that they do. And, if you've read the rest of the page you quoted, you'll know that it's pretty clear that they don't: they just don't tend to issue that kind of formal statement.

At any rate, this issue is irrelevant because the consensus on this talk page appears to be against keeping the discussion of Luther's antisemitism in the article, for reasons that have already been explained repeatedly. -- Vary | Talk 15:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-written reply. It is certainly a challange to document an act of ommision! Repentance 17:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Vary, I appreciate your experience in these matters. It is true that when asked directly about repudiation of Martin Luther's writings about jews, WELS states that they don't issue such statements. However, I little research shows that they have found the time to issued formal statements such as declaring that "the Pope is the very Antichrist" [2], abortion [3], "Man and Women Roles" [4], and others. I realize that some people will accept this kind of excuse, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, but it is also possible to conclude that they speak volumes with their silence. Repentance 16:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And to so conclude without actual sources is original research. Besides which, as I said before, this issue is irrelevant because the consensus on this talk page appears to be against keeping the discussion of Luther's antisemitism in the article, for reasons that have already been explained repeatedly. -- Vary | Talk 16:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that the described consensus will soon change. Not one drop of rain falls without accomplishing the desired purpose. The voice in the wilderness will be joined by others. Repentance 16:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOCK. Just FYI. -- Vary | Talk 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not worry about that at all. If you are suggesting that I will clone myself, I assure you that I will not. It is some of the editors of this article who will eventually realize that they do not want to be all painted with the same brush as WELS and others who "proudly bear the name" of Martin Luther. I understand that it is VERY difficult for them to come to grips with this, as almost all were "baptised as Lutherans" as infants, and have only recently learned about Martin Luther's other writings. Repentance 17:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you have against Lutheranism. I am proud to be Lutheran, and I wasn't baptized as infant in the Lutheran Church. I am surprised that you aren't a critic of Methodism as well. Its founder John Wesley wanted to raise an army to stop the American Revolution. That means that all Wesleyans and Methodits must be anti-American since the founder of their religion was. Using the same logic we could also say that John Calvin tried to set up a theocracy in Geneva so all Calvinists and Presbyterians don't want to have separation of church and state. Luther had a lot of good theological ideas, but Luther was human and he had flaws. That is one thing that all Christians teach: there has only been one perfect human being, Christ. KitHutch 21:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your sincere and emotional reply. You have asked some questions and raised some issues, and I will reply, in the hope that the more intolerant among you will not once again feel justified to delete what they consider to be “inappropriate”. Regarding your statement “I really don't understand what you have against Lutheranism.”. Don’t you think many Catholics said “I really don't understand what Martin Luther has against Catholicism”. Is there a difference? I do not contest your decision to worship in a Lutheran church. You and I have that in common, although we are the exception rather than the rule. Almost all members of Lutheran churches were baptized as infants, and it is almost an insurmountable task for them to go beyond what has been reinforced in them from birth. It is no accident that you and I (along with a Catholic editor) are the ones discussing this. Most of the others can't do it. They just delete. An example of a deliberately misleading claim, repeated in this Wikipedia article, is “The Lutheran catechism teaches that Holy Baptism is a work of God, founded on the word and promise of Christ; thus it is administered to both infants and adults”. Most people would not even give that phrase a second thought, would they? Sounds pretty good doesn’t it? It does not begin to describe the reality of the situation. Lutherans baptize each other’s children, and believe that is what Jesus commanded them to do. Occasionally an adult is baptized, but it is very uncommon. It is in fact a holdover from the Catholic church. Martin Luther did not include it in his list nailed to the door, so it is settled. I have attended Lutheran Churches for many years, LCMS, WELS, and EVS synods. They were created in Controversy. Please consider that this is not a Lutheran website. Efforts to squash any and all mention of “Controversy and Lutheranism” here are misguided, and will backfire. Lutheranism has been surrounded by controversy since the beginning with Luther and the Catholic Church, through WWII and the holocaust, through the numerous splits, walkouts, and denying Holy Communion to other Christians and even other Lutherans. I know whose name is on the door, whose seal is displayed, whose writings are given during confirmation, whose birthday is celebrated in the church, and I know that many Lutherans describe that they were “baptized Lutheran”, and almost never say that they were “baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. I have seen Lutherans claim that they teach based on the Bible, but use Luther’s Catechism, or pamphlets, or be unable to respond at all when asked “Where in the Bible did Jesus command us to baptize human beings without their knowledge or without repentance?” or “Where in the Bible did Jesus say baptize first, and then follow up with something called “Confirmation” a few years later?”. If you think about it, you know the answer. It is in the same place in the Bible that commands the Church to grant indulgences. It just isn’t there. Is that what Jesus taught? Was it the message of Jesus, Constantine, or of someone else? Don’t you think many Jews said “I really don't understand what Martin Luther has against Judaism” when he wrote and published “On the Jews and Their Lies” and advocated that people set synagogues on fire, destroy Jewish prayerbooks, forbid rabbis from preaching, seize Jews' property and money, smash and destroy their homes, and be forced into labor or expelled "for all time"? Were you told that no even knew about these writings? Were you ever told that Hitler praised Martin Luther by name in his book Mein Kampf? What do you think it was that Hitler so admired about Martin Luther? Were you told that the Nazi Bishop Martin Sasse (yes, a Nazi Lutheran Bishop) hailed Luther as “the greatest anti-Semite of his time,” and said that it was a happy coincidence that Kristallnacht fell on Luthertag? Some Lutheran synods have made motions, voted on, and issued statements to repudiate Martin Luther’s anti-Jewish writings, while others have not. At least one synod explains “we don’t issue such statements” even though they issue other statements, including one declaring the Pope to be the anti-Christ. Many, if not most Lutherans have not been told what Martin Luther wrote about Jews, other than the misleading statement that he was “frustrated” with Jews, and used “some harsh language”. Is the church founded by Wesley named after him? Is the church founded by Calvin named after him? Do people say that they were “Baptized Wesleyan” or “Baptized Calvinist”? Of course not. They would have less need to repudiate any hate writings, if the founders of their churches had written any. Did anyone use their writings as justification to murder millions of innocent men, women, and children? They do not proudly bear Wesley’s name. You point out that Wesley supported the British government (known as a Loyalist) instead of the American Revolution, but is that surprising, since he was a British subject living in England. Is that in the same league as advocating arson, book burning, loss of liberty, seizing property and money, destroying homes, forcing people into labor, or expelling them "for all time”? These are some of the reasons why I advocate a “Controvery and Lutheranism” section in this article. I understand that we differ on the specific content. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? You are correct to close your comments in the name of Christ. May the Lord be with you. Repentance 21:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I humbly submit that it'd be best if we just don't further engage the troll. Brennen 21:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hear Hear. The troll is only wanting to argue and create dissent, and is not here to better the article. This is not the place to get on a soapbox, and spout personal opinion. SauliH 03:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As Christians, we should avoid falling into the trap of calling him names like troll and vandal. I don't think it helps. There may also be a problem in taking the position that there is no controversy. We should point out any factual errors for the record and/or just say that we reach different conclusions. IreneRD 20:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Christian, most days of the week. I acknowledge that name-calling as such isn't very productive. The thing is, continuing to agitate for a debate about the theological, doctrinal, scriptural, or other merits/defects of Lutheranism, either on this talk page or in the article itself, is trolling behavior. Repentance clearly isn't interested in an accurate description of what Lutherans believe, why they believe it, or the historical context of all this nearly so much as s/he is interested in using Wikipedia as a forum to air grievances with Lutheranism. Even if I cared about those grievances or felt like defending the Lutheran faith in this context, this wouldn't be the place for that. I think it would serve everyone much better to stick to a framing where the truth or falsehood of Lutheranism's fundamental propositions isn't at issue. Brennen 00:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A Proposal to do a complete Rewrite

I'd like to suggest that we do a complete rewrite, using Encarta's Lutheranism article as a benchmark as to which details to include. Is that acceptible to all? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled at the idea, and generally prefer a refactor of the existing text for whatever problems are there, but I'll do a little work on whatever's here. I'll leave it to anyone who's put a lot of time into the existing version to offer input on a complete rewrite. Brennen 22:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this isn't that bad an idea after all. Brennen 01:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Preachrboy, Where, exactly, is the repudiation by WELS in http://www.wels.net/sab/qa/luther-07.html ?? 72.235.15.131 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This look likes the proper one for LCMS: [5]

It's in the second section of the WELS page I provided: "Lutherans and Christians who admire Luther do not endorse or condone the negative things he did write in 1542." --Preachrboy 21:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

PLTS

I am removing the external link to Pacific Lutheran seminary -- this article should either link to all Lutheran seminaries, or none. Pastordavid 20:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't take long to do a list of Lutheran Seminaries. Anyone game? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Phrase

In the opening paragraph, the phrase "Today nearly seventy million Christians belong to Lutheran churches worldwide, with some four hundred million Protestant Christians tracing their history back to Luther's reforming work.", is not true. Many protestant christians do not "trace their history back to Luther's reforming work". This portion of the sentance is also unsourced. Wordsmith12 20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nor do many Lutherans consider themselves "Protestants." If you wish to suggest some rephrasing feel free to do so. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I will disagree with both of you. Most Protestants do trace their history back to Martin Luther's reforms even if it is an indirect relationship. Since Luther did start the Protestant Reformation, Lutherans are Protestant. However, we have already had this debate. KitHutch 13:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to debate it again, but notice I said "many" do not consider themselves Protestant, not not most or all. I think I've demonstrated that. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Roman" Catholic Church

