The last two LCMS church's I've attended, the pastors have re-reads the Gospel as the opening to their sermon. Is this something pastors are instructed to do by LCMS now-a-days? This feels like incredibly lazy sermon filler. Sermons shouldn't be structured to meet some time quota, they should be structured to get the message across. They are to help explain the Gospel, epistle, and/or other reading and to relate the teachings to our current world and lives. Highlighting various lines from the Gospel/other text makes sense when done throughout the sermon, but completely re-reading the Gospel, while we all remain seated, feels lazy and disrespectful to the Gospel. Anyone have some insight? Am I missing something?

On this week's episode of the White Horse Inn, the authors of the excellent book, The Great Dechurching, were interviewed. I recommend this book to anyone who is concerned on why people have left the Church and what the Church can to be bring many of those lost sheep back or to prevent those who could be open to leaving in staying.

For those who have read this book, please provide your thoughts.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=book+the+great+dechurching&hvadid=669996151896&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9022811&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=16666370994650288956&hvtargid=kwd-2186379224347&hydadcr=8486_13545067&tag=googhydr-20&ref=pd_sl_95b05jcg5j_e

I don't have a congregation and am sort of trying out different LCMS churches in my area. I was raised, confirmed and baptized in the LCMS Church, spent time away but have been actively believing and practicing for the last couple years. I've moved around a lot and am just starting to get settled.

Do I need to ask the pastor first if I can take Communion? Do I have to let him know some of the stuff I just mentioned? At one church I just went up, I felt like maybe o shouldn't have. Idk just coild use some advice on etiquette etc.

I’m not going to get into specifics for privacy (and 8th commandment) but there is a fairly local church which is still considered a voting congregation in the synod. This is despite the church in question removing any reference to the Lutheran Church or LCMS from all aspects of their church, having open communion, no formal membership classes or confirmation, and not even saying a creed during service.

I understand the purpose behind having a bottom up structure, but at what point do we protect the synod from having congregations like this sending delegates to convention and trying to influence the synod away from right doctrine?

Edit: I have been very intentional to use this forum and simplified details to avoid bearing false witness. I am not casting judgment but rather have concerns which those who hold the vocation of judge should look into. This post is to seek anonymous guidance as to who those people might be or whether my concerns are enough to even report to them.

I feel seeking guidance/ speaking about it locally before having a good reason could result in 8th commandment violations, as people would be able to figure out which congregation it is.

Hello, I have recently been convicted of the importance of proper order and ministerial authority in the church. I would like to join a local LCMS body, but I have been having some doubts as to the way that the denomination's ministry is organized. I do not believe, as some of the ecclesialist traditions do, that a church absolutely needs to have a monarchal episcopate for valid sacraments; however, I have been concerned that American Lutherans have a generally lower view of the pastoral office (though LCMS not as much as WELS, from what I understand). I would really just like some clarification here: is the LCMS careful to maintain a presbyterial succession in its ordinations, or will it sometimes have some of the sketchiness you find in lower-church, more congregational bodies? I have heard from multiple places that Lutherans are generally not as focused on polity as other theological traditions. I am just concerned about whether valid ordination is at least strictly preserved.

My wife's current church (and the one that she grew up in) has a tradition that I really enjoy at Easter. They have a cross that members bring flowers in to place into. Every year it is very beautiful and I look forward to either seeing it or getting a picture sent to me of it. (Seeing it if we travel to her hometown or a picture when we are home.)

Is this a tradition all LCMS churches do?

Hello I have been in the ELCA my whole life but will most likely be switching soon to LCMS, I know they practice closed communion for members only, to take communion is there a class needed to be taken or what is the process to become a member and receive communion? Thanks

In The Lutheran Service Book, what is the difference between Matins and Morning Prayer? I thought that Matins itself was morning prayer, but evidently they have two different purposes.

If one is saved via being justified through faith alone in the atoning work of Christ on the cross, does the mere preaching that Christ died for the forgiveness of your sins and believing it sufficient to be justified?

I ask because in an Episcopalian confirmation class I took, the atonement was never mentioned, as were things like redemption, reconciliation, etc. During the sermons the priest will talk about Christ dying for the forgiveness of sins. Is that sufficient to adequately convey the Gospel message? If someone hears that and believes it, is he justified?

I’m LCMS, but I have been looking into theology online which has led me to two fairly popular organizations that both believe in the idea of “retaking” the mainline denominations (such as PCUSA, ELCA, and UMC) What are y’all’s thoughts on the idea of this, especially since the LCMS has a major split from the ELCA. Also I should mention, I personally support both organizations.

