Closer to Truth

Ever since my crisis of faith in the latter half of 2011, where I bordered on agnosticism, I've had an incessant passion to find religious truth. I know that there is a God - personal experiences and reason make it clear to me. The God of the universe is the God of the Jews and Christians. But the specific manner of Christian practice is something I have been uncertain about for a long time.

This desire to find religious, doctrinal truth is part of what led me from the Pentecostal church to the Lutheran church. (Don't mistake such statements for hating against Pentecostals; they have just as much faith in God, perhaps more, as other types of Christians. But I don't think a lot of their doctrine is what was historically believed by the church.) Yet part of me feels... uncertain? Unconvinced?

Let's face it, Protestantism happened a long time after the age of the apostles. Two of the big names of the Protestant Reformation are Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both spoke of salvation by faith alone, but in different ways. How do I know Luther wasn't wrong? How do I know Calvin wasn't also wrong? What if sola fide is a man-made doctrine - one which excludes us from eternal salvation?

Eternal salvation is really all I care about. But Christians can't seem to agree who is saved. Many Protestants will say the Catholics aren't saved. Official Catholic doctrine seems to both say that Protestants are disconnected from Jesus thus unsaved, yet also says Protestants are able to be saved. Which side is right?

• Either the Catholics are right, and Protestants aren't saved.
• Either the Protestants are right, and the Catholics aren't saved.
• Either both are wrong, and both sides are saved.
• Either both are right, and non are saved.

My main concern, as a Protestant, is whether or not Protestants - despite our comparatively young theology - are saved. If I could be given an intellectual, theological confirmation that yes Protestants despite are varying theologies are saved, I would be satisfied. Right now I have not come across anything convincing, though.

Baptism, Communion & Forgiveness

My mind is perplexed again at the notion of the Sacraments and the fact they forgive sins. I wish to understand this, but right now I only have questions and speculation floating in my brain.

The understanding I have is that at baptism, our sins are forgiven. Whether or not that is called baptismal regeneration, I do not know. I would assume that baptism removes our sins past, present, and future. Yet Communion is also said to forgive our sins.

When I asked about this, I was told that even though our sins are forgiven at baptism, we still continue to sin - it's in our nature. Therefore we need to be continually forgiven of these additional sins we commit, and that's what Communion does.

I find that to be kind of redundant. So if before my baptism I committed a sin, then I got baptized, and I've had Communion 50 times, does that mean that sin has been forgiven 51 times? At first glance, that kind of doctrine seems like something Luther might have made in order to try and put some logic into the theology he was forming - remember, Luther was trying to implement sola fide. I wonder if this "re-forgiving" is also part of Catholic theology?

On the other hand, God is well known for doing stuff that doesn't make sense to us finite humans. And I suppose that if God wants to re-forgive a sin hundreds of times over the course of a lifetime, that is his prerogative. God can - and indeed will - do whatever he darn well pleases. Even if it strikes me as a bit... redundant.

Fideism

Fideism in Christianity is the belief that God cannot be found through reason. Faith and reason are somehow incompatible with each other. Evidence and logic are meaningless; you must simply accept God exists through faith. I think it's what might be called "blind faith."

I am not a fideist. Do I have faith God exists? Of course, otherwise I wouldn't bother with Christianity. But I don't think you cannot use reason as a way to find God. How you react - by putting your faith in him or rejecting him - is a matter of how you submit to the Holy Spirit. I think I'm what you'd call an evidentialist. I tend to only believe something if there's good reason (be it logic or evidence) behind it.

Martin Luther may or may not have been a fideist, but he sure did talk like one. The general thrust of his position seemed to be that because God is so incomprehensible to us humans, it is pointless to try to understand him through reason. He also said a couple other things that were outright anti-intellectual but I won't go into that.

Overall, it seems that fideism - this notion of "you can't use reason with God" - is part of Lutheran tradition. Interestingly enough, I also saw a lot of it in the Assemblies of God as its doctrines seems to focus on personal experiences and the power of the Holy Spirit. This to me sounds a lot like fideism. And in both types of churches, I appear to be the odd man out!

