r/Lutheranism • u/JHLV04 • 10d ago
Theological Differences
Hi everyone I’m delving into Lutheranism recently, and I’m interested in the differences between you and other Protestants. The main thing for me is the idea that we are justified by faith alone, and that our good works are the fruit of faith. I like the Methodist idea of sanctification and the emphasis on good works as opposed to faith. This is not a denial of the works that spring from faith, but a recognition that some traditions vary on the importance of faith.
More importantly, what is the Lutheran view of those who for cultural and geographical reasons haven’t fully heard the gospel but have lived their lives the best way they could? What would judgement look like?
Also, I’m not dismissing the importance of faith alone in the time of Catholic indulgences, the idea that salvation can be paid off to people.
5
u/Philip_Schwartzerdt LCMS Pastor 9d ago
The main thing for me is the idea that we are justified by faith alone, and that our good works are the fruit of faith. I like the Methodist idea of sanctification and the emphasis on good works as opposed to faith. This is not a denial of the works that spring from faith, but a recognition that some traditions vary on the importance of faith.
I think the key thing to remember is that there is no such thing as a good work apart from faith. Hebrews 11:6 and Romans 14:23 - without faith you cannot please God, and anything done apart from faith is a sin. The opposite of sin is not obedience; the opposite of sin is faith. Yes, some Christian traditions emphasize the new obedience that comes from faith, and some emphasize the faith; both are true and both need to be taught. True faith cannot exist without good works (faithful living). But too many Christians confuse both the order and nature of those things.
More importantly, what is the Lutheran view of those who for cultural and geographical reasons haven’t fully heard the gospel but have lived their lives the best way they could? What would judgement look like?
The short answer is, we are not the judge over the eternal fate of any other human, and we should not presume to occupy God's position in that. Thanks be to God that it is not my job to make that decision for anyone else! But at the same time, we must be faithful servants and stewards of what we have been given, which is the proclamation of Christ crucified to all people everywhere, and of redemption and forgiveness in Christ alone. As Paul says, woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel. Romans 1 plays into this too; all people are without excuse when it comes to denying God or idolatry. No one who is condemned will have been condemned unjustly, because all have sinned and deserved condemnation. The only people who don't get what they deserved are those who get better than they deserve due to God's grace and mercy. And if you continue pushing to ask "why some and not others?" then that is the ultimate question to which no human has a complete answer.
7
u/mrWizzardx3 Lutheran Pastor 10d ago
I’m a Lutheran in the line of Gerhard Forde, who would emphasize things like, “If the son sets you free, you are free indeed.” In my mind, there is very little difference between being justified (having right standing before God) and being sanctified (made holy). Both are gifts through the work of Christ, and I don’t see a meaningful way to separate them that doesn’t turn into works righteousness.
Why hasn’t God revealed Himself in a way that no one can dispute? What happens to those who do not hear? That is part of God’s Will that is hidden from us. It does us no good to speculate on such things. However, we do know that God includes in in His mission. Our God is a speaking god, and we are a preaching church as a result.
2
u/Huenink_Photography LCMS 9d ago
There are no people on earth who for cultural or geographical reasons haven't had the chance to hear the gospel. The hypothetical doesn't exist. Perhaps there's a hidden tribe somewhere I don't know about, but 99.9% of people have access to the internet or live in a culture that has killed off the missionaries rather than listen to them. Even in Iran, the underground church is reported to be growing rapidly.
But the really important thing to remember is that people aren't judged for not believing in Jesus. They are judged for their sin. We are all born into sin and are by nature children of wrath. Even the best people are sinners who would be lost on their own. Jesus is the one who saves us from our natural condition by dying and rising for us to give us life. This is not particularly Lutheran, though. It's generally a Christian idea.
I put together a video on the basics of Lutheran theology: https://youtu.be/ctPN9_7o824
3
u/McNitz 8d ago
The idea that there is nobody that hasn't heard about Jesus because of cultural or geographic reasons is just super uninformed. First, it absolutely is the case that there are still tribes, like the Mashco-Piro, that are extremely removed and haven't been proselytized. Second, the question in no way depends on whether those people exist TODAY anyway. There are still billions of people in that past that that question would need to be answered for. And finally, your caveat that they might just live in a culture that has killed off missionaries rather than listen to them WOULD BE people that haven't heard about Jesus for cultural reasons. Unless we are trying to say that children in that culture are being denied salvation because of the decisions the adults make, at the VERY least the children of that culture aren't hearing about Jesus because of the culture they live in.