We should not use this term in connection with Luther's reforming activity because it is anachronistic. No one in the 16th Century used this term. This is important because the theological issue was continuity with the "universal" or "catholic" Church, descended from the apostles and handed down by tradition to the sixteenth century. Luther, Calvin et Al. saw themselves as the true "catholic" church returning to roots of the faith. The Catholics saw (see) themselves as the true Church. The reformers claim they never left the church and the catholics that they did. referring to an attempt to reform the Church or the Catholic Church therefore works; "Roman" does not. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If I follow you, I think Roman Catholic is preferable to Catholic alone to refer to the church in communion with the bishop of Rome (whether talking about before Luther or after). Pastordavid 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and there is catholic (lower case 'c') and Catholic (upper case 'c'). Personally, if I have this straight with only 1 cup of coffee in my system, I am catholic but I am not Catholic and I am not Roman Catholic. Keesiewonder 11:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think CTSW is trying to make a point at the expense of clarity and accuracy. Using the word Roman is essential to clear and accurate communication with a modern audience who are not familiar with the nuances involved. They may not have used the term Roman at the time -- but the term Lutheran didn't become popular until later either. The reformers departed the (group now known as the) Roman Catholic Church, but did not consider themselves removed from the [Catholic] Church. --Ctobola 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it is inaccurate to say Luther was a Roman Catholic. He was not. It's like saying that John Smith was an American settler! So to say that Luther left it is simply wrong. As far as the term Lutheran goes, it comes into use -- even by Lutherans -- before Luther died. Perhaps we should find another way to say this, since it is a mischaracterization the way it stands. As far as the reformers departing -- you have that wrong, too. They were excommunicated. If they fell into Papal hands they would have been fired -- literally! 8-) If you'd like I can provide documentation for every bit of this. If it is hard for modern audiences to understand, we just will have to find a way to explain it. That's what an encyclopedia is, isn't it? Something that informs and explains, not creating or furthering ignorance.

For example, Encarta says this in its intro to Lutheranism:

Lutheranism, major Protestant denomination, which originated as a 16th-century movement led by Martin Luther. Luther, a German Augustinian monk and professor of theology at the University of Wittenberg in Saxony (Sachsen), originally had as his goal the reformation of the Western Christian church. Because Luther and his followers were excommunicated by the pope, however, Lutheranism developed in a number of separate national and territorial churches, thus initiating the breakup of the organizational unity of Western Christendom.

--CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problem saying that John Smith was an early American settler -- American came into being because of his efforts to settle North America -- any more than I have trouble saying that Charles Babbage created one of the first computers. (The fact that he called it an "analytical engine" at the time and the term computer did not arise until later isn't necessary to understand what is being said.)

Your write "As far as the term Lutheran goes, it comes into use -- even by Lutherans -- before Luther died." Now you're being totally arbitrary. What is the temporal "line in the sand" before which we need to use the old terms (and shouldn't they all be in German?) and after which we can use the modern terms?

Luther began his professional ministry as an ordained clergy member and monk within the body that is headed by the papacy in Rome, which is commonly known as the "Roman Catholic Church." He was fully and legitimately a formal "official" within that organization. He was NOT a clergy member -- nor was his role recognized -- within any of the eastern Christian bodies, which also considered themselves fully and legitimately catholic.

I use the term "departed" in the most rudimentary sense -- as in "parted company with." Whatever agency Luther and the other reformers exercised in the matter is beside the point. A division occurred at that time -- Luther and his followers parted company (at least operationally) with the group based in Rome (i.e., it was Roman) that considered itself Catholic and the Church. --Ctobola 17:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What you're failing to see is it is both a historical and theological issue. These are most significant, even if you do not see it. It leads people to make assumptions that are not true at all. Rather than arguing the issue (which is fruitless if you think John Smith an American), perhaps we can agree to reformulate the paragraph along the lines of Encarta. That would satisfy my objection. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 17:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am seeing it as both a theological and historical issue. You are saying that the group of folks headquartered in Rome (i.e., the Roman Catholic Church, for lack of a better term) considered themselves to be the one true catholic Church and therefore the word Roman is not needed. You apparently agree with their one-sided assumption. I'm saying that whatever they said/thought about themselves, there was another group of Christians over in Istanbul saying that THEY were the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I'm not taking sides here -- I'm taking the Lutheran position that the Church (capital C) transcends the boundaries of human organizations and noting that Luther got booted out of the Rome-based group (which considered itself catholic) and not the Istanbul-based group (which considered itself catholic). --Ctobola 21:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

doctrine list

I see the following in the doctrine section:

Historically, Lutherans have regarded the Bible as inerrant. In contrast to this view, some Lutheran denominations see the Bible as an essentially human document and therefore capable of error, particularly in historical and scientific matters.

Can someone provide a simple draft (via email if you wish) list of which Lutheran denominations adhere to the Bible as 'inerrant' and which adhere to 'human document'? I'm wondering whether this is truly part of a specific "denomination" or whether it is a matter at the individual or congregational level, but not the synodical or denominational level. Thanks! Keesiewonder 11:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In the US, the ELCA does not describe the Scriptures as inerrant, the Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Synod, the ELS and other smaller church bodies do as well. In the LCMS, it was one of the chief matters of controversy between the confessional movement and the eventual AELC congregations and pastors. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• So, ELCA in one group; LCMS, Wisconsin, ELS, other in another group?

Yes, that's it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: wiki-links, it must be time for us to draft the church body article then! :-) -- Keesiewonder 12:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC) ... Ah --- I see what happened! Thanks for the fix. Keesiewonder 12:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Also, some previous edit event appears to have marred this "sentence:"

Faith is not something that causes salvation, together the grace of God.
Please clarify it ... Keesiewonder 11:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been a long time since I've read the text here, so I'm not sure exactly what it says. It likely could use with a thorough review. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

I have proposed a new WikiProject to deal with the various articles relating to Lutheranism at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Lutheranism. Any editors who would be interested in joining should indicate as much there, so that we can know if there is sufficient interest to start such a group in earnest. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Perhaps rather than having an external link to a book on the history of lutherans in Canada, we should have a 'further reading' section and provide a citation for the book. Keesiewonder ^talk 10:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, what is the thinking on displaying the probably Chinese characters (display as question marks for me) within the html link to the CECF? Should we include them, since a person speaking only Chinese may he assisted by having them them? Can we exclude it since this is the English speaking Wikipedia? Keesiewonder ^talk 10:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the Reformation

I have lots of information that I can add to an article about causes of the Lutheran Reformation. This information gives reasons the Protestants disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church. However, it may appear to be from a biased point of view, but I don't believe it is. It is designed to be from the POV of a Protestant Reformer, giving their reasons for disagreeing with the Roman Catholic Church doctrines. I tried doing this edit already, and a "patroler" decided to rever it and recommend I discuss it in the discussion section. What do you think? Is it ok to have some biased information if it is necessary to give a point and educate why the Protestans wanted reform? Contact me here or on my talk page. Thanks Kosmkrmr 01:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have looked over the proposed addition. (1) It is off topic here. It looks at the historical causes of the Reformation, and this article is about modern Lutheranism. (2) It is exceptionally POV. And no, it is not necessary to have "some biased information." The development of Lutheranism can be described in a NPOV manner, and it should be if it is to be included on wikipedia. (3) Portions of it appear to be OR -- it kind of looks like you just inserted a paper that you wrote for school into the article. -- Pastordavid 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The place(s) for a detailed discussion of the causes of the Reformation are, well, in the article on the Reformation and the articles that cover the people, places and events of it. Here we should strive for Summary style. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Catholic Church" in the introductory paragraph

We should not have "Catholic Church" with a capital "C" here because a capitals should be used for proper nouns, not a common ones. Better would be to have this sentence read: "This attempt to reform the theology and practice of the medieval church led to the separation between a large number of Christians and the Roman Catholic tradition." You could put it this way: "This attempt to reform the theology and practice of the western Christendom led to the separation between a large number of Christians and the Roman Catholic tradition."--Drboisclair 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lutheranism Project

A new wikiproject has been formed, focusing on articles relating to Lutheranism. Come by and check it out, and sign up to help improve articles about Lutheranism on Wikipedia. WikiProject Lutheranism. -- Pastordavid 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Religioius Practices

Keep the worship wars out of the article. This isn't a forum for your personal feelings or opinions on contemporary worship, or traditional worship. If you are going to comment, have a source...Wikipedia isn't the place for first person opinion. Keep it to the facts. Rusyoak

Some Context for Lutheran Discussions

Having traveled most of the Lutheran "spectrum," I think it's important to lay out some of the unspoken assumptions behind the comments posted here, particularly CTSWyneken's (and others) insistence that Lutherans are not Protestants, that Luther was excommunicated (he did not willingly leave) from the Catholic Church (NOT the Roman Catholic Church).

A significant gulf exists between the "conservative" LC-MS and WELS et al., and the "liberal" ELCA et al. (Conservative and liberal labels are inadequate labels, but they will suffice.) One of the divisions relates to the ability of humans to understand spiritual truth. The ELCA-esque groups are quite tolerant of uncertainty, mystery and complexity. The LC-MS et al. are not simply convinced that truth is knowable, they are convinced that they are the only ones who really know it. (They may admit that other groups may have parts of the truth, but nobody has it the way they do.)

