My understanding is that while it is permissible for a Catholic to attend Church services at a Lutheran church (assuming they're still meeting their Catholic obligations to attend Mass at a Catholic church on Sundays and holy days of obligations), a Catholic should not participate in the actual receiving of communion at the Lutheran church. Is this actually accurate, and is it documented somewhere (e.g. in canon law or other official teachings of the Catholic church)? And what are the stated reasons for this practice, assuming I'm correct in my understanding? As a concrete example, if a Catholic is married to a Christian of a denomination not in full communion with the Catholic church, what explanation might they give to their extended family as to why they abstain from Communion at their spouse's church? Or to their children, given the Catholic parent's responsibility to bring up their children in the Catholic Church (per [Can. 1125](https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann998-1165_en.html#CHAPTER_VI.)) .

I am trying to understand the Lutheran doctrine of Communion. Lutherans believe that Christ "gives us his true body and blood in, with, and under the consecrated bread and wine" (*Small Catechism with explanation* Concordia Publishing House, 352). They believe that Christ's real presence is there whether the communicant believes it or not (353), because the presence of Christ is established by the words of Jesus that are read during the ceremony. While my Small Catechism doesn't say this, I am also of the understanding that the real presence is also not dependent on the faith of the pastor leading the ceremony. In this way, a communicant does not need to worry about whether the pastor or the congregation is faithful; Christ's word is sufficient for him to be sure that he is in fact receiving Christ's body and blood for his forgiveness. However, Lutherans apparently believe that, at churches (such as Baptists) who do not affirm the real presence, Christ is *not* present in the communion elements, even if the words of institution are read. This appears to also be the case even if the communicant believes that Christ is present in the elements at such a church. I don't understand how those ideas can be reconciled. **If it is Christ's words, not the faith of the recipient nor the faith of the minister, that effectuates the real presence of Christ in Communion, how is it that that word is ineffective if the sacrament is administered in a church of the wrong denomination?** Perhaps one might say that if most or almost all of the congregation doesn't believe in real presence, then Christ's body will not be really present. But then we lose that assurance solely in Christ's Word that he is really present and we must also trust the congregation that we are with. Is there something that I am missing here? How do Lutherans reconcile these beliefs? *Note:* I am not asking whether or not Lutherans are correct on this issue. I am asking asking whether the Lutheran beliefs about Communion are internally consistent. If I have misunderstood any part of the Lutheran doctrines here, please let me know what I got wrong.

This might seem strange for a Lutheran, but I have been thinking about confession as a formalized interaction with an ordained minister. It is my understanding that in Martin Luther's day, Lutheran churches would set aside time on Saturdays so that congregants could come and confess their sins before taking part in Communion on Sunday. It was not a requirement, but the opportunity was typically provided. I get that many Lutherans still have a thing about the traditions we inherited from the Catholic Church, but this is one that might be worth continuing. I know that in the U.S., the ELCA and the LCMS do not require that people attend a one-on-one confession with a pastor before Communion, but I know there exist other smaller denominations and am curious if any Lutherans in the U.S. or anywhere else still practice this formally. I realize that in most Lutheran churches, a member would merely need to make an appointment with the pastor and could speak to the cleric about whatever was troubling them. But perhaps there is value in a church setting aside a specific time for personal confessions, as is done in Catholic churches. I would probably avail myself of personal confession if it was provided in such a way that anyone could show up and confess to a pastor at a certain time. This would not make it like a "special request" which could get the sewing circle chatting about why someone made a special appointment to confess to their pastor. If it was just something anyone could show up and do on a certain day, there would be nothing remarkable about it and privacy could be maintained. I think it would encourage people to confess specific sins or regrets that might be on their mind, and provide an opportunity for pastors to offer personal spiritual and practical guidance to people who are struggling with sin. And everyone is struggling with sin. It just seems more effective than reciting the order of confession from memory every week, but I could be wrong so I am curious to know if there are any Lutheran churches that still practice this.

Lutherans believe in a real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, similar to Catholics. However they also believe that the bread and wine remain as bread and wine even after consecration. Does this belief that the bread is still bread (despite also being God) prevent Lutherans from engaging in eucharistic adoration/worship out of fear of idolatry? If not, can you please provide some examples of situations in which Lutherans engage in such adoration? Does it happen during the liturgy? Does it happen outside the liturgy?

I was sufficiently provoked recently by a Lutheran clergyman identifying as "Rev." That seemed to me to be somewhat a poor fit with a tradition that emphasizes the priesthood of believers. By whom, when and where did that title emerge? What authority or character does that title tell us about the Reverend? Did Luther accept that title?

