| 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 |
I "ran" across the following information while looking for some clipart to use for a presentation to our Board of Evangelism. After reading it I do not see any major differences between what we as WELS believe and with what is stated. I know the following is lengthy but I wanted to give a fair accounting of what is stated. Can you let me know how you react to this in the light of God's Word?
Concerning Faith and Works
I believe that man's natural virtue -- whatever its degree -- cannot save a man and bring him to eternal life. The Scriptures teach: "All our righteousness is like unto a menstrual rag" (Isaiah 64:6). The fulfillment of the works of the Law does not permit us to demand or to merit something from God. Not only do we have no merits or supererogatory works, but Jesus Christ enjoins us that when we have fulfilled all the works of the Law, we should esteem ourselves as nothing but "unprofitable servants" (Luke 17:10).Without Jesus Christ, a man's personal virtue, his repute, his personal value, his work, his talents and his faculties matter but little; they matter only insofar as they test his devotion and faith in God. Our faith in Jesus Christ is not an abstraction but rather a communion with Him. This communion fills us with the power of the Holy Spirit and our faith becomes a fertile reality which engenders good works in us as the Scriptures attest "which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10).
Thus, according to the Apostles, faith engenders true works; and true works, which are the fruit of the Holy Spirit, bear witness and prove the existence of a true faith. Since faith is neither abstract nor sterile, it is impossible to dissociate it from good works. It was by this same faith in the same Jesus Christ that the righteous of the Old Testament (who are venerated to the same degree as the other saints in the Orthodox Church) were saved, and not because of their legalistic or disciplinary observance of the Law. Faith is also a gift of God, and a man relying on his own efforts, his own piety, or his own spirituality, cannot of himself possess this faith. Yet faith is not imposed: to those who desire it, God grants it, not because of a fatalistic predestination, but because of His Divine foreknowledge and His disposition to co-operate with man's free will. If God has given us faith, we must not think ourselves better than others, nor superior or more worthy than them, nor should we think that we have received it because of our own merits, but we should attribute this favor to the goodness of God Whose reasons escape us. We must thank Him by bowing down before the mystery of this privilege and be conscious that one of the attributes of faith is the "lack of curiosity." It is neither works nor faith, but only the Living God Who saves us.
A key difference between Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy can be seen toward the end of your quotation. The Eastern Orthodox writer states, "Yet faith is not imposed: to those who desire it, God grants it, not because of a fatalistic predestination, but because of His Divine foreknowledge and His disposition to co-operate with man's free will."We believe that we come to faith because God predestined us to salvation.
We reject the idea that God chose us because he foresaw that "we would cooperate by free will." We reject that sinful human beings by nature have a free will in spiritual matters. By nature human beings are born slaves to sin and Satan. They are dead in trespasses and sins and consequently cannot decide for Christ or cooperate with the Holy Spirit in conversion.
Concerning the Theotokos
I believe that the nature of the Most Holy Virgin Mary is identical to our own. After Her free and conscious acceptance of the plan of salvation offered to man by God, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Her and the power of the Most High covered Her, and "at the voice of the Archangel, the Master of all became incarnate in Her." Thus our Lord Jesus Christ, the New Adam, partook of our nature in all things save sin, through the Theotokos, the New Eve.The nature of fallen man, the nature of Adam, which bore the wounds of sin, of degeneration, and of corruption, was restored to its former beauty, and now it partakes of the Divine nature. Man's nature, restored and regenerated by grace, surpasses Adam's state of innocence previous to the fall, since as the Fathers say, "God became man so that man could become God." Thus St. Gregory the Theologian writes: "O marvelous fall that brought about such a salvation for us!" man, created " a little lower than the angels" (Ps. 8:5), can, by God's grace, surpass even the angelic state, and so we praise the Most Holy Virgin Mary, as: "More honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim." I reject all the doctrines, which are alien to the teachings of the Fathers, concerning original sin and the "immaculate conception of Mary." Likewise, I reject every doctrine which endeavors to distort the position of the Theotokos, Who, with a nature identical to ours, represented all humanity when she accepted the salvation offered Her by God. Thus, God is the Savior of the Most Holy Virgin as well and She is saved by the same grace whereby all those who are redeemed are saved. She is not the "Mother of the Church," as though She were dissociated from the Church or superior to It., but rather She is the Mother of all the faithful of the Church, of Which She also is a part.