So when folks like CTSWyneken use euphemisms like "distinct" to distinguish Lutheranism from Protestantism, what they are saying is that Lutheranism (as they practice it -- which is the only correct way) is not comparable to anything else -- it is simply THE true and correct interpretation of Christianity. As one of my LC-MS acquaintainces noted, "We aren't protestants because we have nothing to protest -- we have the truth and that's what defines us." Moreover, grouping them with "protestants" would imply that other groups are equal.

As a result of this, conservative Lutherans therefore consider themselves to be THE Church. Most liberal Lutherans and many other protestants consider themselves to be one expression of the Church: conservatives are being much more narrow when they say, "We are THE Church." The upshot of all this, is that it becomes vitally important to express Lutheranism and Lutheran history in a way that affirms their legitimacy (and religious "genealogy"). This is the same thing we hear from Roman Catholics: "We are the Church created by Christ, who made Peter the head of the Church." The difference is that conservative Lutherans have to trace "the Church" from Christ, to the Church of Rome, to Martin Luther and directly to them. All of this results in...

Luther was excommunicated In other words, Luther didn't leave the Church, the church left him. This may be true, but in the eyes of conservative Luthers, this is also ESSENTIAL to their legitimacy.

Luther in the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. For Luther (and the other reformers) to be the only direct line of succession for the true Church, then the Church of Rome must have been the ONLY true expression of the Catholic (universal/orthodox) Church. (The eastern Church also considered itself catholic.) By adding the word Roman, the Catholic part is qualified or somehow diminished. Think of it this way -- the one biological child in the family saying to the other kids, "Don't call me Timmy Smith... you just have to call me Smith... because I'm the only real Smith among all us kids." When CTSWyneken insists that we should not use Roman, he's saying that Luther wasn't just part of a denomination based in Rome, he was part of THE Church and is therefore a legitimate heir who could pass along "the Church" to the LC-MS/WELS.

So, as we continue to debate and discuss these issues, keep this in mind -- liberal Lutherans define the Reformation as a correction in the course of Christian practice and belief for one segment of the Church. Conservative Lutherans see the Reformation as a "passing" of the one true Church from the papacy to the reformers.

--Ctobola 03:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are overstating the case on a number of points here, Ctobola, one of which is making the assumption that you know what my motivations are and those of other conservative and confessional Lutherans. It would take quite a bit of time to unpack them all, which I'm not sure any of us have. The fact is that it really is irrelevant what you, I or anyone else thinks about a matter. In Wikipedia, we are to represent the views of reliable sources and represent all significant viewpoints among them.

I'd submit that, on the issue at hand, the question is how such sources treat the matter. I've cited and linked to one, Encarta, which speaks about the origin of Lutheranism as I have maintained. Do you have one or more similar sources? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

With CTSWyneken, I think you have overstated the case. More to the point, it is a red herring. Where Wyneken, or anyone else, falls on the spectrum is irrelevent -- the edits and information from reliable sources is what matter. Indeed, Wyneken is explicit about his background, and in my experience is open to being corrected when his background exerts too much influence on his editing. Please just let this go, and lets get back to editing. -- Pastordavid 16:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To start with, I want to say thanks to CTSWyneken for conceding on the issue of Luther's membership in the "Western church" in the current defintion.

On the issue of whether my comments are a red herring, I must disagree. The message that the LC-MS, WELS et al. communicate loudly, clearly, repeatedly and proudly to other Christians and to other Lutheran groups in particular is that we are different from one another. They regularly use terms like heterodoxy to describe anyone outside their circle and close communion (and in many cases "close fellowship") are the norm because apparently these differences are so dramatic they we cannot even bow our heads together or share a cup of coffee. These are not my interpretations -- they are the choice of these denominations themselves. So, when I say that we should be cognizant of and forthcoming about our different understandings and biases in defining Lutheranism -- and that we should not assume ourselves to all be on the same page -- I am merely pointing to the line in the sand drawn by others. --Ctobola 23:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm.. I don't recall ever saying that Luther wasn't a part of the Western Church... No matter. This is a case in point. Your broad characterizations don't fit me well, nor any of the folk I work with. It is a mistake to assume everyone is the same. And, no, I'm not about to assume that you reject the accuracy of the New Testament simply because I've heard others say so.

As both David and I have said... who or what we are in real life is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It is not our views, but those of crediable sources that matter. The current form of the text paraphrases such a source. If others are found that say otherwise and enough exist, we would then be compelled to find a way to state what they have in common that does not dismiss their views or represent them both. Such a method does not require that either you or I agree with these sources. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia principle is Neutral Point of View. Ctobola is expressing his POV about the LCMS and WELS, and seems to be accepting caricatures of these Lutheran bodies. This is unscholarly. I think that it is grossly unfair for prejudices and stereotypes to be used in the formulation of informative encyclopedic articles here. The truth of the matter is: Luther was excommunicated. He didn't want to be. The need to qualify Roman Catholic Church by the adding of "Roman" is necessary because the Eastern Orthodox also consider themselves to be "catholic" as do Lutherans and High Church Anglicans. Granted that since "Catholic" in capitalized, it is a proper name. Simply calling it here "Catholic Church" would not be in accordance with the Wikipedia policy of NPOV.

Lutheranism is not a philosophy or a group of people that want to establish their superiority over other people in any way. It has never been the position of the LCMS or of the WELS that there will only be people of their church bodies in heaven. I would ask that Ctobola adduce evidence for his assertions; however, even if there is such support these would be subjective POVs.

Another problem with the above comment is that it is uncivil. I can say that CTSWyneken is a professional in information dissemination. He tries to be as NPOV as possible in this project. Editors on this website should give to each other the benefit of the doubt as well as common courtesy.--Drboisclair 04:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple clarifications to my earlier comments... 1. CTSWyneken, I was referring to your edit to the Lutheranism listing of April 28 at 12:51 when you changed Roman Catholic Church in the following line: "...liturgical practices of the Western Christian Church that were rejected...." Or am I reading the document history incorrectly?

2. As I noted earlier, one of the biases of the conservative expression of Lutheranism is that there is neutral objective knowable truth -- when it comes to history, Lutheranism or any other human endeavor writ large. That's a concept that has largely discarded as utopian by American historians. (Peter Novick makes the case well in "That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession") Can we be fair? Certainly -- but that requires us to acknowledge our biases, and that is something that is remarkably difficult when we take the position "We're right and every else is heterodox."

3. Finally, in response to Drboisclair - I find no less civility in my statements, than in the LCMS/WELS declaration that all other Lutheran groups are heterodox -- a word that appears no less than 50 times on the LCMS Web site. It is one thing to say that we differ in belief: it is quite another to say that I am right and I stand in moral judgment over those whom I decided have departed from the correct and honorable understanding of faith. --Ctobola 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I find no less civility in my statements, than in the LCMS/WELS declaration that all other Lutheran groups are heterodox - CTS is not the LCMS. If you care to look, he and I come from "opposite" traditions. Yet I have never found CTS to be anything but supportive, welcoming, and easy to work with. I have never known him to say "I'm right - everyone else is heterodox" - in fact, his often willing to find a reasonable compromise. Please stop. This is not the place to debate whether the LC-MS is right/wrong/or anything else in any given position they have taken. And it is certainly not the place to attack CTS (or anyone else!) for his association with the LCMS. This is uncivil. Please stop. -- Pastor David ^† _(Review) 15:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would second this point. I am glad, Ctobola, that you are citing the support for your words, which at first blush looked like your own slanted opinion. We all have our opinions, and we are respectfully entitled to them. However, Pastordavid is right in asking you to regard CTS as a fellow Wikipedia editor and not as the LCMS or the WELS personified. This is a project in which all of us provide a valuable resource, but we have to take care that our POVs do not master our enviable objectivity in the writing of these articles.--Drboisclair 16:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your comments and feedback. I apologize for my tone and incivility, particularly to CTSWyneken. I guess I've just been in too many situations where Lutheran differences have been an elephant in the room, and I consider unnamed elephants to be remarkably bad pets. ;-) However, none of that excuses my behavior. I am sorry. --Ctobola 22:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolvo te. 8-) No problem. I have in the past, especially when new to the wiki, pushed the edge pretty closely. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 00:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I archived the talk page (it was up to 188K). Please revert me if you object to this). Pastor David ^† _(Review) 16:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Protestantism

I added the Protestantism navigation box to the page and positioned it midway between the Lutheranism and Christianity boxes to create a kind of outward progression. Then I read the archived talk page, and it turns oit that there's been some controversy over whether Lutherans are even Protestants at all. (I think I can hear a loud, collective groan from longtime editors of this article.) I think, however, that the template will be non-controversial, since this article is already one of the items on the template (it is normal practice for nav boxes to appear on all the pages that they link to). Almost ironically, the image that the template's editors have chosen is a picture of the 95 Theses. I hope that the template will not arouse any controversy. For the record, I am a lifelong LCMS member and did not not hear of the notion that we weren't Protestant until I attended one of the Synod's universities, where I heard the notion expressed once by a professor. Fishal 20:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Limited scope

As long as I'm here, I do think that there is some validity to earlier criticisms of this article, that it suffers from a conservative and, specifically, Missouri-Synod bias. I don't think it's as bad as some users have made it out to be, but it is present. I think it mostly comes in the "Central doctrines" and "Practices" section, where broad generalizations are made and the diversity within Lutheranism is downplayed. For example, the first paragraph in the "Central Doctrines" section includes a link to Adam and Eve, implying that all Lutherans adhere to creationism; I am living proof that this is not even true within one of the conservative churches. Phrases like "The Holy Scripture" are definitely not the kind of language used outside Christianity, and they appear in many places. Many of the references in the Doctrines section are to Bible verses rather than expositions of Lutheran doctrines; this amounts to using primary sources to support a thesis and is a kind of original research. All that aside, the article definitely is written from a North American point of view rather than a global one. Fishal 12:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that we say the doctrine is traditionally that as stated. As far as I know, the majority of Lutheran througout nearly the first four hundred years of its history believed Adam and Eve to be historical figures. This point thus needs to remain in the article, altough there is no reason why the more critical view cannot be added and documented.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I'd like to suggest the removal of the term holy as a general adjective, where it is not necessary to context or clarity. Use of terms like "Holy Communion" and "Holy Scriptures" reflect a high church bias. Ctobola 15:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A broad tradition like Lutheranism is very tricky to write about in a short essay like an encyclopedia article. Much of the way the article speaks about these subjects represent the way three to four hundred years of Lutherans thought and taught about the subject. So these positions definitely need to be stated clearly. On the other hand, there is no objection from me or anyone else I know of, if someone wishes to add imformation about how Lutherans in the last century differ from those stances. One way to mark this, as we have done to some extent, is to add adjectives such as: "traditionally' or phrases such as "until the 19th century..."

