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: genevanpsalter.com/music-and-... The rest of the music is written by me.
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."
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
@@user-cf1cz2si3i hello, I am a Lutheran and am presently attending a Lutheran college with the intention of one day entering the seminary. Would you be interested in talking by email or otherwise?
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.
That's a very good exegetical argument, I haven't heard that one before! I don't believe appealing to mystery is inherently irrational, but I still like to try and figure everything out. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing lol
@@redeemedzoomer60531 John 4:1-3 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 One of the things about election that I've heard within the Lutheran tradition is that while you can do nothing to earn or acquire your own Salvation, God is the one who elects you by his preacher giving you Christ for you for the Forgiveness of your Sins, and furthermore, anyone who receives God's promise like that is authorized to give it. Honestly, if God can speak things into being, then this makes sense.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Mystery is not an excuse, or irrational, it's a placeholder, the theory that we'll figure out eventually, that it has an explanation, that we can still endeavor to figure it out, but that not all the ways of God are discernable by man in mortal flesh. I am an old earth creationist, but imo the way in which evolution can interface with Biblical truth has not yet been satisfactorily explained. Therefore, to me it remains a mystery, there is no need for explanation, it is not central to belief, I shall ask God when in his presence.
"But the Bible very clearly says that the Lord's supper is the body and the blood, and the point of a Reformation is to be faithful to God's word, not just to be as un-Catholic as possible." "But that's ze point of _my_ reformation."
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.
I’m sorry for your feelings of doubt, I just wanna tell you it’s okay, it’s normal, it’s something we all deal with. There was a time not so long ago at all when I felt just like you right now. It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that we need to not doubt in order to rejoice God and be close to Him and allow Him to transform us. So whatever it is you’re going through, I encourage you to sit down and pray to the Lord for strength and closeness through all this. He won’t make it go away, frankly because that wouldn’t really be any good. Instead of removing the obstacle, Jesus will carry you on His back like you’re His lost sheep through all this. In Him, you will overcome it. It’s so freeing for me to know that God is there for us ALWAYS, regardless of how we feel and I wish you may know this too. He will help us get through the day - whether our pain be outer or inner struggles. “ I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” - Philippians 4:13 Praying for you, a lutheran.
Indeed! One thing I love about both Orthodoxy and Lutheranism is we do in some ways share a similar approach towards exploring God's power and majesty, namely sometimes accepting we never can understand it! I pray that God may be with both of us and lead us both further towards abandoning our reliance on our own logical reasoning! The foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man after all.
I pray that you are able to find peace and comfort in the Gospel. As a compulsive overthinker myself, I can relate with your struggles. One of the reasons why I find Lutheranism very compelling is because of its union of thoroughly-worked out, precise theology with an acceptance of the fact that we can't understand everything and we need to know the limitations of our understanding. Reason and mystery aren't contradictory, they are complimentary if placed in the right order...and Lutheranism continually points us away from ourselves and gets the focus back on Christ and what He has done for us where it belongs. As the saying goes, where Christ is, there is the church, and I think Lutheranism is probably the most Christocentric branch of Christianity that I've encountered so far.
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. :)
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.
Many people don't realize that the name "Lutheran" was actually an insult that Roman Catholics placed on them as a rhetorical move to make them look like a sect (and thus dismiss their arguments). The Lutherans themselves always claimed the name "Evangelical." In fact, there are many Lutherans out there who prefer the term "Evangelical Catholic" to other labels such as "Lutheran" or "Protestant."
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.
Theistic evolution (at least as proposed by modern Roman Catholicism for e.g.) affirms the historicity of Adam and the Fall. One doesn't preclude the other. For example, both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas taught that animal/plant death predated the Fall (as some animals where designed to eat other animals/plants), therefore what is at stake in the Fall is specifically _human death_ which has both a physical and a spiritual dimension. This was a common idea even before Darwin. So, as long as we affirm the special creation of Adam's soul (breath of God) and don't posit that it evolved to rationality apart from divine providence.. theoretically, theistic evolution (including pre-human mammalian ancestry) is not a threat to historical-Christian orthodoxy. In fact, many of the early "fundamentalists" like J. Gresham Machen, (who militantly defended Biblical inerrancy) were open to theistic evolution.
@@vngelicath1580 I'm not denying things died before humans, but to think that we're just special apes that God gave a human soul when we were sufficiently evolved just really goes against the whole thing about humans being God's special creation.
