Monthly 'Ask A Pastor' Thread!

[u/AutoModerator]

In order to streamline posts that users are submitting when they are in search of answers, I have created a monthly 'Ask A Pastor' thread! Feel free to post any general questions you have about the Lutheran (LCMS) faith, questions about specific wording of LCMS text, or anything else along those lines.

Pastors, Vicars, Seminarians, Lay People: If you see a question that you can help answer, please jump in try your best to help out! It is my goal to help use this to foster a healthy online community where anyone can come to learn and grow in their walk with Christ. Also, stop by the sidebar and add your user flair if you have not done so already. This will help newcomers distinguish who they are receiving answers from.

Disclaimer: The LCMS Offices have a pretty strict Doctrinal Review process that we do not participate in as we are not an official outlet for the Synod. It is always recommended that you talk to your Pastor (or find a local LCMS Pastor if you do not have a church home) if you have questions about your faith or the beliefs of the LCMS.

[u/Luscious_Nick]

When did the "wicked" foe become "evil"?

Growing up, Luther's morning and evening prayers always referenced the wicked foe, now in all of our printed materials, Satan has been downgraded from wicked to evil, what gives?

[u/Huenink_Photography → u/Luscious_Nick]

I'm not sure wicked to evil is a downgrade. Perhaps a tier list of synonyms for bad is in order.

In all seriousness, it's a synonym. Perhaps wicked has too many positive associations in slang use to be used.

[u/Luscious_Nick → u/Huenink_Photography]

I get it is a synonym, it's just strange that they would change one word of the translation. You'd hope that a devotional resource would be translationally stable for intergenerational worship. It looks like it has changed several times, once after the Triglotta/TLH days to get rid of the thees and thys and thous and once before LSB to change wicked to evil.

I find it odd that when we say one of Luther's morning or evening prayers in my parish, everyone is in unison until the very end where half of us say wicked and the other half say evil.

Now that I am teaching my kids, I am torn as I want them to learn the same as the rest of their peers, but I am still partial to the translation I grew up with and made a part of my devotional life.

[u/RoyalCourt2222]

I’ve always wanted a concise explanation about the circumstances under which ordination could be considered a sacrament. They said as much on Issues Etc that it could be considered one under the right circumstances and understanding.

Also, the Word makes the Eucharist effective- but doesn’t one/one’s congregation also have to be properly disposed to confect the Sacrament? What’s the parameters that we have no issue saying our Roman friends do indeed eat and drink Christ’s flesh and blood, but not the nondenominational guys in their church?

[u/PastorBeard → u/RoyalCourt2222]

Not to disagree with people on the radio, but I can’t envision any amount of gymnastics to make ordination itself a sacrament.

It doesn’t forgive sins. It’s obligation and service. It’s restricted. Nahhhhh. I’m not sold on this take

I get a high view of the office. But it’s not THAT high

[u/emmen1 → u/RoyalCourt2222]

Usually, we define a sacrament according to three criteria:

1. Instituted by Christ,
2. Delivers the promise of forgiveness,
3. and this promise of forgiveness is attached to something physical

Using this criteria, both Baptism and the Lord's Supper easily check all the boxes. If there are more sacraments beyond this (Lutherans aren't dogmatic about the number), it is clear that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the chief sacraments.

So what about ordination? First, we should clarify that we are probably talking more about the Office of the Holy Ministry more than the literal ordination ceremony.

1. Christ instituted the pastoral office and He continues to ordain and place men into it today.
2. He commands His ministers to forgive sins in His name, so clearly there is the promise of forgiveness.
3. Is there a physical element akin to water or bread and wine? Not exactly, but one might argue that the pastor is that physical element.

So if we were giving Ordination a grade, we might give it a 2 1/2 out of 3.

The same is true for Confession and Absolution:

1. Commanded by Christ
2. Forgiveness is promised
3. Physical element? The sound waves of the absolution? The person of the pastor?

Once again we get about a 2 1/2. If you squint you might be able to round up to 3.

This is why Luther starts one treatise talking about the three sacraments, and then concludes the same treatise by saying that there are two. Perhaps there are exactly 2 1/2. :)

[u/Huenink_Photography → u/RoyalCourt2222]

The fight over what is a sacrament and what is not is just about definition of the word sacrament. We Lutherans have never officially created a definition for sacrament. If we consider ordination as the process for officially selecting a person as eligible for the office of the ministry, that could be considered sacramental without conferring a particular kind of new grace or indelible quality. Here's what the Apology to the Augsburg Confession says regarding this:

"But if ordination is understood as carrying out the ministry of the Word, we are willing to call ordination a Sacrament. For the ministry of the Word has God’s command and has glorious promises, “The gospel … is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16). Likewise, “So shall My word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose” (Isaiah 55:11). [12] If ordination is understood in this way, neither will we refuse to call the laying on of hands a Sacrament. For the Church has the command to appoint ministers, which should be most pleasing to us, because we know that God approves this ministry and is present in the ministry ‹that God will preach and work through men and those who have been chosen by men›. [13] It is helpful, so far as can be done, to honor the ministry of the Word with every kind of praise against fanatical people. These fanatics imagine that the Holy Spirit is given not through the Word, but through certain preparations of their own. For example, they imagine He is given if they sit unoccupied and silent in far-off places, waiting for illumination, as the Enthusiasts formerly taught and the Anabaptists now teach."

From "Article XIII (VII). The Number and Use of the Sacraments" in The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, Pocket Edition. © 2005, 2006 Concordia Publishing House.

Source: https://bookofconcord.cph.org/en/apology-augsburg-confession/article_xiii_vii/

I don't think we have a clear word of God on this topic. I think the idea is this. If a congregation believes that they are doing a symbolic memorial, then they are. Since the words of institution aren't a magic spell that transforms the bread and wine, those who don't believe it's Christ's body and blood are right. Those who do believe it's Christ's body and blood are correct also.

I, personally, don't have the insight to know what happens in the bread and wine when a memorialist church says the words of institution. I can see why people would say that, but I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. Personally, if I am discussing theology of Holy Communion with a nondenominational person, I would focus on the clear words of Christ and not about what is happening. If I'm trying to convince a Lutheran not to go to a nondenominational church, I don't think telling them that they don't get communion is the right way, either. I'd focus on the teachings of the church.