Also, as I've said before, it would be good if someone is willing to add citations from sources outside the LCMS. The ones used here now are there simply because they are the most familiar to the editors who wrote the text. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word Holy

Ctobola chose to delete every occurance of the word Holy in the article which has resulted in an article with a different meaning in several cases. As such I have reverted several of them as follows.

Traditional Lutheran theology holds that God made the world, including humanity, perfect, holy, and sinless.

The term communion has far to many different meaning. Holy communion is actually are redirect link to Eucharist Other protestant groups might be less likely to use the the Holy communion; but Luterans still use it in all formal settings but in informal usage may use the term communion but it must be clearly understood in context to what its usage is as opposed to Full communion, Communion of Saints etc. In some cases I replaced Holy communion with Eucharist simply to avoid the repeative usage of the term as they are somewhat interchangable.

Holy Scripture is a clear reference to the Bible, where scripture can refer to any religious text. Thus in the title I added back Holy but left it out of other references to scripture as the context as defined by the title was adaquate render a proper understanding that the reference was to the Bible rather than some other religious text.

I removed the link to Holy Communion as it is simply are redirect to Eucharist which is used in the same sentence.

Since there is no difference in meaning between Holy Baptism and Baptism as well as between Holy Absolution and Absolution, as well as between Holy Eucharist and Eucharist I let these deletions stand. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the deletion of the word "Holy" from the phrases in the article is that it departs from language used very widely in the Lutheran tradition from its beginning to the present. This point can be amply documented from the literature, if anyone would like. The restoration is sensible. One other word about terminology: it helps to use the tradition's own synonyms when talking about its theology extensively. So, we can and should mix it up a bit: Bible=Holy Scripture=Word of God, Holy Communion=Eucharist=Sacrament of the Altar=Lord's Supper (the last being the most commonly used one.)--CTSWyneken^(talk) 13:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to open a can of nitpicking worms. It's the overall tone that I wanted to raise concerns about, not necessarily any particular word or phrase. I think we need to walk the line between using terms appropriate to Lutheranism and making the article accessible to a general audience. Not everyone is familiar with "Holy Scriptures;" everyone knows what "the Bible" is. To address your addressing of my second point, CTS, about "traditional doctrine"-- I think that most of the material can stay, but we need to clarify exactly what you mean by "traditional." As I understand it (admittedly I'm no expert), rationalism began to be felt in Lutheranism as early as the eighteenth century. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps a solution is to move a lot of this to Lutheran theology and focus more on history, geography, and polity in this main article (compare Roman Catholicism).Fishal 18:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A closer look at the Catholic article shows that they devote a great deal of space to beliefs and doctrines. I think what is needed is context. Rather than just saying "traditionally Lutherans believe in this", which may create the false impression that all Lutherans believe in this," let's add some context and references. Let's explain what "traditional" means. I believe it is used here to mean "as expressed in the Book of Concord"-- let's make that clearer. Let's go into how those foundational beliefs have evolved-- or not-- in various Lutheran circles since then. I think that adding a bit of historical, geographical, and denominational context will make this a great article. 67.184.232.191 18:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The above was left by me. Oops. Fishal 14:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the reasonable tone here. By traditional I mean the theology and practice of Lutheranism which began with Luther and the other reformers of the 16rh century, reaffirmed by the orthodoxy of the second generation in Wittenberg, Sweden and other northern Lutheran nations, ratified in the Book of Concord, expanded by the age of orthodoxy of the seventeenth century, and continued even to a great extent where the movement of pietism took hold. Rationalism, practically speaking, began to effect academia in the 18th century but did not much reach the parish until the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th. Even in the nineteenth and the early twentieth century, most laypeople remained within the orbit of either Lutheran orthodoxy or Lutheran pietism. Even now a very large segment of Lutherans maintain these traditions to one extent or another. I suspect, for example, that many ELCA laypeople also view Adam and Eve as historical figures. So what I'm saying is that, whatever way we go, this tradition needs to be stated and documented.

On the "Holy Scriptures" issue, this a part and parcel of Lutheran ways of talking about the Bible. If someone wants to learn about Lutheranism, the term needs to be introduced to them. We can solve the problem of it being unfamiliar by simply using an explanitory phrase or a wikilink. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the above is extremely helpful and informative and definitely belongs in the article : ) Fishal 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I find Dbiel's edits to be insensitive at best. I posted a comment and after three days I received no feedback so I made an edit to the article. Dbeil not only reverted my edits without discussion, but went to my personal talk page and wrote, "I believe, based on you most recent edits to Lutheranism, that it would be safe to say that you are not Lutheran yourself...." I guess I should not be surprised by that comment -- the issue here is the whether we need to create those sorts of distinctions -- the holy and unholy, the haves and have-nots, the redeemed and unredeemed.

Mr. (?) Biel, I won't suppose to tell you what your faith is -- but I am Lutheran. I spent my college years studying Scripture and Luther theology, I was an associate in ministry ELCA and served several congregations, my bookshelf is fill with the works of Luther, Forrell, Tappert, Nestigen, Forde... and I've read them. And the fact is that there are a large number of us Lutherans here in the central part of the U.S. who don't find those sorts of holy/unholy distinctions sensible or even Lutheran. We don't consider the Book itself "holy" because it's just chicken scratches on a page that don't mean anything until they reach our hearts. We don't need to use the term "holy" to describe Communion, because there's no other kind -- and we certainly would never use the papist term eucharist, because it's not about our thanksgiving, even a little bit. We are pietists in the best sense of the word, and we are just as much a part and parcel of Lutheranism as the high-churchers.

In short, we see the hand of God in all things at all times. We don't need to make the stuff around us holy, because we've already been made holy by God's grace. So let's stick to the terms we agree on (Communion, Scripture) and stop declaring that our view is the only one.--Ctobola 04:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that I need to apologize on several points. First, my failure to notice your previous comment on this page, which is hard to understand how that happened, as it immediately precedes this section, but it did. And secondly for drawing an assumption, an always dangerous thing to do. On hindsight, it would have been far better to have reframed from editing and simply post here instead; I am still trying to get a feel for the Be bold in editing policy and balancing it with concences. I do agree with your original comment I'd like to suggest the removal of the term holy as a general adjective, where it is not necessary to context or clarity. which can be noted by the fact that most of the deletions were not reverted. But for clarity simply deleting the word Holy may not be the best choice, replacing the phrase itself may be better. Dbiel ^(Talk) 06:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside the personal issues, please do note that not everyone, even those of us who have the page on our watch list, are going to pick up every comment. This occaisonally ends up in mass reverts, since this page has been subject to much vandalism in the past. (the infamous Steven Colbert incident springs to mind). It may not be especially elegant, but expect massive changes to get reactionary responses. You can always rerevert, which will get our attention and discussion.

Where we go forward from here? Please see my comments above. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I just read the 1974 Brittanica's article on "Lutheran churches" and found it very helpful. It places all the questions of doctrine and belief within a historical context-- who believed what, and where and when. I'm considering making some changes to the article using the Brittanica as a source: is this OK with everyone? Fishal 15:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Please do keep in mind that quite a few people still believe the historic Lutheran doctrines and try to keep the explanations clear rather than over-summarized. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Of course! Pretending that the historic Lutheran consensus doesn't exist is even more biased than pretending that the consensus is still universal. Basically, the Brit says that orthodoxy (their term) was the norm from 16081580 until the eighteenth century, when pietism and rationalism began to erode that orthodox consensus. The current theological spectrum, according to the encyclopedia, has its roots in the Prussian Union of 1817; since then the controversy has come down to ecumenism (LWF) vs. distinctiveness (ILC, CLEC, other Confessionals and Old Lutherans). I worry that this may be an oversimplification that leaves out Scandinavians. Still, I think that our distinguished competitor's article does a good job by defining exactly where these traditional beliefs come from and articulating who has accepted them, and when. Fishal 16:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also making some changes to the lead. Right now you don't get a very clear definition of Lutheranism from the lead. Fishal 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The new lead section

Would the following deletion indicated by the strikeout read better. The following sentences do expand on the meaning.

Lutherans separated from the Catholic Church mainly because of disagreement over the doctrine of human beings' justification before God.

Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This new lead is inaccurate. The Lutheran Church simply did not separate from the Catholic Church in any way. The churches and their leaders were excommunicated. The lead needs complete revision as it now stands. In fact, the Encarta article we cite makes the opposite point from the lead now.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 21:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me do say that it reads much better, though. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that this semantical debate happened a while back. I changed it to:

The split between Lutherans and the Catholic Church arose mainly over the doctrine of justification before God.

Now it doesn't say whose idea it was to part ways, merely that a split arose. No one is blamed, no one gets hurt. I made a few other changes to some sections, nothing too sweeping. I'm trying to make things more clear to someone unfamiliar with the topic. More needs to be done. Fishal 22:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. The result is perfectly fine. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Central Doctrine

The following sentence does not seem to read well:

For this reason, Lutherans teach that salvation is possible only because of the grace of God made manifest in the birth, life, suffering, death, and resurrection, and continuing presence by the power of the Holy Spirit, of Jesus Christ.

Possible changes:

• For this reason, Lutherans teach that salvation is possible only because of the grace of God made manifest in the birth, life, suffering, death, and resurrection, and continuing presence by the power of the Holy Spirit, of Jesus Christ.
• For this reason, Lutherans teach that salvation is possible only because of the grace of God made manifest in the birth, life, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; and continuing presence by the power of the Holy Spirit.
• For this reason, Lutherans teach that salvation is possible only because of the grace of God made manifest in the birth, life, suffering, death, and resurrection; and continuing presence by the power of the Holy Spirit, of Jesus Christ. (changed comma to semicolon)

I would favor the second option. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, we could break it into several shorter sentences. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CTS. Fishal 14:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-opening a Diet can of Worms

CTS, I strongly feel that the links to Protestantism and Roman Catholic Church should be restored to the lead section. I know that for doctrinal reasons many Lutherans are uncomfortable with identifying Lutheranism with Protestantism, or the pre-Reformation Church with the Roman Catholic Church. But most of the world disagrees. We should keep things simple and clear, presenting the facts as normally accepted rather than giving undue weight to what you must recognize as a minority opinion. Fishal 14:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I puzzled here because there is a link to both; the Protestant link is in the first paragraph and the Roman Catholic link is in the second. The issue (for those who haven't see this one) is more than a doctrinal one; it is a historical one as well. There was no such thing as a "Protestant" or a "Roman Catholic" in the 16th Century. The change I made eliminates the historical issue.

Beyond that is the self-identification issue. Wikipedia allows religious movements to self-identify. Many Lutherans, if not most, think of themselves as Christians first and Lutherans second. We should define the movement in this way.

There are many of us that also do not identify ourselves as protestants. However, since many folk make the connection with Protestantism, I'm not going to fight it out to remove the connection. But I ask in return that others be sensitive to the fact that you are telling people who they are in ways that are very upsetting to them. Just witness how editors have reacted to the thought that some folk might think Adam and Eve were historic figures (or how folk like me react when you say they were not) When a Wikipedia article is written on a religious issue, it requires a lot of patience and flexibility on all sides. Can we work together on this? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I would hope I'd be the last person to dictate anything to anybody. I appologize for the Adam and Eve comment. I didn't mean for it to be offensive; I just wanted to make sure we're not being restrictive. As I mentioned way up on the page, I'm born & raised a Lutheran, and yet the notion that we're not a part of Protestantism is quite alien to me. (In the sources that I've seen, that's not even disputed.) But you know that I won't try to bludgeon my opinions into the article.

No need to apologize here. Some people do not believe in a real Adam and Eve. It's OK to look for language that can show that the two views are both out there. My point is that, what is an emotional view for some Lutherans needs to be some way acknowledge. The trick is to keep all the views represented without the result sounding like a new tax bill! --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If the idea that Lutherans are not Protestants and that Leo X et al. were not Roman Catholics is a common one (and not just a fringe opinion), than you're right, the lead section should not make those claims. But that idea still confuses me. It seems self-evident to me that Lutherans are Protestants, and that the 16th-century Roman Church was the same institution as today's Roman Catholic Church. Do any articles currently explain the point of view that this is not the case? Fishal 16:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll do some digging. Re: the Roman Catholic Church, I recall the Catholics didn't even like the term, but have yielded the point. My point is historical. These terms just were not used in the 16th Century. I vaguely remember reading that "Protestant" did not even come into play meaning "not catholic" until the 19th Century, but I could be wrong about that. On the issue of it being the same church -- post-Trent catholicism is much different than pre-Trent. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) I understand the historical issue, but today we commonly use terms to describe historical events & people that were not used historically (Byzantine Empire, Gothic architecture, etc.) As I said, it's mostly a semantic issue that I don't want to force on anybody. I'll stop making a ruckus over it. Fishal 20:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To merge with Lutheranism by region?

I removed the following content from the "ecumenism among Lutherans" section. It gives basic facts and figures on the 3 US denominations, and it seems tangential to a general article on Lutheranism. It might be useful in the Lutheranism by region article, however.

In the United States, the largest Lutheran denomination is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), formed in 1987 by a merger of the Lutheran Church in America, the American Lutheran Church, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (a small group of congregations that left the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod in the 1970s). These groups were mainly distinguished from one another by history and historical connections to specific immigrant groups (German, Norwiegan, Swedish, Danish, Finnish) rather than by doctrine. The ELCA has a membership of a little over 5 million. It is a member of the Lutheran World Federation.

The second largest is the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS), a denomination which is theologically more conservative than the ELCA. It has about 2.5 million members. (Despite the denomination's name, LCMS congregations can be found throughout the United States, not only Missouri.) It belongs to the International Lutheran Council.

The third largest is the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, theologically slightly more conservative than the LCMS, which has about 500,000 members. It is a member of the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference.

Other Lutheran organizations number a total of about 80,000 members in the U.S.

Fishal 17:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call. We should really try to model this article on summary style.--CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Bible verses

It seems to me that most of the Bible verse references can be removed. They are primary, not secondary, sources because they show the source from which Lutheran doctrine is derived, rather than explain the Lutheran doctrine itself. If the article were an essay or an apoligetic work, they'd be good, but that's not what the article's supposed to be. I can see quoting a few Scripture passages directly for a little in-depth understanding (like Ephesians 2:8). But all those Bible passages clutters the article without adding much; the statements are still basically unsourced until they are referenced to passages in the Book of Concord or some other document that talks specifically about Lutheranism. Fishal 21:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well... yes and no. If passages are the source from which Lutherans believe these doctrines come from, it's helpful for folks to know what they're thinking. I would move them all to notes, however, and maybe find some language to make that clear. --CTSWyneken 13:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

sacrmane

Not sure what is meant by this term, but it seems to be spelled incorrectly.

Many Lutherans also preserve a liturgical approach to the celebration of Communion (or the Lord's Supper), emphasizing the sacrmane as the central act of Christian worship.

Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that would probably be "sacrament". Pastordavid 19:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

New computer, smaller type, bifocals. 'nuff said. --Ctobola 22:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghost in the Machine

I'd like to suggest the elimination of the following sentence in the "Central doctrines" area: "They teach that, at death, Christians are immediately taken into the presence of God (2 Cor. 5:8), where they await the resurrection of the body at the second coming of Christ (1 Cor. 15:22–24)." This might be a nice, "pastoral" understanding, but it reflects a Cartesian "ghost in the machine" dualism... not necessarily a Lutheran understanding. --Ctobola 19:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... As far as I know, the former wording is the traditional Lutheran position. In fact, I've never seen a different position advocated in any Lutheran text. This doesn't mean that none exists. Do you have a citation that documents another view among Lutherans? If I have the time, I'll look about to document the traditional understanding. --CTSWyneken 16:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've re-worded to a view I think is more generally acceptable to all. I'll have to dig around to find my sources, but the view from most of the Lutheran scholars I've studied under is that "Man does not have a body, man is a body." In other words, death is indeed an end for us and in resurrection we are genuinely a new creation, not simply the "re-fleshing" of a ghost. If I recall correctly, many scholars consider the "ghost in the machine" view to be essentially a Hellenistic view, which was further reinforced by Aquinas and others. It's based on the dualist view that the "spirit" is inherently good and is therefore self-sustaining, and that the flesh is inherently evil and temporal. (The Wikipedia entry on Soul sleep addresses the issue, including a quote from Luther on the matter.) --Ctobola 17:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are trying to get at is whether or not, according to Lutheran theology, there is an inherent immortality of the soul. Luther did indeed at times reject such a view (insisting, as the quote you referenced says, that there is no immortality of the soul apart from teh resurrection). However, I don't know that this has ever been a "settled" issue in Lutheranism, and I believe that the Confessions are silent on the issue (although I certainly leave room for the possiblity that I may have overlooked something). Pastordavid 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No argument here -- so on that note, I think we agree that "...at death, Christians are immediately taken into the presence of God..." would be an overstatement of the Lutheran position. --Ctobola 19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A good description of the ELCA position is provided here: http://www.elca.org/questions/Results.asp?recid=32

Additionally:

• Luther notes "Now, if one should say that Abraham's soul lives with God but his body is dead, this distinction is rubbish. I will attack it. One must say, 'The whole Abraham, the whole man, shall live.' The other way you tear off a part of Abraham and say, 'It lives.' This is the way the philosophers speak: 'Afterward the soul departed from its domicile,' etc. That would be a silly soul if it were in heaven and desired its body!" [Theodore G. Tappert, ed. & tr., Luther's Works, v.54. Table Talk (Philadelphia: Fortress 1967) p.447.]
• In article 27 of Luther's Assertion of all the articles of M. Luther condemned by the latest Bull of Leo X (his defense of the 41 theses condemned by Pope Leo), he writes"However, I permit the Pope to establish articles of faith for himself and for his own faithful—such are: That the bread and wine are transubstantiated in the sacrament; ... that the soul is immortal; and all these endless monstrosities in the Roman dunghill of decretals...."
• In 1765, Francis Blackburne, Archdeacon of Cleveland, writes in his Short Historical View of the Controversy Concerning an Intermediate State: "Luther espoused the doctrine of the sleep of the soul, upon a Scripture foundation, and then he made use of it as a confutation of purgatory and saint worship, and continued in that belief to the last moment of his life." (p. 14)

Taken together, I think it provides adequate evidence -- along with the lack of Confessional support for the dualist view -- that the position presented in the article is not the universal Lutheran view. --Ctobola 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) What we then have is at least two different positions on the matter. The article represents at least the position of the LCMS and those who take a similar theological stance. What we, then, need to find is the usual tricky way of describing both positions. (short of a full-scale study of who believed what and when). If you'd like, I can quote relevant passages from our literature that demonstrates this.