@@NaztheWise How so? The poetical language of us being "dirt + the breath of God" is vauge enough that we don't really know what that means, and its no less a special creation whether the dirt was literal soil (which is also a previous creation repurposed; far from 'ex nihilo') or a metaphorical stand-in for lower lifeforms which derived from the sea/land (under the guidance of God). I don't necessarily agree with old earth-evolutionism, personally, but I don't see how you have to choose between "natural processes of development" and "divinely orchestrated creation", it reminds me of the false dichotomy of anti-sacramentalists: either God saves you or the sacraments do. (In both cases, it's possible to say that God works _through_ natural means).
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?
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." www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-24205-5 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!
Counterpoint : Human Alturism is actually conducive to our species success, what your missing here is that individuals aren't actually competing to replicate, GENES are the ones competing, thus, genes that make individuals care for each other support there own success. I personally believe that humans were given true souls by god (the kinds capable of original sin, death (in the religious sense), Evil, and Consciousness) , who specifically predetermined our evolution. Secondly, even if fossils formed at a very much faster pace than previously suggested, it wouldn't change the fact that these fossils are found in strata that still date back hundreds of millions of years, meaning that they are still incredibly old. One thing to note is that if science, which is the study of god's creation, and the bible, which is gods wisdom revealed to us. Contradict, it probably means that we are not properly interpreting one of the 2, since it would be impossible for god to lie (against his nature). Given the history of our interpretation of scripture changing, I believe that our problem lies in our (mis)interpretation of genesis. Also : Micro-Evolution is just macro evolution in a short time frame. With Kindness and Respect - A fellow Lutheran (NALC).
"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.
I do think Scandinavians are on the whole more friendly than Germans. Although, I'm Swedish-American, and so maybe I'm more used to that. Norwegians can be even more stand-offish than the Germans
@@vngelicath1580 "A ship carrying two Norwegians, two Swedes, and two Danes wrecked on an island. A year later they were rescued. The Norwegians were still feuding, the Danes had formed a co-op, and the Swedes were still waiting to be introduced." ... a traditional joke quietly passed around Lutheran churches.
@@oswaldrabbit1409 There are apparently about as many churchgoing Lutherans in Malawi, as in Germany. And that's not the only African country with a Lutheran population in the high millions...
@@jimluebke3869 wow that is amazing! It gives me great pleasure to know even with things going pretty iffy here in the West that Christianity is still going strong!
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.
@@chemnitzcubing4771 I was a Lutheran for 10 months before I decided to become an Orthodox catechumen, mostly over Athanasius and Basil after finally viewing nicaea 2 as compatible with Christianity.
@@ThumbKnuckle Basil is a BOSS and the Hexaemeron is one of the greatest works of exegesis I have ever had the privilege of reading. Athanasius is good, but everyone I talk to seems to think he was the most amazing defender of the trinity and I really don't think he was. Irenaeus had plenty of trinitarian writing and, in my view, was a firmer defender of the doctrine.
@@chemnitzcubing4771 Don't disrespect my future patron saint, Athanasius, he was exiled 5 times for contending with Arius and laid the foundation for the Cappadocian fathers to exposit more clearly on the concepts he defended. That and we use his new testament and without him the church may have rejected James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. His writings may not be as laudable as Basil's, but on the incarnation is the foundation that Basil and the other Cappadocians built on. Basil does shine brighter for the orthodox church and we use his liturgy during lent, but Athanasius is too important to handle with such nonchalance.
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.
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.
Time Traveler: Moves a chair The timeline: KingdomCraft: Why am I not reformed? Edit (Continuation of the meme) 3 years later: Why am I not reformed? (Update)
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.
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
but the pastors in the synods here at the LCMS are very lockstep, even if the belief is much more shaky among the congregations. Another aspect here is that those who do disagree tend to just shut up, because you can get defrocked from the LCMS for affirming evolution, so it is somewhat difficult to tell how much of it is just self-censorship from the more less conservative elements.
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.
Lutheran here. We are not completely irrational when it come to theological question. Many pastors even in other beliefs will not answer your questions and focus on preaching the bible. My dad who is a Lutheran pastor will answer any question my siblings and I throw at him.
LCMS here, salvation is both. God is willing that we all shall not perish, but he will respect our choice to spend eternity away from God, though it saddens Him.
I was Missouri Synod when I was younger and ELCA now … I’m surprised by your comment on evolution. Almost every Lutheran I know (of both types) believes in evolution, haha.
@@jeebusthegreat8819 Yeah, I’m not saying they don’t exist. Anyway, I just looked up the % of each that believe in evolution in the Pew study: ELCA: 66% LCMS: 52% I’m sure there are other factors within each denomination, as well, that play a role.
