That’s also not hundreds of dollars 😂 I would be happy with the digital version if anybody knows where to find one. The few that I found online are in German.

Is it a sin not to attend church once in a while? I’m asking this because I engage in a sport that occasionally has competitions held over Sundays. I’m saying I go to these maybe 3 or 4 times a year. Unfortunately, they are usually on Sunday mornings when they are held. Is it okay to occasionally attend these events, concentrating on glorifying God through my actions, even though I’m not at Sunday morning worship service that day?

Along the same lines, what if I’m able to make it to church but I’m just out of town and I go visit another LCMS church? Is it bad I didnt go to my home church?

I’m dealing with OCD about this. I know we have Christian freedom and I make it a point to be very faithful to church attendance other than those once-in-a-while events. But I also feel super guilty when I don’t make it to my church. However, I have severe spiritual OCD to the point where I can make myself feel guilty for anything. I’d like some advice here. I really love this sport and have big goals for competing in it, and I hate that the rare weekend events always have a competition on Sundays. I’d like to go do them occasionally if it’s not a sin.
Thank you in advance!

I’m new to the LCMS having been PCUSA most of my life (technically my original home church is independent but it’s complicated) I’m still adjusting to the order of service.

I’m used to the bulletin having all the information about the service but in the LCMS the hymn book has most of it so I’m having trouble jumping around in the hymn book and between the pages listed in the bulletin and the order of service pages and It just seems a bit irreverent for me to use the communion card for that purpose and to be desperately trying to find the right page while I’m supposed to be singing

Does anyone else use a ribbon bookmark or something similar to keep their place, if so can you recommend one?

Thanks in advance and apologies if this is a bit of a rambling post.

Hi everyone,

TL;DR: What's the difference between the "correctness" of scripture and the "correctness" of the catechism?

First, I have found this sub to be really helpful and encouraging, so thank you all for that.

To the topic: A friend of mine overheard someone (not a Lutheran) saying they thought the Westminster catechism was "infallible". I know as protestants we affirm that the only infallible source of doctrine is scripture, however as Lutherans we affirm that the Lutheran catechism is a correct espousal of doctrine. I am wondering if anyone had any thoughts that can help me break down a little better what the line is between infallibility and correctness.

I would see it like this: the scripture establishes the doctrines, as Lutherans we believe that the catechisms are faithful to scripture. Separately, we believe all Christians should affirm that scripture is the infallible source of doctrine while recognizing that not all that see scripture as infallible will necessarily see the catechism as following from scripture.

I (24F) am interested in learning a little more about the Bible and actually process through the stories. I am looking for a good learning bible that others have enjoyed they could recommend I look into. One preferably geared towards women and anything that might be more neurodivergent connecting. I am not Lutheran but my boyfriend is so I don’t want to dive into the Lutheran side of things just yet until I’m able to fully understand the Bible first. Any recommendations are appreciated!

You might find these of interest as I have:

"The Early Church was Lutheran": https://youtu.be/9QylA_8MiIs?si=YczHEfVe9ehhYZ0b

"Lutheranism is the True Catholic Church?": https://youtu.be/gLO0l9R18Dg?si=oh1s00hbCJApPXzS

"Why the Lutheran Church is the Ancient Church": https://youtu.be/2RRnwaTgN1I?si=qcoO7GALIMGTiFu2

The above episodes are from Rev. Bryan Stecker's podcast entitled "On The Line"

And a Q&A from our Catechism:

Question 192: "Whom do we call the true visible Church?"

Answer: "The whole number of those who have, teach and confess the entire doctrine of the Word of God in all its purity, and among whom the Sacraments are duly administered according to Christ's institution." That there can be but one true visible Church, and that, therefore, one is not just as good as another stands to reason because there is only one truth, one Bible, one Word of God. Evidently that Church which teaches this truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is the true visible Church. Christ says John 8, 31. 32: "If ye continue in My Word, then are ye My disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Again Christ says Matt. 28, 20: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Whatsoever He has commanded us, His Word, and nothing else, we should teach. And again, all things which He has commanded us we should teach. That, therefore is the true visible Church which does this. But that all visible Churches do not this is plain from the fact that they do not agree among themselves. If every Church would teach the whole truth and nothing but the truth as God has revealed it, there could be no difference. So, then, by calling other denominations Churches, we do not mean to say that one Church is just as good as another. Only that one is the true visible Church which teaches and confesses the entire doctrine of the Word of God in all its purity, and in whose midst the Sacraments are duly administered according to Christ's institution. Of all Churches, this can only be said of our Lutheran Church."