The Eastern Orthodox and Lutherans differ in the understanding of the fall into sin. According to Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, an Orthodox bishop, "Orthodoxy, holding as it does a less exalted idea of the human state before the fall, is also less severe than the west in view of the consequences of the fall. Adam fell, not from a great height of knowledge and perfection, but from a state of undeveloped simplicity; hence he is not to be judged too harshly for his error. Certainly. as a result of the fall the human mind became so darkened, and human will-power so impaired, that humans could no longer attain to the likeness of God.. .The image of God is distorted by sin, but never destroyed. . .And because we retain the image of God, we still retain free will, although sin restricts its scope. Even after the fall, God does not take away from humans the power to will - to obey or not obey Him. . .Orthodoxy repudiates any interpretation of the fall that allows no room for human freedom" (Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 223-224).Lutherans believe that Adam and Eve fell from a state of perfection. We believe that in the fall the image of God which consists in righteousness and true holiness was completely lost so that human beings by nature no longer have a free will in spiritual matters. By nature humans cannot truly obey God even though some of their outward actions may correspond to his will outwardly (e.g., not stealing or killing). The Bible tells us, "Everything that does not come from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). Again it says, "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6).
Your quote seems to be implying human cooperation in Mary when it speaks of her "free and conscious acceptance of the plan of salvation" and again, "represented humanity when she accepted the salvation offered Her by God."
Concerning the Saints
I believe that God "glorified those who glorify Him" (I Kings 2:30), that He is "wondrous in His saints" (Ps. 67:35), and that He is the "Savior of the body" of the Church (Eph. 5:23). I believe that we are saved insofar as we are members of the Body, but that we cannot be saved by any individual relation with God outside of the Church. For the Lord said, "I am the true vine... As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:1, 4, 6). The saints are those members of the Church, the Body of Christ, who have achieved great sanctity and perfection. I believe that our God is the "God of our Fathers" and that He has mercy upon us because we are the children of our Fathers, who were and are His saints and His servants, as the Holy Scripture attests in many places. I believe that, even as St. James the Apostle says, "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16), even as the Three Youths who prayed in the fiery furnace attest: "Cause not Thy mercy to depart from us for Abraham's sake, Thy beloved, for Isaac's sake, Thy servant, and for Israel's, Thy holy one" (Dan 3:34). Those whom God has glorified, I also glorify. Because of Him Who glorifies them, I entrust myself to their prayers and intercessions, even as the Scriptures require, for the angel of the Lord appeared to Abimelich and counseled him to seek Abrahams's prayers, saying: "He shall pray for thee and thou shalt live" (Gen. 20:7). I believe that my worship and veneration of the saints is a well-pleasing worship offered of God since it is because of Him and for His sake that I worship them. I give adoration to no created thing, no other being, be it visible or invisible. I venerate no man for his own virtue's sake but "for the grace of God which is given" him (I Cor.1:4). In celebrating the feast of a saint, it is God Who is always worshipped, the saint's contest and victory being the occasion for God to be worshipped. Indeed, He is worshipped and glorified in His saints; He "is wondrous in His saints" (Ps 67:35). As He said, "I will dwell in them" (II Cor. 6:16) and, by grace and adoption, they shall be called gods (John 10:34-35). God Himself has granted His saints their ministry of interceding on our behalf. I supplicate them and I am in communion with them, even after their death in the flesh, since this death, according to the Apostle, cannot separate us from the love of Christ which unites us. According to the Lord's promise, they who believe in Him "shall never die... but are passed from death into life" (John 11:26, 5:24).Lutherans disagree with Eastern Orthodoxy's definition of saints. Your quote states, "The saints are those who members of the Church, the Body of Christ, who have attained great sanctity and perfection." Lutherans believe that every believer is a saint in God's eyes even though he still remains a sinner in this life.Lutherans also reject the worship of "saints" as contrary to Scripture. We do not pray to those who are in heaven to ask them to pray for us because we have no command of God to do so, we have no promise of God attached to such action, and we have no indication in Scripture that the saints in heaven can hear our prayers. In fact, to pray to the saints in heaven really implies that they have divine qualities to hear us, qualities that belong to God alone.