I’m new to the LCMS (Former Evangelical/Nondenom) and I’m genuinely curious why we haven’t canonized Luther as a Saint if (at least my church does) the LCMS venerates saints.

Hey everyone I am freshly baptized and want to start incorporating the sign of the cross into my daily life. I know Luther says to do it in the remeberance of your baptism but I don’t understand completely all that entails.

This is the most concise and compelling sermons opposing sola fide that I’ve seen, anyone care to rebut?

https://youtu.be/BHGGYqXrLT8?si=f-CeHUPeMEOsSVsB

I underwent severe trauma as a child and the CPTSD effects were huge.. Took 50 years to even understand that I had PTSD. I'm almost 64 now.

2008I had become an LCMS member.

I have been making progress the last 1 1/2 by through Adult Children of Alcoholics and Dysfunctional Families.

Anyhow, does the LCMS have any support? As far as church, I feel pretty much alone.

Which parts were written by Moses and who wrote his death?

I just got baptized and confirmed into the church this weekend! God is good!

In order to streamline posts that users are submitting when they are in search of answers, I have created a monthly 'Ask A Pastor' thread! Feel free to post any general questions you have about the Lutheran (LCMS) faith, questions about specific wording of LCMS text, or anything else along those lines.

Pastors, Vicars, Seminarians, Lay People: If you see a question that you can help answer, please jump in try your best to help out! It is my goal to help use this to foster a healthy online community where anyone can come to learn and grow in their walk with Christ. Also, stop by the sidebar and add your user flair if you have not done so already. This will help newcomers distinguish who they are receiving answers from.

Disclaimer: The LCMS Offices have a pretty strict Doctrinal Review process that we do not participate in as we are not an official outlet for the Synod. It is always recommended that you talk to your Pastor (or find a local LCMS Pastor if you do not have a church home) if you have questions about your faith or the beliefs of the LCMS.

Here is the situation. I discovered the Lutheran church recently. And am in love with it. It has the things I love about traditional church, yet it removed all the stuff I disliked (we were eastern orthodox). Its the perfect mixture of the faith. I read nothing but Lutheran based books, listen to Lutheran podcasts and music (mixed with some non heretical Catholic music as well), I'm orertt consumed in it.

But here is the thing. My wife and my 10 year old (from a previous marriage) just don't get anything out of the traditional services. Where, when we go to protestant churches, that are contemporary, they get so much. Even my 10 year old learns so much more. And I see an actual difference in his growth.

I'm not sure what to do at this point.

I had an idea tho, of maybe the weekends he's with us, we go to the contemporary style church. Then off weekends we go to the Lutheran church.

The only issus is, our children we have together, will then be going to 2 different churches. Which isn't bad or good.

I'm just stuck. Because home life, I practice the Lutheran faith and Lutheran devotionals. I want my wife and son to grow in Christ, but my need for a traditional church does effect that.

Any thoughts?

Have a blessed Easter. Go to church today (in person if you can) and hear the gospel that changes everything. Lay down your sins, repent where repentance is needed, and hear of Christ’s forgiveness. Be restored to God, and repent and be restored to your brothers and sisters in Christ if need be. Jesus is Lord! Today He conquered death. Christ is risen!

Do Lutherans recognize the Eucharistic miracles that occur in Roman Catholicism as legitimate? And in the case of Orthodoxy, is the miracle of the sacred fire recognized?

Did the apostles actually use the Septuagint?

Hello, all.

I was born and raised Baptist. In the past few years however, I've taken my theological studies far more seriously, and I've felt that, through said studies, God has been leading me toward somewhere far more theologically conservative. To that end, I've decided to visit my local LCMS church tomorrow on Good Friday and also Easter Sunday.

My knowledge of Lutheran doctrine and liturgy, however, is rather lacking. I was hoping you all could give me some basic pointers of what to expect and what should be expected of me while attending there.

And how do you think the Old Testament was put together? (Including the part that states the death of Moses)

As the title says, I’m super new to LCMS and any form of liturgical setting (was raised Baptist) and was wondering what to expect from today’s service. Will there be foot washing , communion, etc? Our bulletin said Maundy thrusday (communion service) but I didn’t know if that included foot washing or not. Thanks all!

So I’m in the process of applying to Ft. Wayne. CSL seems great and they’re super kind, I’ll probably apply there as well as a back up but CTSFW seems like a better fit for my family and I.

