KingdomCraft: Why I'm not Lutheran

Music:
The first song is the music for Psalm 1 of the Genevan Psalter by Claude Goudimel. The lyrics to that can be found here:

The rest of the music is written by me.

[jimluebke]

I like how you summed it up in another video. "The most significant difference between Lutherans and Reformed, is that if you ask them if there are significant differences between them, the Lutherans say yes and the Reformed say no."

[jakobi]

Lutheran here. It made my heart happy when you blamed Zwingli for everything wrong with the reformation lol.
Also, I think one of the biggest distinction between Lutherans and Reformed was pointed out brilliantly by Dr Jordan B Cooper: Reformed tend to think more in terms of theology and ask the questions of theology — who is God, how is He most glorified, etc. Lutherans meanwhile, tend to think more in terms of religion (Cooper used the phrase Anthropology, but I think religion is more precise), and ask the questions of religion — how do I relate with God, how am I saved, etc. That’s one reason why you get the difference in, say, baptism. In the Reformed view, God is most sovereign and glorified when what He has cannot be taken away, therefore they conclude that baptism is only salvific for the elect. With Lutherans, however, we can best know we are saved if the means of grace are always, 100% of the time, effective, therefore we conclude that baptism always saves but you can lose your salvation. I imagine most Reformed would become Lutheran if they thought more in terms of religion, and most Lutherans would become Reformed if they thought more in terms of theology. I also think this approach is more charitable to both sides then saying either “Reformed reject Lutheranism because they don’t understand it” or “Lutherans reject Reformed because they’re too emotional”. To clarify I did not find your video offensive at all, I just thought that it missed the most fundamental distinction

[harry]

I like how Lutheran Satire imitates Zwingli:

"I also reject ze Lord's supper being ze body unt ze blood because ze papists believe it"

[joshc]

Lutheran here. I get it, our view of salvation is a bit confusing but it doesn't HAVE to be irrational. I understand the Lutheran view of salvation by the imagery of Peter being called by Jesus to walk on water with him. Peter doesn't walk on the water by his own power but through Christ. However when he looks away from Jesus and falls into the waves that is his own choice and not a decree of Christ. And if he were to look away and swim to the debts of the sea and drown it would also his own choice. Yeah aspects of Lutheranism has mystery but same with aspects of Reformed Theology. Of course this metaphor isn't perfect but it's the way that made Lutheran Soteriology more understandable for me. God Bless.

[jmh]

As of my writing now, you posted this video ten months ago, so I'm not sure if anyone will read it, but I've actually been pouring over your videos, Gavin Ortlund, Trent Horn, RC Sproul, etc. I've definitely been walking through a dark valley lately with regards to my faith where doubt, which never took much root previously, is now eating me alive and consuming my every waking thought... so much that my work is actually suffering. I was militantly atheist until about 21, and I am 35 now, so it isn't like doubt is a stranger, but I've never felt so shaken before. The reason I'm commenting here is that, while I have a developed bias against organized religion (and therefore have mostly felt appeal towards non-denominational Christianity), I actually really am delighted by the Lutheran approach to mystery. I personally feel, as a rampant, often obsessive overthinker, and one who depended most of his life thus far entirely upon exhaustive rational enquiry, that the overemphasis on such Enlightenment thinking has done more harm than good. A "return", if you will, to emphasis on faith that God knows and I am not required to in this life, is in good order, and the Lutheran approach, far from being "afraid" or contemptuous of reason, seems to me to place it in its proper context against the awesome majesty of God's sovereignty. My wife, who is Greek and who was raised devoutly in the Orthodox tradition, has also expressed interest in Lutheranism... which is actually so unlike her. I'm still weary of denominationism, personally, but Lutheranism is by far the most appealing. And yes, I'm aware it may be ironic that someone who placed so much faith into rationality and reason now feels that while they have their place, they are also a tremendous let down in terms of true knowledge.

[restedassurance]

I'm sure you weren't trying to make this assumption but I'll state it anyway. It's not that we (Lutherans) don't take certain teachings rationally in favor of other doctrines spoken in the past that appeal to the heart; of course we've had numerous brilliant scholars and theologians look critically at the Scriptures. Rather, we have reasons from Scripture for our differences to Reformed theology. We would argue there's plenty of evidence against double predestination, plenty of evidence to the rejecting the Spirit, plenty of evidence that one can walk outside of salvation.

What this leads to is a scenario where we have reason to believe what we do from the Word but it doesn't quite line up with human understanding. Then comes a crucial decision: Take what seems clearly taught in the Bible (to us at least), or try to modify our understanding so it starts to make sense in spite of the Word? In short, we feel content with divine mystery not because it sounds good to us, but because we think the Scriptures unanimously teach this. And surely mystery is nothing new to a Christian; take the Trinity, the natures of Christ, the concept of eternity, and so on. Another reason we are prone to settle with mystery is because we don't expect to understand how God fully works. I would argue being able to fully wrap your mind around the ways of the God who created the universe seems to downplay the magnificence of said God; obviously no disrespect to the Reformed and Armenians intended.

I enjoyed your video though and your thoughts are valid. You've likely heard all of this from other Lutherans before but I felt compelled to respond. Good on you for your passion of theology and bringing a gaming audience to it. Despite our differences, we still are brothers saved by the grace of God. :)

[danshakuimo]

"Appeal to Mystery" missed that day in high school English

[kolekillen]

As a Lutheran I can respect this man 👍

[jimluebke]

Fun Fact: there are a huge number of Lutherans in Africa now, primarily Ethiopia and (iirc) Malawi.

They're so Lutheran they don't call themselves Lutheran, like any good respecter of St. Paul's 1 Corinthians 1 would.

