Figuring Out Religion

[Xan]

I did when I was in college (1990s) as my best HS friend was visiting campus...you are right, without knowing the Catholic novus ordo mass, the Lutheran service was nearly indistinguishable, in appearances. Yet it is something completely different from the sacrifice of the mass, which occurs on Catholic altars. Catholics believe that each mass is the presentation of the sacrifice of calvary. The validly ordained priest has the power to confer this sacrifice, due to his ordination.

The novus ordo came into being following the Vatican II council and has had some minor revisions since then...

I'm very interested to know about the Lutheran liturgy, however. When did the LCMS service I witnessed come into being? Is the liturgy as practiced today then same which Luther did? As you probably know, the mass in the Latin Rite (western Church) before Vatican II  is completely different from the Novus Ordo.

In the LCMS (can't speak for other Lutheran synods), the order of service was set in something like 1880, with minor revisions in the 1940s with the publication of The Lutheran Hymnal.  There was a largely unsuccessful attempt to replace TLH in the 70s with one called Lutheran Worship.  In 2006 (or so), the new Lutheran Service Book was published, which has five different settings of the Divine Service (which is what we call the Mass).  One of those five is the TLH service with minor revisions.

I can't say whether what you saw in the '90s was a LW service or a TLH service.  I don't really know much about the LW's setting of the Divine Service.  The TLH version is a very traditional old school service.

[Xan]

In the Catholic Church (and Orthodox Churches) we have apostolic succession, meaning, in part, that the ordination of each individual bishop is traced back to one of the apostles. And every priest is ordained by one of these bishops. This is referenced in the Nicene creed as a defining characteristic of the catholic Church (one, holy, catholic, and apostolic).

Anglican ministers appeared that they might also have apostolic succession, and this was examined by the Catholic Church in the late 1800s. The verdict, by Pope Leo XIII, is that their orders are "absolutely null and utterly void." As my cousin referred to the leader of the Anglicans as the "Arch-layman of Canterbury". As I recall, the issue is that the bishops in the Anglican religion cannot trace their ordinations back to the apostles.

Do Lutherans (LCMS or otherwise) claim to have bishops who can trace their ordinations back to the apostles thru the laying of hands? I think in the Teutonic lands of northern Europe, there are Lutherans who claim to be bishops, but I dont' know that they claim apostolic succession.

Some Lutheran churches have bishops and others do not.  The LCMS has "district presidents" which are in an overseer role, but the polity is congregational, so they're not bishops in the sense that they are in an episcopal polity like Anglicans or Catholics.  But we are in communion with churches that have an episcopal polity, so that isn't considered to be a matter of faith.

Lutherans (at least as far as I understand it) don't see a difference in kind between the ordination of pastors (what you would call priests) and the ordination of bishops.  So I think we would say that there's apostolic succession, although it's not particularly emphasized, because certainly all our pastors can trace their ordination back all the way to the apostles, just not through a line of "bishops".

By the way, along the lines of differences in the Mass: we don't see the Mass as a sacrifice, as your pointed out earlier.  That's probably the main one.  As a result, there isn't a need for a special priesthood.  Our pastors are called and ordained (and that fact is emphasized in the liturgy of our corporate confession), but they don't bear a special "charism" as the Roman Catholic priests do.

We call the Mass the Divine Service because it is God serving us, giving us his gifts.  It is not something that we (either believers or pastors) do for God.

[Edit re: "apostolic": we take the "apostolic" in the Creed to primarily refer to the church's teaching the faith of the Apostles.]

[Mountaineer]

I did when I was in college (1990s) as my best HS friend was visiting campus...you are right, without knowing the Catholic novus ordo mass, the Lutheran service was nearly indistinguishable, in appearances. Yet it is something completely different from the sacrifice of the mass, which occurs on Catholic altars. Catholics believe that each mass is the presentation of the sacrifice of calvary. The validly ordained priest has the power to confer this sacrifice, due to his ordination.

The novus ordo came into being following the Vatican II council and has had some minor revisions since then...

I'm very interested to know about the Lutheran liturgy, however. When did the LCMS service I witnessed come into being? Is the liturgy as practiced today then same which Luther did? As you probably know, the mass in the Latin Rite (western Church) before Vatican II  is completely different from the Novus Ordo.