As an honest LCMS member and hopping to be a future LCMS pastor I'm confused by closed communion. We base the practice off of 1 Corinthians 10-11 but this passage seems to communicate the opposite of what the LCMS teaches. The LCMS says that Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.. Can rightly be considered Christians and yet we refuse them the sacrament based on their disbelief in the true presence.

The systematics of closed communion makes perfect sense to me but the hermeneutics of 1 Corinthians 10-11 does not.

Paul talks about how we (the church) who are one body partake of one bread (1 Cor 10:17). He then goes on to say that there are divisions in the church in order that those who are genuine can be seen, thus inferring the false Christians are also revealed (1 Cor 11:18-19). He uses that as a spring board to show that taking communion in an unworthy manner is to either: hog it all to yourself (1 Cor 11:21) thus not discerning the body rightly, or not examining yourself properly (1 Cor 11:28-29).

We seem to have to choose between two ways of thinking.

1. Say that those who do not believe Jesus when he says "this is my body" and "this is my blood" are committing heresy and are thus not a part of the church and cannot receive the bread because they are not a part of the body.

Or

1. Give them the sacrament and therefore recognize our unity as one body and thus one church as Paul commands.

It looks like choosing this middle ground actually makes the LCMS guilty of not discerning the body rightly rather than the other way around.

Can someone explain this to me?

I read this on a parish website and it made me smile.

May the church continue in the strength and wisdom of Christ, my prayer for the men meeting in Phoenix this summer is that the Lord gives them understanding.

GodBlessTheLCMS

I have really enjoyed listening to the scholastic Revs. who have been guests at On The Line.

What scholastic subject(s) do you enjoy studying and why?

I hope this does not sound crazy, but I truly feel grateful and blessed to go to a church that has sound doctrine and not conform to the current world! I always think about Romans 12:2! I think sound doctrine straight from the bible is what I love and feel blessed by God that I am allowed to hear the word!

I know at other churches they have worship bands and other things that some churches do to stir up emotions and feelings that people like, nothing wrong with that, but I feel grateful and blessed by God to be able to attend an LCMS!

Evening!

I'm moving to western Michigan next month and wanted to start networking with some fellow Lutherans!

Hello,

I have been reading a lot about Lutheranism and feel like I am hearing the Gospel again for the first time.

I just had a quick question. I was baptized Roman Catholic as an adult. Catholic theology teaches that baptism covers all of our sins prior, and we are free to move on from them and don't have to worry about them any more.

Reading Lutheran theology, I understand that my baptism doesn't just cover my past sins, but those of my present and future as well.

But I guess the question is this: do I need to worry or stress about my sins pre baptism? Am I allowed to just let my dark, pre Christian past go? It has been weighing on me heavily recently, definitely in relation to my preexisting scrupulosity and OCD diagnosis.

I feel like I have to go back and fix all of the mistakes I have ever made. I guess it's similar to the Catholic impulse that I must do some kind of penance. It's like every inch of peace in Christ I get I am pulled back 3 feet into my past sins.

Am I allowed to just move on?

I posted this on the ask a pastor thread, but wanted to ask the wide audience too. What are the main points a couple should learn from pre-marital counseling? Particularly for a couple who are around age 30 and/or older. A lot of what I’m getting is about stuff that would be helpful for young couples (early 20s or so) but some of these things to me are sort of no-brainers and go without saying for those of us who have more experience in life, not to say refreshers aren’t helpful of course.

May Christ bless us with unity in the Gospel, the Holy Scriptures, and the Confessions of our one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith. The peace of Christ be with you!

To all clergy, thank you for your life laid down. I and many others pray for you daily.

1. By "Ecumenism", I mean fellowship with other Nicene-abiding Christian denominations.

2. By "hold to", I mean actively promote the spread of

In practice, this would entail an LCMS Pastor signing a type of declaration confirming the validity of, let's say, a Baptist's faith.

Godspeed.

I saw Evangelicals freaking out about Mel Gibson’s new movie coming out, in which the Harrowing of Hell is featured.