[williamtyson]

As a Lutheran I Understand that point and dislike too. There is some mystery but most things can be explained logically

[NaztheWise]

I'm a Presbyterian (conservative side of PCA) and I think the main reason I completely reject the idea of evolution is not because it makes zero scientific sense, but because of the massive theological implications it brings with it if true. Evolution completely takes Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall out of the picture, which is one of the most foundational doctrines in Christian theology. It also removes any special element to being human and made in the image of God, because if we're just evolved from pre-apes, for lack of a better term, then we're just extra smart animals. I do believe that science in general and Christianity are not diametrically opposed, which is why I am an Old Earth Creationist, but I cannot say the same for Neo-Darwinism and Christianity. The reason I make this comment is because I'm wondering if you ever thought of what it would mean theologically, since you really only went into the scientific part of why you believed it, so I'm confused as to how you manage to reconcile it to your theological beliefs.

[jaskamattila]

I'm a lutheran, my personal problem with lutheranism is how much it focuses on the theological focus of it's founders and the polemics they had with the Roman church. While they were necessary criticisms at the time, nowadays they aren't in all cases, and nonetheless a focus on only certain parts of christianity do not make for a template that fits all kinds of believers. For example: the love of dichotomies, like "law vs gospel" or "human knowledge vs divine revelation" or "theology of the cross and theology of glory"; the focus on soteriology leading to neglecting sanctification in favor of debating the "exact moment" somebody is saved, or "the minimum limit" of things to do in order to be saved (so sola fide); and a kind of nominalism (we cannot know anything about god's nature from creation) stemming from Luther's nominalist education, a fear of overstepping the bible's authority, the "theology of the cross"-idea etc. Often I can see people debating feverently about which way the rules must be to make God act a certain way, and lose sight of reality, and the fact that God is _good_.
This is of course a problem in most small (relatively) churches, which in order to be distinct from other churches resort to overemphasizing the things that separate them from the others. Lutheranism isn't the worst, at least not in my country, where it is the majority church.

[lemokemo]

North American Lutheranism has such a different context compared to North European Lutheranism.
A part from a small group of confessional Lutherans outside my state Church I've never met a young Earth Conservative. All Conservatives within the national Church are Inline with science. Even among the confessionals I could take communion and attend services with anti-young Earth views.

[nightfighter]

LCMS Christian here- I understand your thoughts on looking to make science and faith compatible, but respectfully disagree on the evolutionary theory for a few reasons.

Firstly, evolution is not indisputable- it is a theory thought up by humans to explain things that we do not know. Theories are not necessarily true just because they appeal to our understanding (see geocentric model). Human thinking is fallible, and widely-accepted theories can easily be disproven with new knowledge.

Secondly, scripture says that we are not mere animals, but are rather made in the image of God and given dominion over all other creatures (Genesis 1:26). It does not say that Adam evolved from similar species over millions of years, but that he was formed from dust and life was breathed into him by God (Genesis 2:7). All other life was additionally formed from dust, as written later in Genesis 2.

Thirdly, survival of the fittest and human altruism are contradictory. It would not be a favorable evolutionary trait for a stronger neanderthal to give a weaker, non-related neanderthal it's steak without expecting reciprocation. I say non-related because it is logical that the same neanderthal would provide for it's own offspring. This does not explain human altruism, where people may be more inclined to generosity (Of course, we can only be truly generous through embracing the Holy Spirit). Somewhat related- evolutionary theory cannot adequately justify human conscience, which I believe is our God-given recognition of his standards.

Fourthly, newer research demonstrates that fossils form at a much quicker rate than previously believed, which would support the notion of a young earth, scientifically speaking.
"All analytical data shown here imply that the spherical concretions formed very rapidly, at least three to four orders of magnitude faster than previously estimated timescales."

Fifthly, I do not disagree with micro-evolution. It makes sense that living beings (humans and other) would adapt to their environment to not only survive, but thrive. To the extent that is suggested by the theory of evolution, I do disagree.

It isn't "mystery" that appeals to us [LCMS] and inhibits us from seeking to understand God and what he has wrought. I'd presume that you and I are very similar in looking for rational answers to uncertainty in God's design.

Liked the video- Very interesting hearing from a Reformed Christian's perspective. God bless!

[TheOtherCaleb]

Lutheranism’s appeal to mystery regarding why one person rejects the promises of God in word & water and another accepts it is very similar to Arminius’ prevenient grace. I’d even say that Arminius was more succinct in his doctrine of prevenient grace than Luther was in expounding on the nature of acceptance and denial. I’d rather side with prevenient grace and be able to logically explain acceptance and denial while still remaining as Augustinian as Lutherans are.

[fighterofthenightman]

RE: the organizations, it’s important to remember we Lutherans are way more associated with immigrants (German and Scandinavian) than other traditions in the US. We were not as much of an established class as Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Methodists and Presbyterians. Lutherans built plenty of great institutions in Europe.

[repentantrevenant]

The part about allowing things to be mysterious & paradoxical reminds me of what Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy- have you read much Chesterton by any chance?

[jimluebke]

"Lutherans don't tend to reach out"

Part of this is the reticence natural to Scandinavians, who have historically made up a significant percentage of Lutherans. The term "Frozen Chosen" reflects this tendency. All Lutherans think this is funny, but only the non-Scandinavians laugh out loud at it.

[ThumbKnuckle]

It does seem that more ecumenical reformed folks will simp after Lutheranism while remaining reformed whereas a lot of Lutherans tend to simp after the eastern orthodox without joining them, of course in both cases the adoration is not returned.

[arlanlacey]

At 6:15 ish in the video you make a comment about Lutherans not being very open to evolution or longer than 7-day creation but I believe that isn't a belief held by many (if any) Lutherans at both the Missouri Synod on one side and ELCA on the other