In the LCMS (can't speak for other Lutheran synods), the order of service was set in something like 1880, with minor revisions in the 1940s with the publication of The Lutheran Hymnal.  There was a largely unsuccessful attempt to replace TLH in the 70s with one called Lutheran Worship.  In 2006 (or so), the new Lutheran Service Book was published, which has five different settings of the Divine Service (which is what we call the Mass).  One of those five is the TLH service with minor revisions.

I can't say whether what you saw in the '90s was a LW service or a TLH service.  I don't really know much about the LW's setting of the Divine Service.  The TLH version is a very traditional old school service.

Another source that I found to be extremely helpful for me (I'm not a lifelong Lutheran) in understanding the Divine Service and how it came to (be starting with its Jewish roots pre Christ and going through the current liturgy) is "Heaven on Earth" by Arthur Just.  It is really an infromative educational book but it might be overkill for those who want a Cliff Notes version.  I thought I'd mention it just in case you are a student of the various traditions and their history.
http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Chri ... n+on+earth

... M

[Mountaineer]

... M

[Xan]

Xan and Mountaineer:  Sorry if I've asked before, but what Bible translation is favored (if any) by the LCMS?

I've always heard that anything that's a true translation (as opposed to a paraphrase) should contain what you need to know.  There certainly isn't an "official" translation, although of course some people have their favorites.  I think the ESV is the translation used by the new hymnal.

[Greg]

Xan and Mountaineer:  Sorry if I've asked before, but what Bible translation is favored (if any) by the LCMS?

I've always heard that anything that's a true translation (as opposed to a paraphrase) should contain what you need to know.  There certainly isn't an "official" translation, although of course some people have their favorites.  I think the ESV is the translation used by the new hymnal.

ESV seems to be the preferred translation in many reformed churches as well.  I'm a bit hooked on the NASB right now, but I like the ESV as well.

I'm a nasb'er myself.

[Xan]

I'm a fan of Young's Literal.  But I often need another translation in addition to that one.

[Mountaineer]

Xan and Mountaineer:  Sorry if I've asked before, but what Bible translation is favored (if any) by the LCMS?

I've always heard that anything that's a true translation (as opposed to a paraphrase) should contain what you need to know.  There certainly isn't an "official" translation, although of course some people have their favorites.  I think the ESV is the translation used by the new hymnal.

ESV seems to be the preferred translation in many reformed churches as well.  I'm a bit hooked on the NASB right now, but I like the ESV as well.

The LCMS congregations in our local area use the ESV.  Prior to that I believe it was an older version of the NIV that had not been neutered.  Personally, I mainly use the ESV Lutheran Study Bible - it has good notes and reference material.  Be sure to get the one from Concordia Publishing House if you decide to get one.
http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/0758 ... oks&sr=1-6

I also will sometimes check other transaltions:  King James (AV), New King James, NASB, RSV, NIV but not the new one, and the Good News.  I think those translations are good .... one that I've heard less than favorable comments about is The Message - pretty far out on the list of paraphrases.  I know a few Pastors that will translate on the fly and read from the original Greek and Hebrew but I do not know which versions.  I also have the Lutheran Study Bible on my iPhone via the Kindle app, but that version is a bit clunky to use.

... M

[Mountaineer]

My impression is that "evangelical" in American socio-political parlance is a synonym for "born-again Christian." Born-again Christians follow the school of thought that once you believe in Jesus as your lord and savior, that's it, you're good to go, free pass into heaven. So why would they need to keep going to church? They've already gotten their golden tickets.

Like I said, you would have to ask an "evangelical" your question.  Your impression is not consistent with Lutheran doctrine.  I would say that I am born again however - it happened in my baptism as an infant which was totally God's work and zero of mine.  It was then I received the gift of the Holy Spirit whose job is to make Christ known to me.  I do not subscribe to the "once saved always saved" view; I was saved, 2000 years ago by what Christ did on the cross, but I can lose that salvation if I drift into unbelief, usually that would happen by refusing to go to where God has promised to be .... FOR ME! .... in Word and Sacrament.  I sure hope I never do that.  It is somewhat of a paradox - I'm saved completely by God's work, nothing to do with me or my choices.  But I can lose it at anytime if I reject the gift that is freely given by God.  The father of lies prowls around constantly looking for victims - but it is easy for believers to say, begone in the name of Jesus.