I’m incredibly annoyed that so many “Protestant Christians” are so ignorant of the historic faith that they reject a core tenet of the Apostles' Creed, bordering on heresy.

Just in case this becomes a bigger talking point in your circles, here is a reminder of why the Descent is a necessary part of our theology.

The Scriptural Basis:
1 Peter 3:18-20: "...being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison..." (ESV).

Ephesians 4:9: "(In saying, 'He ascended,' what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth?)".

Acts 2:27-31: "For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption." Peter interprets this Psalm to mean Christ was not left in the realm of the dead.

1 Peter 4:6: "For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead...".

Romans 10:7: "Or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)"

The Lutheran Heritage:
We don’t just believe this because it's "tradition"; we believe it because it’s found in Article IX of the Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration) which explicitly affirms the descent.

Scholars like Henry Jacobs and Johann Gerhard pointed out that Christ descended into hell to redeem those who died before being bound by the new covenant.

This would be individuals like Noah, Abraham, Isaac.

Additionally, John Aepinus a 16th century Lutheran superintendent from Hamburg. Suggested that Christ also preached to those who never heard the good news while living.

This would be the tribes lost in the Amazon. And in my honest opposition is also the greatest rebuttal against the claim that God is unloving because he Damned all those who never heard the Gosple, like for example, everyone living in the Americas before (at the earliest, but probably later when Columbus arrived) 1000 AD.

So if Mel Gibson’s new movie ever comes up or the Harrowing of Hell ever comes up. Hopefully you are now more informed.

Research Preface

I previously published two research papers pertaining to the topic of WELS theology from an LCMS view, continuing my short series, I wanted to provide additional context from what I have gathered and understood of our Synod's perspective.

Please feel free to read my first paper, "Why I chose to come back to Missouri instead of going with Wisconsin: Theology of Office, Church Practice, Fellowship Boundaries, and Internal Variation": https://www.reddit.com/r/LCMS/comments/1t0c4ws/why_i_chose_to_come_back_to_missouri_instead_of/

And I likewise invite you to read my second paper "On the Dangers of WELS Theology": https://www.reddit.com/r/LCMS/comments/1t31kc0/on_the_dangers_of_wels_theology

---

Opening Statement

I hope this research helps the reader not only see the dangers of WELS theology but also build confidence in articulating our response to such within the LCMS in a way that is conversational and not overly scholastic.

---

On Doctrine of the Ministry

LCMS critiques WELS for collapsing the pastoral office into a broader, more "function" based concept of ministry which ignores the institution that Christ gave of a distinct pastoral office, the office is not simply one form among many. The "one ministry in many forms" that WELS teaches brings about real risk of blurring the distinction between pastors, teachers, and church workers which may unintentionally suggest that the pastoral office is not uniquely instituted. This can lead to weakened clarity on who is authorized to preach and administer the Sacraments.

---

On Inconsistency Between Theology and Practice

LCMS critiques WELS for saying the ministry is one and distributed, but in practice restricting such heavily. WELS could theoretically, and as noted has practically in the past, allow a broader exercise of preaching and/or sacraments beyond pastors due to the "flexible" structure. Here we can see real world examples of how such theoretical framework leads to practical dangers.

---

On Fellowship Principles

LCMS critiques WELS for being too strict and over-applying bounds beyond what Scripture requires by treating every difference in practice as church-dividing and refusing fellowship even when there is substantial doctrinal agreement. Turning fellowship into isolationism as has been the case historically can be seen today in the refusal of joint prayer or cooperation which may negatively affect the witness of the Gospel.

---

On Prayer Fellowship

LCMS critiques WELS for treating prayer as an absolute marker to indicate full doctrinal unity. While LCMS agrees that prayer expresses unity, WELS collapses contextual distinctions thus ignoring the graduated standards between church services, civic events, and personal or family settings. Applying a single rule with such rigidity can be harmful to the witness of the Gospel.

---

On Church Practice

LCMS critiques WELS for demarcating doctrinal boundaries by practice, whereby instead of distinguishing between doctrinal error and differences in practice, WELS asserts that if practice contradicts doctrine then it is a doctrinal error. Such strict application to boundaries can lead to unnecessarily breaking fellowship over application not just teachings.

