| Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A |
| Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A Q&A |
Doctrine
I am curious to know why the WELS uses the term "we" so much in your answers to questions in this area as well as in some of the doctrinal beliefs. Over the past two days I have been involved in a discussion about the differences between the ELCA and WELS. This was one of issues that was brought up.
The answers often use the plural "we" because these answers are not merely the opinion of the author but express the unity of confession or teaching in the Wisconsin Synod.
Does confessional Lutheran doctrine mandate pacifism?
Could you briefly state the WELS position on "just wars" and self-defense.
Does the WELS agree with the doctrine presented by the Missouri Synod's Commission on Theology and Church Relations in the reports "Guidelines for Crucial Issues in Christian Citizenship" (which contains a section on Christians, violence and war) and on "Render Unto Caesar" (www.lcms.org/ctcr/)?The Lutheran Confessions consider just war as an extension of the government's authority to use the sword to punish evil and thereby reject pacifism (Apology III, 70; XVI, 59-60). (The traditional criteria of a just war are 1) a war waged by a legal authority, 2) for a just cause, 3) as a last resort, 4) with a reasonable probability of success, 5) with proportionate means, 6) with regard for the innocent.)
Luther's tract "Can Soldiers Too Be Saved?" (1526) remains the classic treatment of the subject of war and conscientious objection from a Christian point of view. (He also deals with the subject in "Temporal Authority" and "War Against the Turk.") Luther bases his conclusion that Christians can serve in just wars on Romans 13, 1 Peter 2, and John the Baptist's directions to soldiers in Luke 3, and on the wars conducted by Old Testament saints. Other appropriate references are the believing centurions in the New Testament church and Psalm 144, "Praise be to the Lord, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle."
Luther recognized both the evil of war and its necessity in a sinful world. "When I think of a soldier fulfilling his office by punishing the wicked, killing the wicked, and creating so much misery, it seems an un-Christian work completely contrary to Christian love. But when I think of how it protects the good and keeps and preserves wife and child, house and farm, property, honor and peace, then I see how precious and godly this work is, and I observe that it amputates a leg or a hand, so that the whole body may not perish...
What men write about war saying that it is a great plague is all true. But they should consider also how great the plague is that war prevents" ("Soldiers Too," LW 46, p. 96).
Luther recognized that wars could be selfish and unjust and advised Christians to refuse to participate in wars which they knew to be unjust. "It is not just for a ruler to enter a war of rebellion or to start a war. A just war is a war of self-defense in which offers of peace had been rejected by the enemy. If the citizen is uncertain whether the war is just, he should obey his ruler and leave the ruler's judgment to God."
Luther did maintain that although it was wrong to use violence against one's rulers, violent self-defense against criminals was allowed. "Yes, indeed! In that event [if I was attacked by robbers] I should be the authority and wield the sword, because no one else would be near to protect me. I should strike as many dead as I could and thereupon receive the Sacrament and should consider myself to have done a good work. But if I were attacked as a preacher for the sake of the Gospel, I should fold my hands and say, .Well, my Christ, here I am. I have preached thee. If my time has come, I commit myself into your hands.. And thus I should die" (Plass, p. 243, WT-4, 4342, WT-2, 1815). That such a view is not without scriptural sanction is indicated by the fact that the same Christ who told Peter to put away his sword when they were being persecuted by the government for Christ's teaching told those who were preparing to go on dangerous missionary journeys, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" (Luke 22:36).
The Christian has various tools for resisting evil:.prayer, admonition, his legal rights as a citizen, and insofar as he is enforcing earthly law and order, the punitive and war-making power of government. In using any of these he should take care that he is seeking the glory of God, the defense of the gospel, or the welfare of his neighbor, and not indulging in personal vengeance. May God guide and direct us in this difficult matter.
We are not aware of any doctrinal differences between us and the LCMS on this question, but perhaps the statement from "Christians, violence and war" could contain a more explicit rejection of pacifism as a doctrine. It says, "This would suggest that the tragic task of taking up arms for combat under orders from legitimate authority is not by itself a violation of the Fifth Commandment."
The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod professes to accept the ENTIRE confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church embodied in the Book of Concord of 1580, because they are a correct presentation and exposition of the pure doctrine of the Word of God. This would seem not to be true since the WELS teaches that there are only two sacraments, (Baptism, Lord's Supper) while the Apology of the Augsburg Confession Article XIII- The Number and Use of the Sacraments, written by Philip Melanchthon states:
"Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament."
The Apology clearly states that there are three sacraments. If you accept the ENTIRE confession you would believe, teach, and confess that there are three sacraments just like the Apology states. How can you say you accept the ENTIRE confession if you don't believe, teach, and confess that there are three sacraments as it is written in the Apology?Scripture does not define the word "sacrament," so different definitions may be used. In the passage you cited Melanchthon is using a definition that includes institution by Christ and forgiveness of sins, but not an outward sign. If an outward sign is included in the definition, then absolution does not fit in the same category. The article you cite goes on to say that various definitions of "sacrament" are possible. Read particularly paragraphs 16 and 17 which conclude, "No prudent man will strive greatly concerning the number or the term, if only those objects still be retained which have God's command and promises."
Paragraph 2 says, "Neither do we believe it to be of any consequence, though, for the purpose of teaching, different people reckon differently, provided they still preserve aright the matters handed down in Scripture."