... M

[MediumTex]

My impression is that "evangelical" in American socio-political parlance is a synonym for "born-again Christian." Born-again Christians follow the school of thought that once you believe in Jesus as your lord and savior, that's it, you're good to go, free pass into heaven. So why would they need to keep going to church? They've already gotten their golden tickets.

Like I said, you would have to ask an "evangelical" your question.  Your impression is not consistent with Lutheran doctrine.  I would say that I am born again however - it happened in my baptism as an infant which was totally God's work and zero of mine.  It was then I received the gift of the Holy Spirit whose job is to make Christ known to me.  I do not subscribe to the "once saved always saved" view; I was saved, 2000 years ago by what Christ did on the cross, but I can lose that salvation if I drift into unbelief, usually that would happen by refusing to go to where God has promised to be .... FOR ME! .... in Word and Sacrament.  I sure hope I never do that.  It is somewhat of a paradox - I'm saved completely by God's work, nothing to do with me or my choices.  But I can lose it at anytime if I reject the gift that is freely given by God.  The father of lies prowls around constantly looking for victims - but it is easy for believers to say, begone in the name of Jesus.

... M

If you went to my church, they might suggest that you get dipped again, just to be safe.

[Mountaineer]

My impression is that "evangelical" in American socio-political parlance is a synonym for "born-again Christian." Born-again Christians follow the school of thought that once you believe in Jesus as your lord and savior, that's it, you're good to go, free pass into heaven. So why would they need to keep going to church? They've already gotten their golden tickets.

Like I said, you would have to ask an "evangelical" your question.  Your impression is not consistent with Lutheran doctrine.  I would say that I am born again however - it happened in my baptism as an infant which was totally God's work and zero of mine.  It was then I received the gift of the Holy Spirit whose job is to make Christ known to me.  I do not subscribe to the "once saved always saved" view; I was saved, 2000 years ago by what Christ did on the cross, but I can lose that salvation if I drift into unbelief, usually that would happen by refusing to go to where God has promised to be .... FOR ME! .... in Word and Sacrament.  I sure hope I never do that.  It is somewhat of a paradox - I'm saved completely by God's work, nothing to do with me or my choices.  But I can lose it at anytime if I reject the gift that is freely given by God.  The father of lies prowls around constantly looking for victims - but it is easy for believers to say, begone in the name of Jesus.

... M

If you went to my church, they might suggest that you get dipped again, just to be safe.

On a serious note, wouldn't that double-dipping suggestion imply a lack of trust in God's Word?  Sounds like yet one more trip back to Genesis 3, original sin, and placing man's reason ahead of God's Word ........... 

... M

[MediumTex]

Like I said, you would have to ask an "evangelical" your question.  Your impression is not consistent with Lutheran doctrine.  I would say that I am born again however - it happened in my baptism as an infant which was totally God's work and zero of mine.  It was then I received the gift of the Holy Spirit whose job is to make Christ known to me.  I do not subscribe to the "once saved always saved" view; I was saved, 2000 years ago by what Christ did on the cross, but I can lose that salvation if I drift into unbelief, usually that would happen by refusing to go to where God has promised to be .... FOR ME! .... in Word and Sacrament.  I sure hope I never do that.  It is somewhat of a paradox - I'm saved completely by God's work, nothing to do with me or my choices.  But I can lose it at anytime if I reject the gift that is freely given by God.  The father of lies prowls around constantly looking for victims - but it is easy for believers to say, begone in the name of Jesus.

... M

If you went to my church, they might suggest that you get dipped again, just to be safe.

On a serious note, wouldn't that double-dipping suggestion imply a lack of trust in God's Word?  Sounds like yet one more trip back to Genesis 3, original sin, and placing man's reason ahead of God's Word ........... 

... M

No, not at all.

Just belt and suspenders in the event that the Will of God might have been misunderstood.

As I recall, the Bible doesn't stipulate the optimal baptism age, though John the Baptist certainly acted like it was a decision that required a somewhat mature mind, or at least a mind that understood the significance of the event.

[Mountaineer]

If you went to my church, they might suggest that you get dipped again, just to be safe.