On the content itself, I think the "ghost in a machine" analogy really doesn't work for where our view comes from. We (or at least I) do not think of two separate parts of a soul, a body and a spirit, any more that I think of the brain and heart being two separate persons. Yet the Scripture speaks of the body going to the grave and, at the same time, being in Heaven with Christ. The Lord speaks of the one who "lives and believes in Me" as never dying. Our understanding is that the spirit of a believer is unnaturally separated from its body with the promise of the resurrection to restore that body at the end of time.

To be honest, I really know of no other way to put all the Scriptures together on the subject.

On Luther's view: I afraid it is not as simple as the above makes it out; there are equally clear passages that go the other way.

At any rate, most of that is not really relevant. What we need here is to document what the major schools of thought on the subject are. The trick is to do it without taking up an enormous amount of space. --CTSWyneken 14:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that this is probably not one of those things that either group would describe as central to Lutheranism, and we could probably pass over this pretty quickly with something like, "Most Lutherans ascribe to the idea that ...(state this as it was previously) ... while others hold to the idea of soul sleep." My rationale: even within the ELCA, most persons hold to the immortality of the soul, and there is no official statement to the contrary. Use the paper linked to above, and also the quote from Luther as a references. Pastordavid 14:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't know that we can even reasonably break this down into two views. There is the "soul sleep" (Psychopannychist) position; the "dead means dead" (thnetopsychist) view [which I consider the most Scriptural and linguistically accurate view], the "dead means dead forever" (annihiliationist) view [which was probably prevalent among the early Hebrews]; the "particular judgment" (reflected in the current article) view that is a formal position of Calvinism and Roman Catholicism; and a lot of variations in between.

On top of that, there are a number of "pastoral variations" and theological nuances that ostensibly negate all of this. Hence the reason I originally suggested that the article should say, "They teach that death is the inevitable consequence of sin for all humans, and that a Christian's hope lies in resurrection of the whole person at the second coming of Christ." I guess the addition of "Lutherans differ on the disposition of the individual between death and resurrection."; but I question whether such a statement provides any value for the reader - if Lutherans disagree, there is no definitive Lutheran position. --Ctobola 18:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would submit that most of these are very small minority positions, with the possible exception of the soul sleep position. I'll have to do some digging, but my guess is that the current position of the article is the traditional one (aka, up to the last century at least), and, although I don't know how to quantify it, is the majority opinion of most Lutherans no matter what flavor. I'd need a lot of evidence that another view is a prevalent.

Your suggested solution is appreciated, but to me sets aside what many of us believe to be the great comfort of knowing what scripture teaches: that at death, we go to live with God, that nothing can separate us from God and His love and that we who believe never die...

Anyway, is there a way to get a bead on what ELCA folk on the average believe?

Short of this, I think Pastor David's solution is a good one. --CTSWyneken 21:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Ctobola raises a good point about a simplistic position that seems to discard the human body, putting the emphasis on the survival of the soul; however, there are a number of issues here to be taken into consideration:

• 1) one cannot ignore what the New Testament has to say about eschatology whether general or personal. Christ Himself told the penitent thief, "Truly, truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43) and St. Paul writes, "We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord" (2 Cor 5:8). This boils down to the believer himself being with the Lord the instant he or she dies. It does not say the soul or the spirit but the individual him or herself;
• 2) I have done some study on Luther's position on this matter (soul sleep), and while he may use the metaphor of sleep--as Scripture does--for death, he does not believe in a soul sleep. Luther is hard to pin down sometimes, but generally speaking Lutherans are not bound to follow everything he ever said or wrote. The reliability of some of the table talks or the sermon notes is also a matter of concern. One can only be sure of Luther when he wrote and published something himself in order to say that is what Luther believed.
• 3) I am heartened by what Pastor David has written above that the majority of ELCA Lutherans do not believe in soul sleep: it is not biblical. There may be scholars who simply want to dismiss the individual's existence apart from the body by ignoring the New Testament and basing their theology solely on the Old Testament's inchoate theology, but that is a matter for the lecture room rather than the pulpit. (Jesus' teaching about God being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the God of the living only is something to take note of: that is authoritative Old Testament exegesis!) The Lutheran position of sola scriptura asserts divine authority for the doctrine of the New Testament, Bultmann's disparaging of Hellenistic influences notwithstanding;
• 4) In speaking about the "intermediate state" this is only from our perspective who are still bound by time and finitude. One might argue that since death takes one out of time into eternity, that the instant that we die we are right at Judgment Day because we have passed out of time. There is no soul sleep because of the two passages that I have cited above, but it seems to make sense that in death we leave time behind and pass into eternity. Food for thought.
• 5) We should not simply remove the statement outright: I would submit that it is more widespread a Lutheran belief than Ctobola implies here.--Drboisclair 19:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, drboisclair et al. A few important points to keep in mind...

• In spite of earlier attempts to marginalize the resurrection-centric position, it is in fact the articulated view of the largest Lutheran body in the U.S. (See earlier reference to the ELCA's Web site) and in my experience it is a common, if not the prevailing, view among the ELCA pastors. (For additional Lutheran scholarship, see Thielicke's Death and Life, Kantonen's Life after Death, and the work of Paul Althaus.)
• The LC-MS' 1969 "Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations: A Statement on Death, Resurrection, and Immortality" includes the following:

"Francis Pieper writes in a similar vein: "Holy Writ reveals but little of the state of the souls between death and the resurrection. In speaking of the List things, it directs our gaze primarily to Judgment Day and the events clustering around it." (Christian Dogmatics, trans. Walter W. F. Albrecht III [St. Louis, 1953], p.511)

"Reflecting Dr. Pieper's position, John Theodore Mueller declares: 'The Christian hope of eternal life (John 17, 3) must... not be confounded With the pagan doctrine of the immortality of the soul.' (Christian Dogmatics [St. Louis, 1934], p. 639)" [Emphasis mine]

• With regard to how prevalent this view is among pew-sitters, I can't say and I don't know if that's terribly relevant. Accurate definitions and good theology are not necessarily determined by popular conceptions. In my experience, an large number of Lutherans have no concept of our position on free will, yet we feel no compunction to note that in the definition.
• I am disappointed by attempts to cherry-pick Bible verses to present THE Biblical position on this matter. This is a remarkably complex issue, and there certainly is implicit and explicit Scriptural support for the view that, as Frederick Buechner writes, "...we go to our graves as dead as a doornail and are given our lives back again by God (i.e., resurrected) just as we were given them by God in the first place...." From Genesis 3:19b ("...for dust you are and to dust you will return.") to Paul's assertion that, "the dead in Christ shall rise first," (1 Thessalonians 4:16), there is ample Biblical evidence to support the resurrection-centric view. [PLEASE NOTE: I am not arguing that my view is the ONLY legitimate view, only that it is at least as Biblical as the "immortal soul" view.]
• Systematically, I consider the belief in the immortality of the soul to be utterly inconsistent with the Lutheran conceptions of God's omnipotence and human impotency. Although not a Lutheran, Buechner sums it up well: "The idea of the immortality of the soul is based on the experience of humanity's indomitable spirit. The idea of the resurrection of the body is based on the experience of God’s unspeakable love." (Whistling in the Dark, 1973.) Additionally, this position is supported by the concept of "resurrection of the body" in the Creeds, and linguistic analysis of the Greek terms soma (body/person) and sarx (flesh).

So, to reiterate my original thesis: The "ghost in the machine" view is neither THE Lutheran nor THE Biblical position. It might be A position of some Lutherans and it might be A position that some can honesty consider Biblical. (Although looking across the whole of Scripture, I don't think it presents an accurate exegesis.) Therefore, I would suggest that we use the following instead:

Some Lutheran bodies reject the concept of the immortality of the soul, noting that the individual's life completely ceases in death and that the hope of eternal life lives in the resurrection from the grave of the whole person. Others hold that the human soul lives on beyond death.

[Those who hold the "immortality of the soul" view may be better able to articulate that position.] --Ctobola 11:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* Please note that neither DRBoisclair nor I are arguing that we should not represent the ELCA position. I would hope that you would not object to representing the LCMS view, which, to the best of my knowledge, the view most Lutherans throughout history. In fact, until you brought it up, I was unaware that any Lutheran held to soul sleep or other views. I've associated it with the Second Advent movement of the 19th Century and its daughters -- the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses.