For the seminarians, vicars, and recent grads, how has that process been for you? How have you enjoyed CTSFW and what challenges have you had (especially if you’re married with kids)?

That is attend church regularly and worship without converting and becoming an actual member?

I asked this recently in r/OrthodoxChristianity and was surprised to learn you can be an inquirer indefinitely essentially (like years to decades) and it's not looked down upon.

Out of curiosity I'd be interested to know how we stand on the same subject. Thanks

Some of the most common RC questions that get me are: why do you Lutherans question the apostolic catholic church when the Catholic church was the one who gave you the biblical canon, established doctrines like the trinity, and fought off early heresies and you trusted them on that? And wouldn't protestantism contradict Peter 16:18 if Luther believed that the church did fall during the medieval period during his life time?

I'm a Lutheran and I have several roman catholic friends and we had many dialogues about catholicism. One of them gave me a book titled "Pope Peter" by Joe Heschmeyer, in which he argues that the primary problem with people accepting catholicism is whether to accept the church and the pope's interpretation or their own. If people accepted the papacy, then all other issues like the saints and Mary would be addressed. So he spends the whole book arguing that Peter was the first pope and the papacy is in the bible, and I'm having trouble addressing all his points so some insight would be welcome.

Some of the points I remember, roughly summarized, were:

- No evidence of an invisible church and visible church in the Bible. Heshchmeyer quotes the Bible inferring the church to be a singular entity with (Matt 18:17, Acts 8:3, 12:1, 12:5), Judas was an apostle and by definition part of the church, comparision of the church to ancient Israel (which was a physical entity), and etc.

- Heschmeyer address protestants who ask why Jesus never said "Peter is the king, just obey him" Luke 22:25-26 states that the leader is the one who serves and this was used as a rebuttal. Luke 22:31-32, Jesus states that Satan is out to get all the apostles but he only prays for Peter and for him to strengthen his brethrens. Jesus only fortifies only apostle.

- Peter consistently seems to be held to a higher standard where only he was admonished for falling asleep in the garden (Matt 26:40 and Mark 14:37) and Jesus states for whom much is given, much is required. More is expected of Peter, because more is entrusted to him. The Bible never explictly place Peter on a high platform because he was a servant king.

- Heschmeyer rebutts protestants who ask why Peter doesn't exercise his authority more such is in 1 Peter 5: Paul forewent his apostolic authroity as well (1 corthin 9) and early church popes did act as humble servents. In 419 Pope Boniface responded to biblical canon sent to him with "Let this be known to our brother and fellow priest Bonficance or to other bishops of those parts"

- John 21:9 Jesus orders Peter to feed his sheep and early church recognized this as a calling and in the OT God called David to be the shepard of the nation.

- Jesus was with Peter and the other disciples when a bunch of priests confront them about the half sheckel tax and they address Peter, Peter answers for Jesus, Jesus only uses Peter to get the half sheckel for only him and Peter (and the miracle of getting the money is fish related

- All the instances where the Bible lists the disciples has Peter first and Judas last, suggesting a significance to the order.

- The priesthood isn't an occupation but a calling and there are biblical proofs. Martin Luther and future protestants don't have apostolic succession and John 10:1-5 (which refers to calling from Christ) refers to protestants. St Francis de Sales states that God sends people in extraordinary and ordinary wars. Extraoridinary ways would be explicitly from God like St Paul's vision or God sending Moses. Ordinary would be God sending people through the church (people who had laying of hands in a church). Acts 24-27 involves Judaizers and Paul critisizes them for preaching when no one (the church) sent them.

- Peter is the leader, he's held to a higher standard in the garden, Luke 9:32 and similar verses state "Peter and those who were with him", in the transfiguration Moses with there with the high priest Aaron and his sons Nadab and Abihu and Jesus being there with Peter James and John is a parallel of Peter being the high priest, Peter denied Jesus in the courtyard of the high priest, John reached the tomb first but Peter was the first to go in.

- In acts 5:12, 14-15, all the disciples were doing miracles but people were going for where Peter's shadow hit, implying all disciples weren't equal. After the arrest in Acts 5:17-18, it states "Peter and the apostles answered", and Peter is answering for the other disciples. There are other points in the NT where it refers to "Peter and the disciples" like Mark 16:7

- Peter the rock. The famous line only happens after Peter correctly identifies Christ so it is more likely the "rock" is Jesus identifying Peter in return. In the NT name changes like Simon to Peter is a sign of blessing and in the OT, adam is given the call to name animals and Abram becomes abraham. It makes more sense the rock is describing Peter. He refutes protestants who say the rock is just Peter's confession because why is Peter the only person to get name changed to Petros when other disciples like Nathanial also confessed but didn't get a similar title.