On a serious note, wouldn't that double-dipping suggestion imply a lack of trust in God's Word?  Sounds like yet one more trip back to Genesis 3, original sin, and placing man's reason ahead of God's Word ........... 

... M

No, not at all.

Just belt and suspenders in the event that the Will of God might have been misunderstood.

As I recall, the Bible doesn't stipulate the optimal baptism age, though John the Baptist certainly acted like it was a decision that required a somewhat mature mind, or at least a mind that understood the significance of the event.

Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Note, NO restrictions on who to baptize or their age - direct quote from Jesus.  If you believe Jesus. 

Edit:  And, Jesus did not say to do multiple baptisms. 

... M

[MediumTex]

On a serious note, wouldn't that double-dipping suggestion imply a lack of trust in God's Word?  Sounds like yet one more trip back to Genesis 3, original sin, and placing man's reason ahead of God's Word ........... 

... M

No, not at all.

Just belt and suspenders in the event that the Will of God might have been misunderstood.

As I recall, the Bible doesn't stipulate the optimal baptism age, though John the Baptist certainly acted like it was a decision that required a somewhat mature mind, or at least a mind that understood the significance of the event.

Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Note, NO restrictions on who to baptize or their age - direct quote from Jesus.  If you believe Jesus. 

Edit:  And, Jesus did not say to do multiple baptisms. 

... M

Did Jesus say NOT to do multiple baptisms?

Do you think Jesus cared whether a person was baptized once or twice?

As I recall, Jesus was baptized when he was around 30 years old.  Why do you think he waited so long?

[Mountaineer]

No, not at all.

Just belt and suspenders in the event that the Will of God might have been misunderstood.

As I recall, the Bible doesn't stipulate the optimal baptism age, though John the Baptist certainly acted like it was a decision that required a somewhat mature mind, or at least a mind that understood the significance of the event.

Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Note, NO restrictions on who to baptize or their age - direct quote from Jesus.  If you believe Jesus. 

Edit:  And, Jesus did not say to do multiple baptisms. 

... M

Did Jesus say NOT to do multiple baptisms?

Do you think Jesus cared whether a person was baptized once or twice?

As I recall, Jesus was baptized when he was around 30 years old.  Why do you think he waited so long?

Uh, because Jesus had not instituted baptism by the Spirit yet?  John the Baptizer's baptisms were by only water.  Now baptism is by water (physical element), Word (of God) and command of Jesus (i.e. a Sacrament).  What do you think?

... M

[Greg]

Has anyone looked much into Reincarnation? I've been going through Eastern religions lately, and both Buddhism and Hinduism can share the idea of reincarnation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/commen ... _research/

Anyone have any good websites/articles that help to refute or show that the idea is plausible? Thanks.

[Maddy]

Has anyone looked much into Reincarnation? I've been going through Eastern religions lately, and both Buddhism and Hinduism can share the idea of reincarnation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/commen ... _research/

Anyone have any good websites/articles that help to refute or show that the idea is plausible? Thanks.

If you're coming from a mainstream Christian background, you might take a look at the book Reincarnation:  The Missing Link in Christianity by Elizabeth Claire Prophet.  I haven't read it, but it's sitting on my nightstand.  From the back cover: 

"This groundbreaking work makes the case that Jesus taught reincarnation.  Elizabeth Clare Prophet traces the history of reincarnation in Christianity--from Jesus and early Christians through Church councils and the persecution of so-called heretics.  Using the latest scholarship and evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Gnostic texts, she also argues persuasively that Jesus was a mystic who taught that our destiny is to unite with the God within.  Your view of Jesus--and of Christianity--will never be the same."

[Greg]

Thanks Maddy. I found this website too that seems interesting about another guy who was trying to find information and has a bunch of references at the bottom of the page.
http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=466

[Mountaineer]

A blessed Palm Sunday to all.  May we reflect on the events of Holy Week and what they mean for us. 

... M

[Maddy]

Thanks Maddy. I found this website too that seems interesting about another guy who was trying to find information and has a bunch of references at the bottom of the page.
http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=466

The problem with reincarnation, from my point of view, is that it strains the concept of "me-ness" to a point where it's no longer meaningful for any practical purpose. 

[Mountaineer]

From our American history we have the story of the Three Cigars.