People say you can't prove God. To a degree that is correct, in the sense you can't prove God like a mathematical proof. Perhaps this is one reason for a fideistic belief. Nonetheless through philosophy and examining the evidence we have on hand, one can see many reasons to believe in God using our reason. From there we can put faith in God or reject him. I am a Christian but like the apostle Thomas I have a tendency to doubt things I find incredible. I have a skeptic's mind.

That said, sometimes I think perhaps a bit of fideism in my life might benefit me. I've heard it said that the Bible is simple enough an uneducated person could understand it but complex enough a person could spend his whole life studying it. I have a desire to learn and understand things. This isn't a bad thing but I wonder if it hasn't hindered my growth as a Christian. There are so many things believed in Christianity and I want to know which ones are actually right. It's partially this desire that led me to the Lutheran church in the first place. Something about believing false things is reprehensible to me.

This puts me in the unenviable position of never being quite sure. Not sure if this or that is true, and needing to investigate it further. What if I just said "You know what? X thing might be wrong but I don't know. I think I'll just go ahead and believe it until shown otherwise." What if I just accept what I hear without nitpicking at it? Honestly, I want to just believe Lutheran doctrine because they seem right. Maybe I would do well to just go ahead and accept the stuff. There are two reasons I think this. First, there is no way I will ever figure it all out. There are going to be errors in my beliefs no matter how much I study. It's part of being human and having a limited life span. Second, all that really matters is that I have faith in God. So what if I am wrong in some secondary issue? All God said we had to do to be saved was have faith in Jesus and be baptized. He posted no other requirements.

Tricky Lutheran Theology

Martin Luther really had his work cut out for him. He was trying to reform Catholic theology from a "faith plus works" belief to "faith alone" aka sola fide. Yet he also wanted to keep the power found in baptism, Communion, and other Sacraments. I imagine he also put himself in quite the pickle there!

The way Lutheran doctrine tries to balance all of these out was one of the main hindrances for me for becoming part of the Lutheran church. Lutherans say we are saved by faith alone. Yet baptism and Communion are considered acts that bring forgiveness of sin and grace. They even go so far as to say you aren't saved unless you're baptized! How does this not scream of faith plus works salvation?

I think Luther might have been the one who said it, but the reason it's not works-based is because in these things, the person receiving it isn't really doing anything. Granted the person is getting sprinkled with water (this form of baptism I do not think is the proper method) or is standing in line and eating the blood and wine, but the active agent is God.

The denomination does this strange thing where it turns Catholic doctrine on its head. In Christian lingo, a work is an act done to get salvation from God. We're the active agent in this. The reason things like baptism and Communion aren't works per Lutheran theology is because we aren't trying to get salvation by doing these things. Instead we are receiving grace and forgiveness. It's the opposite of a work. Luther didn't think we could do enough good works to merit our salvation, so a faith plus works-based salvation would mean nobody got to Heaven. This is of particular importance in baptism, where you aren't saved until you're baptized, during which you receive the Holy Spirit. You're not somehow taking salvation, but rather receiving it. (The exception is when you want to be baptized but die before you're able to. That's called baptism of desire and you'll still be accepted by God.) Also, the Sacraments have no effect if you don't have faith.

This, in my eyes, is very strange. Does it sound reasonable to me? Yes. But it's still kind of weird. Perhaps it's because it's an inversion of Catholic doctrine, which existed for over a thousand years beforehand. Or maybe it's more due to my past of attending churches that didn't think there was inherent power in baptism or Communion; they were just symbolic actions. For the most part, though, I do believe it. Although I still need to read up and study to figure out the details.

Feeling Close to God

It's hard for me to define what it means to feel close to God. Maybe it's a purely psychological thing. I guess when people say that they mean they're experiencing a feeling of God's attributes - his power, love, and so on. While I'm not normally one to act on feelings I have to admit, I feel closer to God in a Lutheran style service than any other I've been to.

During my stint in the Assemblies of God I heard and saw many things which could be considered supernatural: speaking in tongues, people falling slain in the Spirit, reports of miraculous healings, prophecies, exuberant worship and so on. You'd think I'd feel pretty darn close to God. But most of that stuff never actually happened to me, thus there wasn't much to go by.

But there's something about being in a Lutheran service that makes it feel like God is there. The architecture of the sanctuary with stained glasses and symbols all around. Pastors and others wearing special clothes which are themselves inundated with meaning. The format of the service which spans back into the ages with ancient creeds and customary prayers. Corporate confession to reminds us of the Law, and absolution to remind us of the grace we get through Jesus. It comes together to make for a more somber, reverent Sunday service.