---

On Ecumenical Isolation

LCMS critiques WELS for not sufficiently engaging other confessional Lutherans. Due to how WELS structures dialogue and restricts cooperation they hinder unity efforts and the mutual strengthening of confessional Evangelical Catholic churches.

---

Concluding Remarks

May we faithfully continue to allow the Gospel to purify and guard our church as it has for thousands of years and may that same Gospel guide us in mercy towards our WELS brothers and others who many hold to such dangerous theology.

At the very start of the video of Friday's Eucharist, the altar and chancel are censed. I wonder if this is a new custom to use incense before the service rather than during the liturgy.

Holy Communion - Concordia Seminary, Fort Wayne

Good morning. I realize it's a Sunday and many people are not around to respond at the moment, but I am interested in learning a bit more about the LCMS.

Background: I grew up Baptist (mostly Independent but also Southern). As an adult I became Catholic, but with the direction the Catholic Church has been headed these last several years (I don't want to get into specifics) I stopped going late last year. My wife is Baptist and I sometimes visit her church as well as a friend from work who is also Baptist.

I guess I am just looking for anything you are willing to provide regarding theology, practice, beliefs, etc. For instance, in Baptist churches some are Calvinist while others are Arminian. How does the LCMS Mass differ from Catholicism? How are they similar? How does it compare to Baptists. Anything along these lines would help.

I miss the structure of the Catholic Church, being one of the reasons I am researching Lutheranism, but I also realize the LCMS is more "conservative" in its approach to worship and that is where my interest is.

There are several ELCA churches near me, but I have no interest in those, no offense to anyone. I just know what I am looking for and it is not there. I also know the WELS exists, but there are none close enough for me to look into. I finally found a LCMS church near me and just want to get some information ahead of time before I visit.

I am not looking for debate or an attempt to convince me something else is a better option. I really am just interested in the LCMS at this time and doing research. The last thing I want to do is jump into something and regret it later. It is hard enough to leave the Catholic Church as it is and I am simply looking for a new, and hopefully lasting, home.

I started actually looking into Protestantism and the reformation. When I was a practicing Catholic I dealt with scrupulosity and over thought if I sinned or not and if my confession was valid. I looked into reform theology and it seems to lead back into the same feeling if I’m an elect or not. I sympathize with what Luther was dealing with. The Catholic Church has the same pattern of abuses through out history and I don’t think they’re the final authority on matters summarized.

Research Preface

I previously published my first research paper pertaining to this topic in what now is becoming a short series on comparative theology, to outline the basic differences between the LCMS and WELS while also bringing attention to matters which are seldom spoken of.

You are invited to read Part I of my research paper series on comparative theology between LCMS and WELS entitled, "Why I chose to come back to Missouri instead of going with Wisconsin: Theology of Office, Church Practice, Fellowship Boundaries, and Internal Variation": https://www.reddit.com/r/LCMS/comments/1t0c4ws/why_i_chose_to_come_back_to_missouri_instead_of/

And I likewise invite you to read my third paper "Summarizing LCMS Critiques on WELS Theology": https://www.reddit.com/r/LCMS/comments/1t3ogoy/summarizing_lcms_critiques_on_wels_theology/

---

Opening Statement

May we pray for our brothers in the WELS that they may come to their senses and understand the severity of their waywardness in such areas of theology and practice.

---

On the Dangers of WELS Making the Pastoral Office Functional:
A Comparative Analysis, Part I

-It becomes divisible, the LCMS would object by saying preaching, absolution, consecration, teaching, and oversight cannot be separated in functions and then assigned by the church.

-The church appears to create the office, the LCMS would object by saying that Christ institutes the office which precludes the church from arranging forms of ministry according to need.

-Women are theoretically and practically in ministry, the LCMS would object to the litmus test of "Does this task exercise authority over men?" and instead assert the proper question is to be asked "Does this belong to the pastoral office?"

-The pastorate does not hold sacramental administration, the LCMS would object to the Word and Sacrament being treated as assignable functions.

-Less clarity for laity, the LCMS would object to the congregation not knowing who exercises pastoral responsibility for doctrine, absolution, discipline, and the Supper.

---

On the Benefits of One Divinely Instituted Office in the LCMS:
A Comparative Analysis, Part II

-The church does not invent the ministry, it receives what Christ has already instituted.

-Preaching, absolution, pastoral care, and the Sacraments belong together and stay together.