In September of 1862, Corporal Barton W. Mitchell and First Sergeant John M. Bloss of the 27th Indiana Volunteer Infantry were going through a recently abandoned rebel campfire and discovered three cigars in an envelope.  Wrapped around the three cigars was a piece of paper that they discovered were Confederate General Robert E. Lee's detailed battle plans — Special Order 191.  This was bucked up the chain of command to General McClellan of the Army of the Potomac.  Lee's initial plans if successful would have dealt a decisive blow to the Union cause and could have ended the war in the Confederate's favor.  McClellan had the opportunity to exploit his unexpected knowledge of the weaknesses inherent in Lee's battle plans and win a decisive victory for the Union and again possibly winning the war, this time for the Union.  As it happened, McClellan acted with his usual decisiveness, i.e. dithering, squandered much of his advantage and ending up fighting the bloodiest single day battle in American history, then or since.  The Battle of Antietam resulted in over 22,000 casualties, dead, wounded and missing.  But the Union eked a victory by halting Lee's invasion of Maryland and drive toward Washington D. C., giving Lincoln the win he needed to announce his Emancipation Proclamation.

American history, and thus the political shape of the world today, could have been much different if those 3 cigars had not been discovered, or the paper that wrapped them had been used as a spill to light them for enjoyment.

A number of truths can be gained from this story.  It teaches the dangers of handling important papers carelessly.  It teaches the importance of taking decisive action when possible.  It teaches the inspiring truth that even unimportant people when given the opportunity might have a profound effect on the course of history so each of us no matter how humble our circumstance need to go about our lives carefully lest we loose opportunities to make lives better.  Ron White in an article on the web site Leadership Dynamics recounts this story to illustrate his teachings on good leadership. 

But of more profound significance for my life and the lives of my neighbors, and arguably for the world are not the truths that we can learn from this story, truths that would not differ significantly if the story was merely a made up war story, but the events that the story tell about, events that in their happening changed the course of the world.  It doesn't even matter if I or anyone else knows the story, the event brought about changes in the world independent of our knowledge of it.

We can learn many truths from the stories of Jesus in the New Testament.  His parables were told primarily for the benefit of the truths conveyed about life and living.  The stories of Jesus' actions, and especially His death and resurrection, on the other hand are more like the Three Cigars.  That it happened is of more importance than the meanings for how we live our lives that we derive from them, because the events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection changed the possibilities of our relationship to God and knowing them opens to us heaven itself.

Pr. Daniel Fienen
LC-MS

[Mountaineer]

Good episode on Faith, the Happy Clappy Jesus (MT loves to show that picture of Jesus  ), joy and YOU!  8 minutes of action packed theology.

http://www.worldvieweverlasting.com/201 ... eal-faith/

... M

[MachineGhost]

Amusing.

An Economist’s Rational Road to Christ

http://www.efalken.com/EconRatChrist10.pdf

[Xan]

Past Elder, great as usual, describes Easter (including the Easter bunny!):
http://pastelder.blogspot.com/2016/03/e ... -2016.html

[Mountaineer]

I read a good book today:  Working for Our Neighbor: A Lutheran Primer on Vocation, Economics, and Ordinary Life by Gene Veith. 

From the Amazon description:
The Protestant Reformation was a catalyst for social mobility, universal education, and the rise of modern market economies. In his classic study The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber showed the connections between Protestantism and the new economics. Weber, however, focused on the Calvinists and Puritans and speculated that economic success became a way of proving one’s election. He thus posited, with little evidence, a spiritual self-interest that was parallel to economic self-interest, distorting both Protestantism and capitalism.

Weber neglected the specifically Lutheran doctrine of vocation, which emphasizes the spiritual and moral value of economic activity. According to Luther, God himself is hidden in vocation, as he providentially works through ordinary human beings to care for his creation. In their work—not only in the economy, but also in family, church, and community—Christians live out their faith in love and service to their neighbors.

For Lutherans, the doctrine of vocation is nothing less than the theology of the Christian life. In its social impact, vocation gave a theological basis for the division of labor, social equality, and individual freedom. In this elucidating work, Gene Edward Veith connects vocation to justification, good works, and Christian freedom—defining how the Lutheran contribution to economics can transfigure ordinary life, and work, with the powerful presence of God.

... Mountaineer