@@jeebusthegreat8819 My grandpa is a retired LCMS pastor and he's a militant old earth-evolutionist lol Both exist in large numbers, one view is just not as accepted and thus the laity/pastors which hold to it are "quieter" about it.
On the subject of belief in evolution and such doctrines, God smiles upon rationality, the old and new testaments are riddled with rational argumentation. We have dense and broad defenses for the existence of our god, so clearly our situation is not one island of truth, but two, between which we are responsible for building a bridge. The Bible is an absolute truth, and as evidenced by our eyes, such scientific doctrines as natural selection are, too. Particularly, findings by radiocarbon dating indicate that the Earth is exceedingly old. Given that certain passages in the Bible (notably Daniel and Revelation) frequently refer to very long time periods (in those cases, years) as "days". The Bible doesn't necessitate that the Earth is a mere six thousand years old, and it is for us to bridge the gap between these evident truths.
I'll give you the Lutheran answer. The elect aren't automatically saved even before they come to faith. They have been predestined to salvation, yes, and the Lord will work in their hearts, but they aren't in a saved condition until that point. Perhaps your question is "how does baptism save if someone is already saved by faith?". The Scriptures reveal there is a washing of regeneration and forgiveness of sins brought through baptism by the work of Jesus on the cross. Salvation is not a single point in time but happens constantly in the life of a believer - every time they confess their sins and believe in forgiveness, they are saved. With that understanding, I can come to faith and be saved and yet be baptized and again receive the benefits of the cross. This works in the reverse too: If I am baptized and afterwards come to faith, I once more reap the benefits of the cross from my past baptism. This isn't to say people can't be saved apart from baptism. Faith alone saves. But God brings salvation to the faithful individual. How? By the Word of God and the Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
@@restedassurance Ok so let me check if I understand this. 1. There are some people who are not elect, so they are automatically not saved, and there's nothing they can do about that. 2. There are some people who are elect / predestined to be saved, but they still have to voluntarily come to faith and be baptized in order to be saved. So there are people who are predestined to salvation but are not saved because they chose not to have faith. Please tell me if I got that right. If so, what would you say determines whether an elect person is saved or not? Is it free will? And if it is, why does God deprive this free will from the non-elect? Is it not the case that God wants everyone to be saved, and that whoever believes in him and follows him will be saved?
@@andreasm5770 Not quite. I will admit these are tough doctrines to comprehend so don't feel bad for not getting things right. The elect were predestined to come to faith and are 100% guaranteed to from before the foundations of the world (see verses such as Ephesians 1:4-5 and Romans 8:28-30). Every elected person will 100% be saved by trusting in Jesus as Savior. The sole reason they become saved is God as humans are not able to accept God on their own, God must work faith in the heart (see verses such as 1 Corinthians 2:14 and John 14:16-17). Now, human logic would reason that if God elected some for salvation, He elected the rest for condemnation; this is the Reformed Calvinist position. But Lutherans don't dare make God the cause of someone's lack of faith; you correctly identify that God wants all people to be saved. Instead, we say it is man's fault for rejecting God (see verses such as Matthew 22:1-8 and Matthew 23:37). This is where it gets tricky. On one hand we confess that man can not believe except by divine intervention; on the other hand we confess that man can reject God. As Lutherans we leave this up to a divine mystery. Although this sounds paradoxical, we believe this is what the Bible teaches and God's ways and logic are above our own. As for baptism, no, someone does not need to be baptized to ultimately be saved as long as they believe in Christ. Yet the believer (who is saved by faith) does receive salvation also through Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
@@restedassurance You say that you leave this up to divine mystery, and that it's not a paradox, yet it clearly is contradictory: if God chose some to be saved, it logically follows that he chose the rest not to be saved. If salvation is up to God, damnation is also up to God, by virtue of being the opposite of salvation. If I say that the only way for someone to be fed is for me to feed them, and therefore it is my doing if they are fed, I must also say that it is my doing if someone is not fed because I have chosen not to feed them, and they couldn't possibly feed themselves. If God gives salvation freely to some, you must admit that he has NOT freely given salvation to the rest, therefore condemning them by default. Yes, God can be mysterious, but he cannot be irrational in such a basic way -- he cannot contradict himself.
@@andreasm5770 The relationship between God working in the heart and man's natural rejection can not be understood. I believe the Bible teaches both of these truths, if there is contradiction then the Scriptures contradict themselves - and this is not true. There are passages speaking of predestination and that faith is obtained by God alone. There are also passages saying God would bestow faith if man didn't reject Him. These need to be harmonized or else the Word is errant.