I have been a member of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod for most of my life. My problem is that now, as a middle-aged man, and for the last five years, I have realized that I am a gay man. I am not thrilled about this and I wish it was not the case. I also have not done anything in furtherance of it either. I believe the Bible condemns it as sin. However, in being a member of a conservative denomination such as mine, I have nowhere to turn for help. I live in daily fear of God's wrath and worry that I'm in danger of being "given up" as mentioned in Roman's 1:24. I have a great pastor but I don't feel like I can come talk to him about this because I don't know what would happen. Thus, I am reluctant to ring a bell that can't be unrung. Any references to literature, etc. Would be most appreciated.

Do Lutherans bow down to the altar? And if yes, how does that differ from Catholic veneration of statues/icons or other holy objects?

Recently I had a conversation with a Roman Catholic about apostolic succession and the papacy and he brought up this verse: 1 Timothy 3:15 KJV >But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. My first understanding of this is that the pillar of truth being the church is the community of believers that come together in a spiritual sense rather than an earthly church institution. That is sound to me from what I've read from both the book of Concord and Luther's writings along with scriptural basis. Would this be the general consensus of the Lutheran doctrine for what the church is?, or am I missing something?

Luther denied that marriage is a sacrament conferring grace.¹ He said marriage is a “worldly matter” (*weltlich geschefft*).² But 1 Cor. 7:14 says the husband and wife can mutually sanctify one another: >For the unbelieving husband **is sanctified** by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife **is sanctified** by the believing husband… In view of this verse, how did Luther not think this shows that matrimony confers grace? 1. Reynolds 2016 §17.3 (pp. 742-54)
2. *ibid.* p. 749n102: "*Von Ehesachen* WA 30.3: 205/12–14. *Traubüchlein*, WA 30.3:74/2."

The question is: According to Lutheranism, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the Lutheran definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. I apologize for the phrasing of the 'title'. The original was being wrongly resisted as a duplicate by the bot. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103592/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103581/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103595/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103596/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103598/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103599/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103600/47250

Do Lutherans believe in any type of intercession of the saints? Calvin believed that a general intercession of the saints was possible, but also that one could not ask for intercession from a specific saint. In this regard, do Lutherans believe in intercession like Catholics, or only in the intercession of living saints/general intercession? Preferably, I would like answers with sources from the words of Luther or from Lutheran books, **but only if possible.** Thank you!

I understand that term ‘the law’ is often meant by Luther to just mean the ‘covenant of works’ as opposed to ‘the promise’ or ‘covenant of grace’. This covenant of works was naturally most illuminated by the moral commandments of the Mosaic legislation. Therefore Luther and some of those after him (John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, etc) refer to ‘the law’ not always as a reference to the ‘Mosaic Law’, but the ‘law of nature’ or ‘conscience’. The question is not about that. I accept that the law of conscience and condemnation of original sin was always applicable to all mankind and still is. However, aside from the different uses of the terms. Strictly speaking, not with respect to the law of nature, or covenant of works, but specifically with respect to the Mosaic Legislation and encapsulated by the ten commandments, was this law of Moses ever an expectation by God on Gentiles, according to Luther? I asked specifically with reference to the ten commandments as the first commandment starts with ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.’, obviously not gentiles. And the commandment to ‘obey the Sabbath’, merges the moral commands with ceremonial and appears never to have been followed by any Gentile group as far as I know. The question is important because Gentiles who may have had faith by hearing about the Promised Messiah before Christ, yet not following the Mosaic Law, going to the temple and obeying the Sabbath, etc. may have been saved by their faith apart from the works of the Mosaic Law. In addition, the example of the Ninevites, having possibly believed in God, though a Gentile nation not following Moses, may have had several justified sinners by faith in their midst? What do the reformers, specifically Luther, say specifically about the Mosaic Legislation on mount Horeb, with respect to Gentile nations?

I've heard it reported that Martin Luther told his parishioners to "sin boldly". I'm not sure if this is based in fact and his writings or something that is made up by Catholics to paint him badly. If he *did* say this, what's the original source/context, and how is it explained? Is he claiming that sin has no *ultimate* consequences? Is he claiming that sin has no consequences whatsoever? Is he claiming that it's "ok" to sin? Please help me to exegete Luther's statement.

Looking for a church community for me and my child, young adult college age. So far trying to decide between ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) and UCC (United Church of Christ). What are the differences between these two communities?

In contrast to the *Reformed* tradition, it it the best of my understating, that Lutherans hold in election unto salvation for all who all in Christ, yet also hold that individuals, because of their own fault and will, can turn away fro the faith and lose their salvation. This being the reason for all the warnings and admonitions in the Bible. One example would be John 15, where Jesus says that anyone who does not abide in his word, will be cut off. Given all that, what does apostasy mean in Lutheranism? Is it someone who utterly rejects Christ, or is it anyone caught up in habitual sin, like for example adultery or gambling, etc.