I would vigorously argue that the views of everyday Lutherans do matter, not just theological writings. They are the vast majority of folk that see themselves as Lutheran and should not be marginalized. Theological positions do matter, but so does the lex ordandi.

So, I propose that we say something like two views on the state of the soul between death and the last day: that the believer immediately upon death is in the presence of the Triune God and that the believer is asleep in the grave awaiting the resurrection of the dead. I'll support any language like that. --CTSWyneken 12:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Survival of the self is the teaching of the New Testament and classical Lutheranism

Ctobola, you are ignoring the New Testament. So, it is my understanding that you would caricature the New Testament doctrine about the SURVIVAL OF THE SELF as what you would call by a ridiculous name: "Ghost in a machine." Why not read on in Pieper?:

• Of the souls of the unbelievers (απειθήσαντες) Scripture declares that they are kept εν φυλακη, "in prison," a place of punishment (1 Pet. 3:19–20). Of the souls of the believers we are told not merely in general that they are in God’s hand (Acts 7:59; Luke 23:46), but also in particular that they dwell with Christ and in Paradise, Phil. 1:23; "I have a desire to depart and to be with Christ; which is far better." (Luke 23:43) The "being with Christ" or "in Paradise” of the departed believing souls must certainly be an augmentation of the communion with Christ which Christians enjoy here on earth, because Paul adds: "which is far better," πολλω μαλλον κρεισσον, better than his communion with Christ here on earth. Moreover, the life "in Paradise," which Christ promised the soul of the believing malefactor, certainly bespeaks a blissful state of the soul after death. These texts surely make it evident that the departed souls of the believers are in a state of blessed enjoyment of God, even though we know nothing further as to the manner of their blessed communion with God. Deductions from the nature of the soul, e. g., that it cannot be inactive, are uncertain and therefore not to be urged in theology.
• A soul sleep which excludes a blessed enjoyment of God [psychopannychism] must be definitely rejected on the basis of Phil. 1:23 and Luke 23:43. A sleep of the soul which includes enjoyment of God (says Luther) cannot be called a false doctrine (21) (Footnote 21: Luther, St. L. I:1758 ff.; II:215 ff. A complete history of this doctrine in Gerhard, loc. cit., "De morte," § 293 ff. Luther speaks more guardedly of the state of the soul between death and resurrection than do Gerhard and the later theologians, who transfer some things to the state between death and resurrection which can be said with certainty only of the state after the resurrection. Luther: “It is divine truth that Abraham [after death] lives with God, serves Him, and also rules with Him. But what sort of life that is, whether he be asleep or awake, that is another question. How the soul rests, we are not to know; it is certain, however, that it lives." (II:216) ) (pp. 511-512).--Drboisclair 23:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You also cannot use Mueller against the New Testament doctrine:

• Nevertheless Holy Scripture speaks also of the condition of the soul after death. It tells us that the souls of the ungodly are “spirits in prison,” 1 Pet. 3:19, and that they suffer excruciating and endless torments, Luke 16:23–31, so that death leads them directly into everlasting agony and anguish, Ps. 106:16–18.
• On the other hand, Scripture assures us that the souls of the godly are in God’s hand, Acts 7:59, 60; Luke 23:46, that they are with Christ in paradise, Phil. 1:23; Luke 23:43, and that they are supremely happy, Rev. 14:13, in their new heavenly life, Ps. 16:11; John 17:24; Rom. 8:18. In fact, they are so completely removed from all earthly trouble and sorrow that they are altogether ignorant of those who live upon earth, Is. 63:16, and their needs no longer concern them, Is. 57:1, 2.
• Hence we conclude that the souls of the believers are in a condition of perfect blessedness and of perpetual enjoyment of God, though we cannot picture to ourselves in what manner this wonderful fruition of celestial bliss takes place. We therefore reject every kind of soul sleep (psychopannychism) which excludes the active enjoyment of God on the part of the departed believer, Phil. 1:23; Luke 23:43.
• The statements of Scripture that “the dead sleep,” 1 Cor. 15:18, or that “the dead do not praise God,” Ps. 6:5, or that “they enter into rest,” Heb. 4:3, etc., do not prove the insensibility of the soul after death, but are figurative expressions, used in a sense which Scripture clearly explains.
• To draw inferences with regard to the condition of the soul after death from the nature of the soul (“The soul is never inactive,” etc.) is not permissible, since the conclusions so reached are most uncertain, and, above all, since Scripture is the only source and standard of faith, and its teaching must not be supplemented by human speculation.
• A psychopannychy which includes a real enjoyment of heavenly bliss (Luther) must not be rejected as wrong since it does not contradict Scripture. Luther writes (St. L., I, 1758 ff.; II, 215 ff.): “It is divine truth that Abraham [after death] lives with God, serves Him, and rules with Him. But what kind of life that is, whether he sleeps or is awake, is a different question. How the soul rests we cannot know; but it is certain that it lives.”
• With respect to the habitation of the souls (paradise, prison, φυλακή) Gerhard writes: “Scripture, by a general appellation, speaks of a place, John 14:2; Luke 16:28; Acts 1:25. Not that it is a corporeal and physical place, properly so called, but because it is a ‘where’ (που) into which souls, separated from their bodies, are brought together. Scripture enumerates only two such receptacles, or habitations, of the souls, one of which, prepared for the souls of the godly, is called by the most ordinary appellation heaven, and the other, intended for the souls of the wicked, is called hell.” (Doctr. Theol., p. 632.) (Mueller, pages 616-617).

The statement should stand as is that it is the general position of Lutheranism that the Christian self survives physical death and is "with Christ." Those who follow a modern rejection of this should be named as the exception.--Drboisclair 23:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the Last Day is the focus as well as the resurrection of the body, but one cannot deny that the teaching of the New Testament is that when a Christian believer dies he is "with Christ." I think that the view of Bultmann, which is no better than a pagan trashes the New Testament. The view that the self does not survive death in the intermediate state also trashes the New Testament. It does not take one with a Ph.D. to figure that out.--Drboisclair 23:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That this doctrine was taught by the Lutherans of the 17th Century is not in doubt:

§ 63. (1.) Of Death. “Death (in the strict sense) is the deprivation of natural life, occurring through the separation of soul and body.” BR. (354). [4] It is a consequence of the fall of our first parents, and therefore all men are subjected to it (Rom. 5:12.) [5] In death the natural life of man ceases, it is true, as this was conditioned by the peculiar connection between body and soul [6] but the soul does not cease as does the body, but lives on with all the attributes and powers that belong to its essential nature. [7] For the immortality of the soul, reason has from time immemorial set up an array of proofs, but we become incontrovertibly certain of it through the positive declarations of the Holy Scriptures. [8] From them we learn also this much concerning the condition of the soul after death, that its lot, immediately thereafter, is a happy or unhappy one, just as its possessor in this life embraced salvation through Christ or not. [9] (Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Heinrich Schmid, pp. 624-625)--Drboisclair 00:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Baier(p. 363): When the dissolution of the soul and body has occurred, and death therefore happens, the soul nevertheless survives and performs its operations separately, outside of the body; for example, in those things which pertain formally to the intellect and will, as essential powers of the human or rational soul, which themselves also survive and are not inactive. The intellect retains the intelligible forms which it had in the body, and therefore can also call forth acts of knowledge; to which, then, it is correctly believed that some acts of the will, with respect to objects presented by the intellect, correspond. And to this is generally referred the statement of Rev. 6:10, that the knowledge of a former condition and a certain longing are ascribed to the souls of the martyrs. But we do not say that the souls of the deceased know distinctly and definitely the actions and affairs of each of the living, which have occurred since the departure of the former from the body, and especially the various prayers and rites of worship directed to them.--Drboisclair 01:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Gerhard (vol. 17, p. 149): In life, they (body and soul) are connected to each other by the closest bond, whence the affections and sufferings of the body flow over into the soul, and in turn the affections and sufferings of the soul flow over into the body; the soul does nothing whatever outside of the body, nor does the body do anything independently of the soul. But in death the soul is separated from the body, and returns to God, to whose judgment it is committed, from which it is either borne by holy angels into heaven, or is delivered to evil spirits to be cast into hell; the body is turned back again into the dust of the earth, from which its first and earliest origin proceeded, and by the putrefaction and incineration is reduced to its primitive elements. After this dissolution and separation, the affections and sufferings of the soul no longer flow over to the body; and, in turn, the affections and sufferings of the body no longer flow over into the soul. The soul no longer acts through the body as an instrument, but lives and subsists apart from it; neither is it dissolved nor does it fall apart as the body that is resolved into its own elements, but, subsisting outside of the body, it spends an immortal life, and, removed from all intercourse with the body, is preserved somewhere (πоυ) until, on the appointed day of the general resurrection, the body raised up by divine power will be joined again to the same, and man will afterwards experience the righteous sentence of the judge.--Drboisclair 01:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Quenstedt (IV, 537): That human souls are immortal, and that they do not perish with the bodies, can be clearly and firmly established alone from the Holy Scriptures.” GRH. (XVII, 150) produces the scriptural proof: “(1) From the distinct assertion of our Saviour, Matt. 10:28. (2) From the opposition of soul and body. That in which soul and body are opposed to each other antithetically cannot in like manner be predicated of both. But in mortality, soul and body are opposed to each other in such a manner that mortality is affirmed of the body, but denied concerning the soul. Therefore mortality cannot be predicated of both in like manner, cf. Ecc. 12:7. (3) From the original creation of the soul. The souls of brutes were produced from the same material as their bodies, whence, when their bodies perish, the souls themselves likewise perish, Gen. 1:20. But into man He breathed a soul, Gen. 2:7; whence we thus infer: “A soul whose origin is different from that of the souls of brutes, does not have the same end with the souls of brutes. But now the primeval origin of the human soul is different from that of the souls of brutes, because it was made not of an elementary material, as the souls of brutes, but divinely breathed into the body formed from the earth. Therefore, to the body there is ascribed πλασις (the being moulded) from the dust of the earth, but to the soul the immediate εμπνευσις (inspiration) of God. (4) From the name itself . . . . The human soul is called spirit, Ecc. 3:21; Acts 7:59; Heb. 12:23. (5) From the continuation of life after man’s death, Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37; Hab. 1:12. (6) From the description of death, Gen. 25:8; 35:29; 49:33; Dan. 12:13; Acts 26:18; Col. 1:12, etc.” But concerning the immortality of the soul, GRH. still adds (XVII, 150): “Add the fact that the soul is not immortal in the same manner as God, viz., essentially (ουσιωδως) and independently (for in that sense God alone is said to have immortality, 1 Tim. 6:16), but through the grace of creation, because it was so fashioned by God as not to have in itself an inner principle of corruption, but to be incorporeal, invisible, and immortal. Yet God could, if He wished, reduce the soul to nothing, and altogether extinguish it; but because He wished it to be immortal, it continues through and because of the will of the immortal Creator. That is immortal which either can be destroyed by absolutely no power, not even by divine power (and in this manner God alone is immortal), or which has been so framed by God as not to perish, although by God’s absolute power it could be destroyed; in the latter manner the souls of men and the angels are immortal.” Concerning the force of the evidence in “the arguments sought from the light of nature,” GRH. (XVII, 159): “We make a distinction between antecedent and subsequent modes of reasoning. Thomas: ‘A mode of reasoning is employed with regard to any subject in a twofold manner: in the first place, to give sufficient proof to a statement; in the second place, when the statement has already been established, to show that the effects that follow correspond.’ In this latter manner, the immortality of the soul can be proved from the light of nature, after it has been shown from Holy Scripture that the same consequence has been fully established. Again, we make a distinction between conclusive and probable modes of reasoning. The arguments produced from the light of nature can induce a persuasion of probability concerning the immortality of the soul, but can in no way present a firm, immovable, and irrefragable foundation of faith.” GRH. (XVII, 147) produces as such proofs: “(1) A rational soul is a substance subsisting of itself and spiritual, as is manifest from its operation, because there are in us some spiritual acts of knowledge, i.e., neither consisting of matter, nor depending upon matter or a subject, but inorganic in the cognizing of immaterial, universal, and eternal things; therefore it is also immortal. (2) The human soul is in essence simple, invisible, immaterial, most like unto God, and independent of matter. (3) It is an essence primarily self-moving. (4) By a natural longing it desires eternal things, and it is not probable that this desire would be born within it for no purpose. (5) It contemplates eternal essences, while, nevertheless, nothing can rise to the contemplation of that from which it entirely differs in essence. (6) In abstraction from objects of sense it is more and more perfected, and therefore, when it shall be separated from the body, will become most perfect. (7) It has not originated from elements, because it has knowledge naturally implanted, which no elementary material can acquire. (8) It has the distinction between the Honorable and the Base implanted, from which it derives this rule of justice, viz., that it ought to be well with the good, and ill with the wicked. But now, in this life, more frequently neither the good receive their rewards, nor the wicked their merited punishments; therefore another life remains to which the immortal soul aspires: otherwise this distinction would have been implanted in the mind in vain. (9) To men self-conscious of evil because of crimes, it occasions fear; therefore it is naturally anxious concerning the condition that will follow death, and is certainly self-conscious of its immortality: for if the soul would not survive after death, men self-conscious of evil would have no reason to dread future punishments. (10) The state of ecstasy, i.e., when, without any employment of the senses, it naturally undergoes an intense application of its rational portion to sublime affairs, and therefore can also naturally subsist of itself, because anything which is not of itself dependent upon another in working, is not so in existing. (11) Finally, they urge the agreement of the sounder philosophers, who prove that the immortality of the soul belongs to the number of those things which are προληψεις (presuppositions), or certain preconceived notions admitted by all."--Drboisclair 01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hutter: HUTT. (Loc. Th., 297): “The souls of the godly, or of believers in Christ, are in the hand of God, awaiting there the glorious resurrection of the body, and the full enjoyment of eternal blessedness, Wis. 3:1; Luke 16:22, 23.” BR. (364) “Yea, we believe that the souls of the godly attain essential blessedness immediately after they have been separated from the body (Phil. 1:23; Luke 23:43; John 5:24; Rev. 7:4, 15); but that the souls of the wicked undergo their damnation (1 Pet. 3:19).” GRH. (XVII, 178): “Of receptacles and habitations. Scripture, by a general appellation, speaks of a place, John 14:2; Luke 16:28; Acts 1:25. Not that it is a corporeal and physical place, properly so called, but because it is “a where” (που), into which souls separated from the body are brought together. Scripture enumerates only two such receptacles, habitations, guardhouses, and promptuaries of souls, one of which, prepared for the souls of the godly, is called by the most ordinary appellation heaven, and the other, intended for the souls of the wicked, is called hell.”--Drboisclair 01:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Denial of the Survival of the Self a 20th Century Novelty

Even the liberal theologians of the 19th Century like Schleiermacher and Kahnis believed in the survival of the soul! It was only in the 20th Century with existentialist-positivists like Bultmann that there is a denial of the survival of the self among Lutherans. If you could call such an unbeliever like Bultmann a Lutheran.--Drboisclair 01:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A Belief in the Biblical Doctrine of the Survival of the Self Does not negate the resurrection-centrist Position

Ctobola, we do not argue against the "resurrection-centrist" position that you are advocating. This is the biblical and Lutheran position; however, holding such a position does not negate other scriptural positions. Yes, we hold to the resurrection of the dead as the hope of the future. That being said any unbiased reading of the New Testament sheds further light on the "intermediate state." I would have to say that I would shy away from the phrase "immortality of the soul" because that phrase has a lot of philosophical baggage. As you can see from the quotations from Schmid, who cites Gerhard, Gerhard demonstrates what he calls the immortality of the soul from Scripture. Pieper criticizes Gerhard for loading the intermediate state with things that are only true of the blessed dead after the Last Day; however, Pieper as well as all Lutheran theologians up to the 20th Century held to an "intermediate state" for the self or the soul. It can be maintained that the resurrection of the dead is the center piece of Lutheran eschatology, but that does not rule out other clear teachings of the scriptures. Look at the passages cited, they are clear and do not need to be exegeted. The hallmark of the Reformation is the perspicuity of the scriptures, that they are clear and that the common human being can understand them.--Drboisclair 05:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Change made to point out the centrality of the Resurrection of the Body

I think that the centrality of the doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body needs to be stated in the Central Doctrines, so I have taken the liberty of modifying the statement, which may have given undue weight to the "intermediate state" as it stood. Ctobola is right that this is the central point of Lutheran eschatology, but he is not right to say that among Lutherans that it rules out an intermediate state of the human self.--Drboisclair 06:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Doctrine section should be the first section

Since Lutheranism, thoughout history, is defined in terms of it's confession of faith, the doctrine section should be listed first. Lutheranism is doctrine. Lutheranism has a history, but it is a doctrine none-the-less. Good work, Dr., on repairing and adding more citations. I support your work against spurious editing.--Epiphyllumlover 02:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality

This article doesn't contain information about Lutheran views of homosexuality. I read that in the United States the Lutheran Church (or a group of churches) recently decided to accept openly gay ministers with active sexual life. A.Z. 04:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It was the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran church body in the U.S. (a little less than 2/3 of American Lutherans). They "passed a resolution at its annual assembly urging bishops to refrain from disciplining pastors who are in 'faithful committed same-gender relationships'". Here is the Reuters report. With the diversity of beliefs within Lutheranism, I'm not sure if every single position which everyone takes needs to be on this overview page. Perhaps a fork page on Lutheran theology or Lutheran doctrine or Lutheran beliefs?

I came to this article only to read the information about their views on homosexuality, and I was quite surprised there was absolutely nothing about it. There's an article called Anglican views of homosexuality. There should be one about Lutheran views of homosexuality! A.Z. 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For now, at least, you can look at Evangelical Lutheran Church in America#Homosexuality. It gives info about the specific church body in question. Lutherans, unlike Anglicans, are not centrally organized, so it is a little harder to clarify their views on specific issues. Hopefully this topic will be addressed in the future. Fishal 22:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fishal makes a good point. For example, the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod strongly objects to the acceptance of homosexual behavior. See Rev. Gerald B. Kieschnick's statement.--CTSWyneken 11:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind answers. I think someone should be bold and make that a blue link. Writing the article may be a hard task and take some time, but someone's gotta start it. A.Z. 03:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In case you want the LCMS position on pretty much any doctrinal stance, you can use these awesome "What About" brochures that you coan download here: LCMS Doctrinal Stances There's one on homosexuality, as well as on load of other stuff. There's also one that explains some of the differences between the LCMS and ELCA. Enjoy! --Dulcimerist 07:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5