In his explanation of baptism in the Large Catechism (par. 74) Luther explained why he did not count absolution as a separate sacrament. The majority of Lutherans have followed Luther's practice in the catechism of speaking of two sacraments. This is clearer because it places baptism and the Lord's Supper, which have a visible element, into a separate category from absolution, which does not.
Subscription to the Confessions involves acceptance of all their doctrines, not use of all their terminology. The article you cite clearly says the definition of sacrament is not a doctrine.
What then is wrong with Rome's seven sacraments? It lies not the use of a different definition of "sacrament," but in their departure from Scripture by placing divine and human institutions on the same level, by cursing anyone who does not use their definition, and by using all of their sacraments in the service of work righteousness.
"We should be active members of a church that faithfully teaches all the doctrines of the Bible. We cannot belong to a church which denies any of the teachings of the Bible such as infant baptism, the presence of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper, the roles of men and women in the church, or scriptural fellowship practices."
I attend a Bible believing Christian church. It is not Lutheran, and does not agree on some of these points made above. As you know there are many churches who are Bible believing, and disagree in some ways on what certain things in the Bible mean. I know that I am a saved born again Christian, just as you are, and I know I will be in heaven when I die just as you do, but I don't agree with certain things that you do, such as some points mentioned above.
My question is, since I prayerfully study the Bible, as my church does, as many other churches do, and I have asked the Lord to show me what His will is and what He means in His word, and we disagree, how can we say who's right and who's wrong? God is so much bigger and greater than we as humans can possibly fathom.
Isn't it possible that He could be accepting of both beliefs, or is it only WELS Lutherans who know the truth and the rest of us God is lying to? I have faith in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. I got baptized when I came to that understanding. I take communion "in remembrance of Christ" which is what he commanded us to do. But you're right and I'm wrong? I don't think so. I think God is right, and we are all wrong sometimes, and I believe what He shows me to be true. I could be wrong about some things and so could you, but we both are following the Lord, and open to His will and teachings, and isn't that the important thing? That we believe in our heart and confess with our mouth that He is Christ, and follow Him?The only adequate response to your statement is a systematic study of all of the teachings of the Bible, especially the doctrines of fellowship, baptism, and the Lord's Supper. This type of course is offered in all of our congregations in the Bible Information Classes and in such books as Basic Doctrines of the Bible. These questions are also discussed in the archive sections of the question and answer area. Here we can only make a few general comments.
Two mutually exclusive doctrines cannot both be correct, and they cannot both be the will of God. Unless God contradicts himself, he cannot approve two opposite doctrines as both correct. Therefore, if one person believes babies should be baptized because baptism is a real means of grace by which God works faith in babies, and another maintains that babies must not be baptized because baptism is an act by which we express our repentance and faith to God and babies cannot repent, they cannot both be correct. They cannot both be following God's will.
The Bible is a clear guide to God's will. God never lies, but people refuse to believe his truth. Jesus said, "This is my body. This is my blood." 1 Corinthians 10:16 says the cup of the Lord's Supper is "a participation in Christ's blood" and the bread is "a participation in Christ's body." 1 Corinthians 11:29 says that anyone who eats and drinks of the sacrament without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. All of these are very clear words. That some people do not believe them does not make God a liar. The Protestant churches were separated from the Lutheran church because Zwingli refused to believe Jesus' words "This is my body" because he thought they were unreasonable. Though a church may state that it is "Bible believing," it is not Bible believing to the degree that it refuses to accept the words of Scripture that are contrary to its human judgment.
If, after study of Scripture, we do not agree on what God's will is, we must each go our own way. If we are convinced that our belief is the correct understanding of God's will in the Bible, it would be a sin to treat an opposing view as equally valid. If we are not sure which view is correct, then we have an obligation to study Scripture until we reach a clear conviction. We cannot accept two opposing views as equally valid without making God a God of confusion.
Would it be correct to say that Lutherans teach Perseverance of the Elect, but not Perseverance of the Saints? In other words, a person may have faith at one point in his life but then act in such a way, resisting the grace of God and indulging in sin, that he weakens and ultimately loses that faith. But a person who is among the elect from the foundations of the world, this group obviously known only by God, will ultimately persevere in his faith. Is this accurate?
While we do not use the phrase all that regularly, perhaps to avoid confusion with the "perseverance of the saints" dogma among Calvinists, we rightly hold to the teaching on the perseverance of the elect. You are correct and have stated the concept quite well. Passages like Matthew 24: 22, 24 serve as the basis of this teaching, as does the very definition of the term elect or chosen, as used in Ephesians 1 and elsewhere.
What is "The Great Commission"?
The Great Commission is a statement of the marching orders that our risen Savior gave to his church.
The most commonly quoted form of the Great Commission is recorded in Matthew's Gospel: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always to the very end of the age" (Matthew 28:18-20).
St. Mark's Gospel records the Great Commission in this form: "He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned'" (mark 16:15-16).
Jesus made a similar statement which Luke records in the Book of Acts: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8).
How do I know my question hasn't already been answered?
SEARCH our Q&A archives using the subject you have in question as your keyword.
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod ©
2929 N Mayfair Road
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53222
www.wels.net content is copyrighted unless otherwise stated.
Request written permission to copy.
Bravo! Bravo!