From all that I get this impression of a God who is indeed Almighty, powerful, holy, righteous, and merciful. I am reminded of just how powerful and awe-inducing God is. Lutherans theology appears to say that during the service, Jesus is present among the people. While I don't necessarily feel like God is sitting next to me in the pews, I do leave the service with the impression of, "God was in that." Maybe that's part of what appeals to me.

Life Plans & Personal Relationships

Today was the Day of Pentecost, but instead of talking about the Holy Spirit or such things, our service was focused on something else. My home church has an elementary school and we celebrated the graduation of the eighth graders there. Instead of a sermon based off the readings for the day he spoke to them like the principle of a school would. I was fine with what most of what he said, although a couple things caught me off guard.

First he mentioned how "God has a plan for all of their lives." I hear this said a lot, but is it true? To an extent God has a general plan for everyone's life. His plan is for us to be obedient and faithful to him. But is there a specific plan laid out like a map before we are born? Now that I am not so sure of. The common Christian probably believes there's this detailed thing made for us that we need to try to find and follow. And maybe for key points in our lives, God wants us to do certain things. I've been called to ministry so I at least know a little bit of God's plan for me. But are there more specific things - like what college I should attend? Whether I'm meant to move to Washington state to work? If I should marry this woman or that woman or remain single? I'm in no position to say either way.

Second he talked about being "in relationship" with God. We need to be very careful with these words. A popular belief among Christians is that we have a relationship with God, not a religion. Formerly I believed this. But I've read things which would indicate it's a relatively new phenomena in Christianity, and perhaps not Biblical. (As you will quickly see, I am very skeptical when it comes to "new" stuff in Christianity. Why would God wait 2,000 years after the time of Jesus to add to our theology?) Sure God interacted directly with the prophets, apostles, and kings, but what about the common Christian? We have no reason to believe people had "personal relationships" with God unless I am missing something.

Introduction

I've thought about making a blog like this a few times now over the past couple of months, and I've decided to go for it. This is where I will talk about my questions and insights about Lutheranism. I don't expect it to be a very active blog but I do like having a medium to express what's on my mind.

I am a Christian. That is what I identify myself as primarily. Although my history as a Christian is short, it's rather flavorful. In December of 2007 I converted from atheism to Christianity. I wasn't a militant atheist - I respected what others believed and supported their right to do so. The reason for my atheism was that I had not been given any reason to believe otherwise. It was a documentary on the History Channel about the supposed 2012 apocalypse (I can't make this up!) that pushed me to faith.

From there I spent four years in the Assemblies of God. During the latter part of those years I made friends who were Southern Baptist and during the third and fourth year I would attend the Wednesday night youth group at their church on and off. I went to two AG churches. I was at the first one for one year and the other for three. I didn't feel comfortable with their style of worship, and I also started disagreeing with the doctrines. Thus I sought out to find a new type of church.

Before switching churches I had a deep crisis of faith where I teetered on agnosticism. When I was introduced to apologetics by a pastor, my faith was rebuilt. Apologetics also became a passion of mine which remains to today.

In my desire to find a new church I wanted a denomination that was older. The Assemblies of God are vibrant but also young - early 1900s. I felt that an older denomination would be more connected doctrinally with the early Christian church. Because I disagree with the Catholic "faith plus works" theology as well as non-essential practices like asking the deceased to intercede for us, veneration of Mary, and elevation of tradition with the Bible, I didn't want to go to that kind of church. The next oldest was Lutheranism.

During my studies of Lutheranism I found that the denomination as a whole is split into a great many branches called synods. They could be classified broadly as being confessional, moderate, and evangelical. Confessional Lutherans are theologically conservative, while evangelicals are more theologically liberal. Being a theologically conservative person, I wanted a church type that would fit me.

What I found was the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS). It's one of the biggest synods in America and is confessional in nature. Long story short, I've come to really enjoy it and I hope to stick around in it for life. I still don't understand a lot of their beliefs, nor do I agree with all of it. I call this site The Lutheran Noob because that's what I am when it comes to Lutheran doctrine and style - a noob. But I'm willing to learn.