- Peter is called "bar-Jonah" even though he was addressed as son of John. Jonah was sent to preach to non Israel Assyrians and this was a sign that Peter would be the first to preach to the Jews and gentiles.

- In the passage about the binding of the keys, Jesus addressed Peter in second person singular, as if he's only talking to Peter.

- Petros and petra aren't actually different and in texts like Argonautica by Apollonius of Rhodes Petros is used to describe a large bolder. Also the original conversaion was Aramiac written down in Greek so it doesn't matter if there is a different and Peter's original name meant rock.

- There are 4 types of church governance: congregatinal, presbyterial, episcopal, and papal. With the left most being most democratic and left up to individual believers and the opposite on the papal side. Martin luther states that the Bible is clear so we don't need church or pope but congregational and presbyterial leads to many denominations with different contradictory and wrong beliefs just like poeple in NT who thought Jesus was john the baptist, elijah or jeremiah.

- When Jesus ask his disciples who they say he is, all fell silent except for Peter. The eastern orthodox have high ranking bishops but no pope, and they're very decentralized and resembling the anglicans. There has been no universally accepted concil that all orthodox accepts after the great schism. "Even today Eastern Orthodox Church never defined its official position on scriptural canon in any ecumenical or pan orthodox council". Democracy and all church governance fails theologically except for Papal model.

- In matthew 16:23, Jesus calls Peter a skandalon or stumbling stone, after calling him rock before. This solidifies Peter is the rock. Peter can be a rock or stumbling stone and that allows the catholic church to have good and bad popes (bad popes don't debunk papacy.

- Protestants state the keys are just given to the whole church and not Peter. Heshchmeyer argues that it makes Peter redunant and combines the rock, keys, and binding. In Isiah 22:19-23, God gace Eliakim the son of Hilkiah the keys and that was royal and priestly connotation and during the assyrian invasion in 2 kings, Eliakim acts in place of the king as a priest king. Heschemeyer quotes other verses from Isiah pointing that Eliakim having the keys isn't a general gift to the priesthood but a specific one that makes Eliakim second in command to the king and this is a parallel to peter.

- To bind and loose: Heshcmeyer states Martin luther's view that those words refer to the overall church's ability to forgive and retain sins contradict ancient Judaic views. In the NT, Jesus states that the pharisee abuse their authroity as they bind but don't loose, they restrict but don't permit but Jesus still recognize they have authrity because they're in the seat of Moses.

- In rabbinic literacture, binding and loosing signifies interpretiative decisions as well as condemnation and acquital and there's not evidence that the verse could've be interpreated as Peter himself having the power to excommunicate or interpret doctrine.

- what you bind on earth will be bound on heaven, Peter has the power to dictate who is in the church and what doctrine remains in the church. In various rabbinical schools priests can bind and loose by declaring any by a fast day. In John 11:49-52, Caiaphas, the high priest, was an evil man but he still prophesized Jesus's death and atonement for Israel because he was the high priest that year.

- Jesus demands unity in Phil 1:27, 2:2 and orthodoxy in 2 Peter 2:1-2 and Titus 1:9 and 2:1. Heschmeyer states that's a catch 22 for protestants with their tension between unity and truth. Papal infallability is the only way out of this catch 22.

- The prot reformers though the bible was so clear that eveyrone would be unified if they just relied on the bible but this was not the case; St. Jerome warns Heretics that they shouldn't flatter themselves on knowing the scripture as even the devil quoted scripture; Acts 8:30-31 the eunuch said how can I understand scripture unless someone tells me (anti sola scriptura)

- Protestants misunderstand papal infallability. It isn't that the pope has a hotline to God or that the pope is guranteed salvation but that the dogma of the church will be preserved. Paul argued with Peter in antioch in Galatians 2 but that's a peter's flaw of pastorial ship and personal witness. His teaching is still infallible because Peter has 2 divine epistles from Antioch

- 2 Thess 2:15 tells believers to hold onto the traditions passed unto them.

- Modern catholic church doesn't look like 2nd century church and Heschemeyer uses mustard seed and tree analogy to counter this saying that that church gradually develops doctrines as it fulfills the great commision and it would be more surprising if the church was exactly as it was 2000 years ago.

Sorry for the long post and the rough summary, but I'm not really versed in theology as a layman and this book is really making me consider the papacy. Any Lutheran viewpoints on Heschmeyer's arguments would be appreciated.