I am currently studying with an ex-Mormon friend who is still struggling with Jesus quoting of Psalm 82:6 to the Pharisees in John 10:34 "Ye are gods." We've discussed the ideas of the references being to judges, but he is still troubled. Why does the translation read "gods" and not "judges" or "leaders". Can you give me some insight to help my friend to understand this scripture (and me to be equipped to address it?).
In John 10:33 the Jews threaten to stone Christ because they claim he was calling himself God. Jesus answers that God's Word calls men "gods." The Mormons and New Age people use this to say we are all gods. What are they not understanding?Jesus is not putting himself on the same level with us, nor is he putting us on the same level as God. He is turning his enemies' charges back on them by comparing the lesser with the greater. On rare occasions in the Old Testament those who were God's spokesmen were called "gods" (Psalm 82:6, perhaps Exodus 22:8 where the NIV translates "gods" as "judges"). If mere men who served as God's spokesmen could be called "gods," how could the Jews object if the true God who came from heaven to obey his Father's will called himself Son of God?
Compare also Exodus 4:16 where God says Moses will be "as if you were God" because he delivers God's Word. This is really not so far from Jesus saying to preachers of today, "He that hears you hears me."
Scripture makes a clear distinction between the way in which Jesus is the eternal Son of God and the way in which we are adopted sons of God through faith. The fact that we act in God's place when we are appointed to speak his Word does not make us equal to him in essence, being, or power.
Anyone who believes that Christ is his Savior who made complete payment for his sins will be saved regardless of what church he belongs to, but the false teachings which many churches place alongside the gospel of Christ are a danger to faith, and we are commanded to avoid them.
How should one rephrase this above statement. When talking to a Mormon friend who believes the above. But does think he has to pay Christ back for his kindness 3 fold by his works.
And also should one convey the belief in the Trinity in the above answer when dealing with people that believe in a god but not the True God?
I guess what I am asking is it not important for saving faith for people to realize Jesus is the one and only true God and also their savior?
Or does simply just knowing Jesus died for them save? And believing they have to pay him back is just a danger to faith and so is not knowing him as true God just also a danger to faith.
This makes the above simple answer more complicated. And I don't know how to state it. And keep it a simple understanding like the true one above you have given. For my Mormon friends.
They even listen to our pastors on radio and they agree with all they say. Christ crucified and risen for them. But just are not getting it. My pastor has even talked to with one Mormon at the radio station and he believes Christ was even perfect for him. This is confusing. Are some WARDS changing and becoming Christian? Or have they just learned the language of Christians?
The statement you quote at the beginning of your question applies to Christian churches which have preserved the essence of the gospel among them but have some errors in doctrines which are not essential to salvation. It does not apply to cults like the Mormons which are not Christian churches because they do not retain the fundamental doctrines of the person and work of Christ.Mormons often retain Christian terminology but the terms are not used in a Christian sense. An individual Mormon might be able to have a saving faith through hearing the correct preaching of the gospel from a source outside the Christian church, but I know of no evidence that any Mormon "congregations" are becoming Christian in their message.
I had been, until about 4 years ago, a lifelong Lutheran (ELCA). My wife was a Catholic and became a Lutheran while we were dating. About 4 years ago we left the ELCA and started attending a non-denominational church that seemed (at the time) like an evangelical church with a charismatic belief. That is to say that they believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit that Lutherans (and most or at least many Protestants) believed ended during the early church period. Recently, it hit me like a ton of bricks that some of the things that the Pastor was preaching didn't match up with what I had been taught and what I believe.
I started a personal quest to search for my true beliefs. I started with the basic beliefs of the Protestant churches and then moved into the differences between Protestant denominations. In each case I reaffirmed my Lutheran beliefs (although I can't honestly say that I've reexamined every point). The one point that I am hung up on right now is the "gifts of the Spirit" that the charismatic movement has embraced.
I am in the middle of reading the book "The Word & Power Church: What Happens When a Church Experiences All God Has to Offer". At first it seemed like a great book. The author talked about the deep spiritual "success" (for lack of a better term) of the charismatic movement in the areas of prayer and worship and the great scriptural background of the evangelical churches. Unfortunately, it has turned into "fluff", that is to say that he has "wandered" into the "touchy feely" world without keeping his feet grounded in scripture. By this I'm simply stating that he doesn't really base his discussion on scripture but rather on the experience. This doesn't imply he is going against scripture (although he might be) but just that he hasn't justified his position within scripture.