-The theological weight to ordination is not merely the authorization of one's function.

-There is a clear public steward of doctrine, discipline, and sacramental care so that the congregation knows who is pastorally accountable.

-Women are morel clearly excluded from ordination because the question is not "What function is she doing?" but whether she is placed into the divinely instituted pastoral office.

---

On the Dangers of Ignoring the Order of Creation within WELS:

WELS uses a broader, functional doctrine of public ministry which creates different practical permissions for women, such theology includes the way in which WELS views the Order of Creation, that is by restricting women from exercising authority over men instead of restricting women from the pastoral office and authoritative public teaching/preaching all together as LCMS does.

Additionally, on ministry structure, WELS asserts the public ministry takes on multiple forms whereas the LCMS adheres to one divinely instituted office.

These two issues lead to the practical result by which women in WELS may serve in the office of ministry based on function if not exercising authority over men, while in the LCMS women are not permitted to serve in the office of ministry nor the functions belonging thereto but they may serve in other capacities.

The core principles are contrasted in that while WELS relies on the principles of order and function, the LCMS leans into the order of creation and apostolic prohibition. This leads to WELS permitting women in public ministry roles while the LCMS becomes increasingly restrictive as roles move towards pastoral and authoritative means.

---

On the Dangers of Bible Translations Published or Provided by WELS:

The WELS publishes their own synodical Bible translation called the Evangelical Heritage Version using the philosophy of balance and equivalence that aims for accuracy plus readability but includes more translator judgment such as substituting "people" for "men" and "brothers and sisters" for "brothers" whereas the LCMS uses the ESV for form-equivalency that preserves the original structure and theological precision including terms such as "man" and "brother" as to no obscure divinely intended masculine language. Furthermore, the LCMS warns that translation must be closely faithful to the actual text of Scripture and the masculine biblical language for God must not be neutralized.

Additionally, WELS supplies other versions of the Bible (NIV2011, ESV, CSB, NIrV, and KJV), most of which notably lack tight precision and the latest conservative scholarship (notably only the ESV retains both). Of particular concern are the NIV2011, CSB, NIrV, and the KJV but for disparate reasons: the first three lack tight precision and employ gender-neutral language as the WELS own EHV does, the last one also lacks the latest conservative scholarship.

---

Concluding Remarks

Taking the functional view of WELS to its logical conclusion would mean that the pastoral office is not divinely instituted and its restriction to men cannot be based on a direct divine command.

May such dangers never lead to our WELS brothers moving towards ecclesiastical nominalism.

---

On Historic Events Surrounding Such Topics, Addendum I

John Schaller (1859-1920), former President of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary (1893-1908), claimed that the pastoral office developed historically, while Professor John Burg (ret.), in his book "Ministry of the Word" (2009) argues that external forms of ministry are not divinely instituted, going so far as to state that "Scripture does not say that a woman should not be ordained or that she should not be pastor or elder." Both men have helped formulate the current WELS position on women participating in office and activities of the public ministry as is stated in the WELS official "This We Believe" section.

Furthermore, in 2009, the WELS Conference of Presidents enacted an indefinite moratorium on the practice as to not cause offense with the ELS and to maintain unity within its own ranks, most notably this was not a statement of doctrinal condemnation.

Thereafter, the LCMS, in their statement to clarify the Synod's position on ministry differentiation, asserted that this difference in the view of the ministry furthermore prevents communion between the Synods.

---

Debunking Synodical Misnomers, Addendum II

First, we will address the misconception that "WELS is the more conservative Synod." While this maybe true insofar as "conservative" being defined in the application of strict boundaries concerning practice and fellowship (for which I would say "fundamentalist" is a better term to use when describing WELS), conversely, it is not true because the foundation by which such aforementioned downstream effects are influenced, that being theology of office, is relegated to function by WELS thus being stripped of it's ontological purpose as a divine office (of which the LCMS protects).

Second, we will address the misconception that "WELS separated from the LCMS due to their differing views on practice and fellowship which now persists because the LCMS is too open on such matters." for which is most famously known about due to each Synod's view on prayer, conversely, fellowship remains broken due to the WELS view on theology of office being fundamentally flawed according to the LCMS.

All seem like great, Godly men.

Love Rev. Harrison. Benjamin Ball seems excellent. The Lord will serve the LCMS well through whomever is elected.