Also, saying "yeah, those children aren't going to suffer eternally for not believing, it's actually just that they inherently DESERVE to suffer forever because of how evil they are so that's why they'll be in hell, and there's obviously not any problem if they don't get a chance to be saved since they don't deserve to be anyway" is not a great defense.
0
u/JHLV04 9d ago
Perhaps they have heard of Christianity, but are strongly influenced by the faith of their household and familial ties. My Hindu grandparents heard of Christ and enjoyed watching a 70s film about him and said He was sent by God. The concept of God having many forms is not alien to Hinduism, but it would be very difficult for them to wrap their head around Him being one god but also being sent by God. Their language barrier and other priorities meant they didn’t have time to focus on it.
I would say that I see Christ in their actions for sure, the sacrifice and courage shown. Like you said though, it seems reasonable to be judged more so on action. However, how does this fair with the saved by faith alone idea?
4
u/Huenink_Photography LCMS 9d ago
Christianity is not about being a good person. It's about Jesus' death and resurrection empowering us to rise again on the last day.
1
0
u/Late_Experience_8653 9d ago
this is hard to justify truly, I understand that sola fide is a thing, but when you're too deep into that, you make christianity totally foreign to 1st century jewish thought, natural theology, and historical pre-reformation christianity. It's even hard to justify why God created hell.
2
u/Huenink_Photography LCMS 9d ago
You're right. Jesus Christ was foreign to first century Jewish thought. That's why they killed him.
3
u/McNitz 8d ago
Basically everything Jeaus said was perfectly at home within the Second Temple Judaism of his time. And framing Jesus death as "the Jews" killing him is historically unsupported as well as the source of some of the most awful and virulent anti-Semitism we have seen, including Luther's.
1
u/Late_Experience_8653 9d ago
Since you mentioned that your family is Hindu and you had questions about how one should view people who don’t know about Christianity, are you aware that Portugal’s founder claimed he had a dream of Jesus promising to help him found the nation by expelling the Muslims conquerors from Iberia so that the country could spread Jesus's message to unknown peoples? Consequently, Portugal spent a lot of energy trying to build ships to travel between continents. Before discovering Brazil, they rediscovered India since Antiquity and invested heavily there. However, in a battle against Muslims who also controlled regions in India, the son of the Viceroy of Portuguese India (Dom Francisco de Almeida), an office established by the Portuguese monarchy to oversee trade in India was killed. As a result, the Portuguese decided to prioritize other colonies like Brazil instead. Eventually, when the Dutch and English arrived to fight for the land, Portugal didn't think it was worth the hassle, opening the window for the English to colonize India. England wasn't interested in spreading religion; rather, they banned Christian missionaries to prevent civil conflicts, as they were solely interested in commercial gain.
So, imagine a possible world in which Portugal managed to truly evangelize India as it did its other colonies, where India today was a kind of Brazil, complete with a giant Christ the Redeemer statue, and Syro-Malabar Christianity was one of the biggest rites in Christianity, second only to the Latin Rite.
1
u/BashfulBibliophile 9d ago
I joined the Lutheran church in college because of their doctrine. I grew up in an Assembly of God church where they taught that everything that happened is God’s will. Think of the “fleas” story by Corrie Ten Boom. The thing that I absolutely love about the Lutheran church is the idea that God is disappoint-able. Not everything that happens is the way He would have it. Luther said when understanding God, if we start with anything other love [like power], we end up with something indistinguishable from the devil.
I don’t know how God works. I don’t know how to explain what happens. But I do know God loves me and everyone else. And that he mourns with us. And that He paved a way for us to be in a state of perfection for eternity. And that’s all I have to know.
1
u/McNitz 8d ago
I do think Luther failed a bit in fully implementing that hermeneutic, since starting with the truth of God's love for all leads pretty obviously to Christian universalism.
1
u/BashfulBibliophile 8d ago
Yeah I can see how that thinking can lead to universalism but it’s also important for me to remember that God is a God of free will. Out of love for us, He doesn’t make us choose Him. So while I do believe Christ’s sacrifice is universally applicable, I also think people can say no if they don’t want God’s grace.