In this book he talks about "cessation" and, if I remember correctly, the seven points of this doctrine. He states that he reviewed these points and found they didn't "hold water". Unfortunately, he left the reader to simply trust him and didn't discuss any of the points (ouch!). He does reference the book "They Speak With Other Tongues" by John Sherrill for a discussion of these points.
Could you explain these points of "cessation" and/or point me to a good book discussing the issue (preferably a balanced book that discusses the arguments made by the charismatics).
Your letter indicates that you are already on the right track here because you recognize that we must evaluate all teachings on the basis of Scripture not on the basis of feeling or experience.Since I don't have the book you refer to, I cannot discuss his seven points point by point, but I will state our position on the cessation of special "gifts of the Spirit."
Our way of evaluating messengers who claim to speak in tongues or do miracles is quite simple: God tells us to look at their teaching. If it is not in agreement with the Bible, it must be rejected. Unbiblical teaching cannot be validated by claims of miracles or special gifts. See Deuteronomy 13:1-3.
We therefore do not make any dogmatic claim that the special gifts like tongues could not possibly be given today. Nevertheless, there is strong evidence these special gifts were signs of an apostle (2 Corinthians 12:12) that ceased to be given when there were no more the apostles.
In all of the examples which we have in Acts (Acts 8, 10, 19) the gifts were given when the apostles arrived in a new mission area even if the people had received faith earlier from another messenger of the gospel. See especially Acts 8:18.
All of the New Testament statements about signs and wonders in the last days are warnings against false signs not promises of true signs like those of the apostolic age.
1 Corinthians 14 indicates that sending the gospel in different tongues was a judgment against the unbelief of the Jews, which caused the gospel to be sent from them to peoples of other languages. This also happened on Pentecost when Jews of Jerusalem accused the apostles of being drunk when they spoke in tongues. Now that the gospel is established among the Gentiles this purpose no longer exists.
In much reading about charismatic gifts I have never been able to find a contemporary case of speaking in tongues which could be verified as real, unlearned human languages by independent researchers. All the research projects which I have seen that were independently done by analyzing recordings of tongues have reported that the unlearned tongues are not real languages. This is one strong evidence that the contemporary tongues are not the tongues of the Bible.
We cannot rule out the possibility of unlearned knowledge of real languages which comes from the devil to sow confusion in the church. Fraud is another possibility. Unexplained healing may be due to the power of prayer, but they may also be fraudulent, psychosomatic, or demonic. See 2 Thessalonians 2
Fortunately, we do not have to be able to sort these happenings out by our subjective judgment. All we have to do is submit the teaching of the healer or speaker to the light of Scripture. If the teaching does not agree with Scripture, it is not to be accepted. If it does agree with Scripture, it is not new. We already knew it. It adds nothing to God's Word (see Hebrews 1:1-3).
Though there is good evidence that the tongues of today are not the tongues of the New Testament which have ceased, we base the case against tongues on a biblical evaluation of the teaching of the speakers in tongues. God does not give signs to support false teaching. Where the teachings do not agree with Scripture on things like the sacraments, fellowship, and the way of salvation, we know the tongues are not signs from God, and we are to seek the truth elsewhere.
My sisters and I were all raised in WELS churches and attended a WELS school. Recently one of my siblings has decided to attend and or transfer to a Nazarene church. Since I know nothing about this denomination I would like to know anything I could find out about the doctrine and practices of the Nazarene church. I would appreciate any information I could get in these areas.
The Church of the Nazarene was founded in 1908. Today there are "more than 1.2 million members worshiping in more than 11,800 churches in the United States, Canada, and 114 other world areas." This denomination has its roots in the Holiness Movement of the mid to late 19th century in America. The Holiness Movement arose because some Methodists believed that the Methodist Church was no longer being faithful to the spirit and teachings of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism.The Church of the Nazarene is a rather conservative denomination, teaching the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. Theologically the Nazarenes are similar, but not identical to the early Methodists. They believe that sinful human beings by nature have the free will to accept or reject the grace of God which they say is offered to everyone. Lutherans believe that human beings are purely passive in conversion because by nature they are dead in their sins and their will is not free, but enslaved by sin so that they can only reject God (Ephesians 2:1,5; Romans 8:6-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14).