I just finished reading Herman Sasse's *This is My Body*, which was highly recommended by two different Lutheran pastors. The Lutheran position, as I understand it, is that believing in Christ's Real Presence in Communion is essential, but philosophical explanations as to what/how this presence is accomplished are not. Luther's own explanation, that Christ's human nature is "ubiquitous" and thus can be present anywhere including in the wafer of bread, is not asserted as dogma, but simply as a possibility. Sasse and the pastor I talked to are both emphatic, however, that eating Christ's body *does not* mean we are eating his bones or muscles or viscera. Then comes Calvin, who also speaks of a "Real Presence", but with a different explanation of what this means: In taking Communion, we are spiritually lifted up to heaven where Christ is (bodily) and consume his body in a spiritual manner. The Lutherans seem to object to understanding the eating of Christ's body as "spiritual" instead of "literal", but it isn't clear to me what the difference between eating Christ's body in a spiritual way (as Calvin talked about) is different from eating Christ's body, but not the bones or muscles or viscera (as Luther talked about). What other sense is there, other than mere symbolism (as Zwingli said, and both Luther and Calvin rejected)? I thought the Lutherans' objection might be that Calvin's view requires the communicant to engage his/her intellect in contemplating Christ in order to receive the blessing, whereas Luther might say that you only must receive the elements in faith. However, this doesn't seem to be the difference. The Lutherans do not offer communion to children, on the basis of their inability to "discern the body" (1 Cor. 11:29), an intellectual exercise. The Lutheran pastor told me that the important thing to believe is that Christ is present in a special, unique way in communion, different from how he is present "in this room". However, Calvin would also assent to that, as does my (Baptist) pastor, and Wayne Grudem in *Systematic Theology* Chapter 50. These three would not assent to Luther's theory of ubiquity, but neither Luther nor Sasse nor that pastor would say that belief in ubiquity is required for an acceptable doctrine of communion. With all this in mind, I am a bit at a loss as to what, in particular, about Calvin's eucharistic theology the Lutherans find unacceptable?