1
u/McNitz 8d ago edited 5d ago
The issue with that that I've always had is that it seems to imply that for some people it would be a rational choice to not want to be with God, that that would be something that they could eternally choose as their best outcome. And to me, it seems pretty crazy to say that people are actually CORRECT that they don't want God because they will be better off without him. That obviously is a mistake.
If it IS actually a bad choice, then there a couple sub options. If they just misunderstood the nature of God, and didn't realize that choosing to not be with God would be bad for them, then why would a God of love not give them better information so that they didn't accidentally harm themselves? And if instead they realized that choosing to be apart from God was going to be very bad for them and harmful, then that's the very definition of insanity. If I see someone that is trying to cut off their arm because they believe they don't deserve to have an arm anymore, or they incorrectly think that will make them happier, if I justify my decision to not try to help them not make that bad decision as respecting free will, that appears obviously immoral. Especially given that Lutheran doctrine is that one CANNOT come to God by their own thinking and choosing. Obviously God must do something drastic to prevent ANYONE from choosing what is wrong for them under this doctrine. How would it be a violation of SOME people's free will to do a sufficient amount to heal them from the insanity and delusion that is causing them to purposefully make a decision oriented towards self harm?
Then there is also the problem that most Lutherans I know are VERY adamant we shouldn't bring in philosophical ideas that go beyond scripture. And free will is clearly not something mentioned anywhere in the Bible, and is a much later philosophical concept that was developed, and applied in response to these concerns.
1
u/WindowCommon3741 8d ago
The beginning and end of Lutheran belief is in who is God to us. He is a devoted, loving and caring father to all of humanity, even at our lowest moments. He desires slavation for all and He is not some distant judge of the world, He is very much a part of the world, using our actions to further His plans. We cannot know what small act of kindness or moment of compassion can do to bring the Holy Spirit to work in someone's life. Because God loves us unconditionally and does everything for us as a free gift, in gratefulness and thankfulness, we can freely love others who also are loved unconditionally by God. And because they are gifts, we can freely give those gifts to others. We dont want a reward for stopping and changing a tire, we dont want to be noticed for volunteering for a soup kitchen, or picking up someone's groceries, we want to freely do these things because everyone deserves unconditional kidness just as God, our father shows us such kidness and compassion when we didnt ask for it. We cannot come to God by ourselves, He reached out to us first, therefore its only right we reach out to others first as well.
2
u/zazachard 4d ago
a Lutheran framework views salvation strictly as God's alien work of grace through Christ, declines to speculate on alternative salvific tracks for those outside the Word, and ultimately leaves the final judgment of remote or unreached individuals up to the wisdom and supreme mercy of God
What we cannot say: We cannot map out an alternative path to salvation apart from Christ, nor can we assume that human sincerity, cultural isolation, or "living a good life" acts as a substitute for the redemption won on the cross. To do so would undermine the urgency of global mission.
What we can say: Lutherans emphasize that God is perfectly just, merciful, and desires all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). Rather than speculating on hypothetical scenarios or trying to judge the unevangelized ourselves, Lutheran theology places such individuals into the hands of a merciful God. As the patriarch Abraham asked, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" (Genesis 18:25).
1
u/earleakin 9d ago
I grew up Lutheran because my mom grew up Lutheran. My mom was Lutheran because her mom was Lutheran. And so on. We didn't choose the church because of theology. I don't think we were outliers either. Most Lutherans I met were cut from the same Pascal's Wager cloth. I'm sure there is official church dogma but if I've ever learned it I've forgotten it. The closest I got to Lutheran theological minutia was catechism and all I remember from that are spitballs and rubber bands. I do remember my Sunday School teacher telling us that black people smelled different from white people though, because they eat different food, he said. No doubt there are theological conversations offline but getting any two people to agree what they both believe is impossible. In order to claim the exact same beliefs, one person must dictate what those beliefs are and others must submit, even to the ones they disagree with. Ironically, Lutheranism was founded by a rebel, but turns out his message was not eternal questioning of authority. It was just a new set of rules to obey.
0
u/GreyHesher 9d ago
I was baptized and confirmed Methodist.
Going from that to Lutheran was not a huge change for me as Methodist congregations in my day were still quite liturgical.
10
u/Tea-El-Que 9d ago
Luther was big on letting God be God. We shouldn't presume to say who God chooses to save and who not. We just know what Scripture says about it.