The Nazarenes also believe in entire sanctification and Christian perfection. In other words, they believe that subsequent to conversion Christians can receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit "by which believers are made free from original sin, or depravity, and brought into a state of entire devotement to God, and the holy obedience of love made perfect." Lutherans believe that a Christian remains a sinner until the day he dies and during his life will be constantly engaged in a struggle with his sinful nature (Romans 7:14-25).
The Nazarenes believe in divine healing through the prayer of faith, although they believe that God also heals through the means of medical science. They deny baptismal regeneration and teach that baptism is merely a symbol of the new covenant rather than a divine means of grace. They deny the real presence of Christ's true body and blood in the Lord's Supper and view the Lord's Supper as only a memorial meal.
How many Christian Jews (Jews that have converted to Christianity) are there today? A comparison of the numbers over the ? span of years would be great.
From the Jews for Jesus organization web site at www.jewsforjesus.org: "Conservative estimates of the number of Jews in the U.S. who believe in Y'shua range from twenty-five to sixty thousand. Jewish believers are also found in significant numbers in other countries such as Russia, France, and Israel. It's hard to be more precise because there is no membership or listing."
A good friend of mine is a Methodist, he made a comment to me that The United Methodist Church's belief was very close to that of The Lutheran Church. I told him there were quite a number of differences.
He gave me a book entitled [This We Believe The Articles of Religion And the Confession of Faith Of The United Methodist Church], this book was written by Norman P. Madson about 45 years ago last copyright 1987. I have read the book and it does sound pretty close. But after reading [The United Methodist News Service] on their internet web site, it leads me to believe that Methodist1s have departed from what this book states. One of the major differences being, we believe The Holy Bible to be the true, inerrant and infallible Word of God. The United Methodist do not teach this even though. If you were a ask their members most would claim that they believe all the same things we do, the same could be said of most denominations. My question is should I show my friend how much his church body has changed over the years and how it differs from The Lutheran Church or leave well enough alone?
Your original reaction was correct. Methodism historically has differed from Lutheranism in a number of doctrines (e.g., conversion, the Lord's Supper, emphasis on sanctification, etc.). You are also correct in stating that the United Methodist Church today denies the inerrancy and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures.As Christians we are always to speak the truth in love. Since your friend mistakenly believes that the teaching of the United Methodist Church is very close to that of the Lutheran Church, it would be loving to show him the differences based on Scripture. Since he approached you first, he seems to be expecting an honest response from you.
What information do you have about the Moravian Church of North Carolina. How do they differ from WELS?
The Moravian Church was founded in 1457 by the followers of John Hus. Originally called the Unity of Brethren, the church became known as the Moravian Church in the 18th century because most of its members came from Moravia (today's Czech Republic). In the 18th century persecuted Moravians found refuge on the Saxon estate of the Lutheran pietist, Nikolaus Ludwig Count von Zinzendorf. Zinzendorf eventually became a bishop in the Moravian Church.The Moravians were pioneers in the Protestant mission movement and have emphasized mission work among the poor and down trodden. Today the Moravian Church has 19 provinces--in Europe, in North, South and Central America, in Africa and the Caribbean. Membership numbers over 500,000 with 60% of that number living in Tanzania and South Africa.
The Moravian Church differs from Confessional Lutheranism by making Christian living (what Christians are to do) central to their message and their primary emphasis rather than Christian doctrine (what Christians are to believe). As a result of this emphasis the Moravians ignore doctrinal differences to work for outward Christian unity among the various Christian denominations around the world. The Moravian Church was a founding member of the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches.
While we admire the mission zeal of the Moravians, as confessional Lutherans we recognize that false teaching undermines the Christian faith and can ultimately destroy faith. Unity of faith can be expressed only when there is unity in the confession of scriptural truth.
Did the Jewish people practice Baptism before the birth of Jesus Christ? If so, for what reason?
There was no sacrament of baptism in the Jewish faith before the time of Christ, that is, there was no once-in-a-lifetime rite which was a means of grace by which a person entered the faith. There were various "baptisms," that is, different kinds of ceremonials washings by which people or objects were cleansed of ceremonial uncleanness. Numbers 19 gives an example of such washings. Mark 7:3,4, Hebrews 6:2, and Hebrews 9:13 refer to such "baptisms."Later Judaism also had a type of baptism for converts, but the date when this began is disputed.
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!