Forensic justification is defined as strictly legal declaration as justified, rather than reckoning or acknowledging someone as righteous to justify him. In other words, a person is declared righteous despite being a sinner, and remain an ungodly sinner, but God overlooks justice for him and let him go. Is it acceptable if we characterize this as a false justification or forged justification - contrary to fact? As if a forged document of righteousness is given by God? And what is the origin of this theological jargon called *forensic justification*, who came up with it? The false justification characterization fits well with Luther's own description. Luther’s “Sermon on Our Blessed Hope ”: >We see grain sowed in the ground. Reason now asks: What happens to the grain in winter that has been sowed in the ground? Is it not a **dead, moldy, decayed thing, covered with frost and snow**? But in its own time it grows from that dead, moldy, decayed grain into a beautiful green stalk, which flourishes like a forest and produces a full, fat ear on which there are 20, 30, 40 kernels, and thereby finds life where only death existed earlier. Thus God has done with heaven, earth, sun and moon, and does every year with the grain in the field. He calls to that which is nothing that it should become something and does this **contrary to all reason**. Can He not also do something which serves to glorify the children of God, even though it is **contrary to all reason?** In another quote: >Conceived in sorrow and corruption, the child sins in his mother’s womb. As he grows older, the innate element of corruption develops. Man has said to sin: ‘Thou art my father’—and every act he performs is an offense against God; and to the worms: ‘You are my brothers’—and he crawls like them in mire and corruption. He is a bad tree and cannot produce good fruit; a **dunghill**, and can only exhale foul odors. He is so thoroughly corrupted that it is absolutely impossible for him to produce good actions. Sin is his nature; he cannot help committing it. Man may do his best to be good, still his every action is unavoidably bad; he commits a sin as often as he draws his breath. (Werke, (Wittenberg Edition), Vol. III, p. 518.) It is surprising that such a traditional fundamental Lutheran theology is not known by most common reformed believers, including Evangelicals; so I'd encourage the Lutherans not to rush in closing the question, but allow everyone to learn despite the disagreements. Neither Luther nor his followers are embarrassed in admitting their theology, and if one rejects them, they should be honestly realize that they reject the traditional reformed theology, rather than being defensive and attempting to censor the studies and debates on these topics. Had it been for N. T. Wright, we wouldn't have known about this, because the Lutheran scholars have responded to Wright's NPP interpretations of Rom 4:5, by defending the traditional view, and only then the laymen like us discovered these beliefs through them. >First, as **many commentators note**, God is here said to do what he forbids judges to do. In a striking parallel to Rom 4:5 the Greek text of Isa 5:23 pronounces a woe on οἱ δικαιοῦντες τὸν ἀσεβῆ (“those who justify the ungodly). In Prov 17:15 “he who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.” In Exod 23:7 the Lord himself swears that he will not justify the ungodly. Daniel Wallace writes addressing to Wright's controversy. >Among his many points, Sprinkle notes that in the OT God did not justify wicked people, citing, inter alia, Exod 23.7 and Isa 5.23. In my class on the exegesis of Romans, which I have taught at Dallas Seminary for the past seven years, I have argued that these two texts are key to Paul’s thinking and that the Jews of his day would have realized this. Exodus 23.7 clearly involves legal language. It is this language which lies behind Paul’s points in Rom 3.23–24 and 4.4–5. In v. 7 we see δικαιόω used with ἀσεβής: ‘you shall not justify the ungodly for a bribe’ (οὐ δικαιώσεις τὸν ἀσεβῆ ἕνεκεν δώρων). This can only mean ‘you shall not declare innocent the ungodly for a bribe.’ Three things are significant here: (1) δικαιόω means, in this legal context, ‘declare righteous/innocent’; it does not mean ‘make righteous.’ (2) **The person who might be declared innocent is in fact guilty** (ἀσεβῆ), **precisely the situation we have in Rom 3:23–24.** (3) The word for bribe is δῶρον, a cognate of δωρεάν found in Rom 3:24. It would of course not do for Paul to say that God declares sinners righteous ‘for a bribe,’ so an appropriate substitute is needed—one that is a cognate of δῶρον, but does not use ἕνεκεν or imply anything except that God acts freely when he justifies sinners. δωρεάν is the accusative singular of δωρεά; as such, it is adverbial (always so in the NT) and means ‘freely.’ It is not insignificant that we again see in the LXX of Isa 5.23 the collocation of δικαιόω with ἀσεβής and δῶρον. And again, we see that δικαιόω must almost surely mean ‘declare innocent’ since the pronouncement is made on the ungodly who do not deserve it. Dr. Craig quotes Henri Blocher and D. G. Dunn, >“That God’s righteousness towards the peoples he has created includes wrath and judgment as well as faithfulness and salvation is clearly implicit in the sequences Romans 1:16-18 and 3:3-6.” Those who deny that dikaiōsynē is a forensic term, Dunn says, pay insufficient attention to Romans 4:4-5, “where the forensic background is clear in the allusion to the legal **impropriety** of a judge ‘justifying the ungodly’. . . , and where again the thought is entirely of attributing a righteous status to one who is unrighteous.” Dunn’s point is that Paul’s referring to God as “him who justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5) recalls the Old Testament description of the unjust judge who justifies the wicked (Proverbs 17:15), which is an abomination in the Lord’s sight. French theologian Henri Blocher remarks on “the staggering audacity of Paul’s combination of words: God who justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5) The Cambridge Dictionary defines "impropriety " as: behavior that is dishonest, socially unacceptable, or unsuitable for a particular situation: *financial/legal impropriety allegations of sexual impropriety*.

Defense of the Augsburg Confession XXIV recognizes and does not prohibit mentioning the dead. In my church, we have a local service to commemorate the departed that were deported during second world war. But I'm too ashamed to ask the pastor at this point what exactly do be believe about this topic. Do Lutherans "pray" for the dead? If so, what does it mean for us?

So my question is about churches (or more specifically the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church) which bar all forms of fellowship (to include prayer) unless all points of doctrine are agreed upon. For example, two Lutherans, one from WELS and one from LCMS, have very similar doctrines. The LCMS Lutheran believes in limited fellowship, but will pray with non LCMS Lutherans. The WELS Lutheran will not pray with the LCMS Lutheran however. This makes me wonder: How is it possible to help someone grow in the faith when you cannot even pray with a person until you agree on all points of doctrine? How can they even learn all points of expected doctrine without having a community they are in fellowship with? Do they make an exception when someone is growing in the faith? Do they not bring people to worship services until they're ready to be baptised - and agree to believe all points of doctrine? (So do they discourage parishioners from bringing friends to church?)

Several Lutheran church bodies, including some of the Lutheran churches in Germany and Scandinavia, have active monastic communities. However, other Lutheran churches, including ELCA and LCMS in America, have none. So, why do some Lutheran churches have monks while others don't? Is there a specific reason for this difference, or a rule prohibiting them in other Lutheran churches? If not, why don't those churches have monks?