u/PerceptionCandid4085

Hi everyone!

I’m a relatively new Lutheran (confirmed this past Easter), and before that I spent a lot of time exploring Orthodoxy which meant dipping my toes into church history but never quite finding a single resource that pulled everything together clearly.

Right now I’m reading Called to Be Holy in the World: An Introduction to Christian History, and I just wanted to highly recommend it to anyone looking for a comprehensive, readable overview of early Christian history from a Lutheran lens.

What I’ve loved about it so far:

It starts with Luke and Paul as the foundation for understanding the early church.

It walks through the Apostolic Fathers, major theologians, and key movements/heresies.

It covers all the major ecumenical councils with helpful summaries

It even gives concise overviews of texts like the Shepherd of Hermas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and others

Despite being approximately 500 pages, it manages to cover the 1st–10th centuries in order with such good detail while still being readable.

As someone who used to jump between dozens of sources trying to piece things together, this book has been a huge relief, so I wanted to recommend it for anyone that's wanting to understand the flow of Christian history without getting lost.

Peace and blessings!

I’m a Lutheran who’s been studying both Lutheranism and Orthodoxy pretty deeply.

I’m very content where I am, but last night I had a dream that left me curious.

In the dream I walked into what looked like an Orthodox church, except it had blank grey walls and no icons or altar.

A priest I seemed to recognise told me to stand in the corner where two walls met and try a specific posture.

I’m not taking this as a revelation or sign but I’m just curious how Lutherans generally understand dreams like this.

To preface I'm not Orthodox.

But last night I had a dream where I walked into an Orthodox church.

But it didn’t have icons or an altar or anything except blank grey walls.

As I walked in, a priest (who it felt like I already knew) told me to stand at the corner where two of the walls met and try a certain posture.

I’m just curious how Orthodox people generally view dreams like this and/or what this is supposed to mean?

As someone who isn't Catholic, something I've genuinely come to appreciate is how systematically Catholic theology handles salvation in relation to those outside the Catholic Church.

I've noticed that the modern Orthodox pastoral answer to "can non-Orthodox be saved?" maps almost perfectly onto Catholic formulations: invincible ignorance (CCC 847), God not being bound by the sacraments (CCC 1257), baptism of desire (CCC 1260) etc.

But what strikes me is that Catholicism seems to have developed these frameworks clearly and openly, while the Orthodox Church borrow the same conclusions while simultaneously critiquing Western Scholasticism and claiming Apophatic theology (in my experience).

I just wanted to say that Catholicism's willingness to systematise these hard and important questions seems quite intellectually honest rather than leaving them deliberately vague by making an appeal to mystery.

Thanks all!

So basically I was reading Luke 1:9 from the OSB, and the commentary says

"Zacharias is here assigned the duties of the high priest. This event takes place at the time of the Atonement, when the high priest would enter the temple and make offerings for the sins of the people."

I understand that Orthodox tradition (following the Protoevangelium of James and several Church Fathers like St. John Chrysostom) sees Zechariah typologically as functioning in a high-priestly role, especially since the people were praying outside while he was inside offering incense. That makes sense as a typological reading pointing to the transition from the Old Covenant to the New.

However, the way the note is worded makes it sound like a straightforward historical claim that Zechariah literally was the High Priest that year and that this specifically happened on the Day of Atonement rather than a traditional or typological interpretation.

The biblical text itself only says he was “a priest of the division of Abijah” who was chosen by lot to burn incense in the temple (not explicitly the Holy of Holies). Historically, this was a duty that ordinary priests performed.

Why doesn’t the OSB note clarify that this is a patristic/traditional/typological reading (instead of sounding like a plain historical fact)?

Wouldn’t it be clearer and less confusing to say something like “Zechariah here signifies / typifies the high priest” - or even briefly mention how the Fathers understood it (e.g., “While Zechariah was not the actual high priest, the Fathers see him as typologically fulfilling that role…”)

Is there a particular reason the OSB presents it this way?

Just trying to better understand how we’re supposed to read these kinds of notes as it seems like one can easily become confused when the wording seems to blur the historical fact with typological readings without explicitly making the distinction clear.

Thanks all

As a fairly new Lutheran in Australia I always knew LCA existed, and that recently LM-A split off from them (not trying to start interdenominational warfare, merely commenting for context).

So I decided to do some research as to the historical bodies in Australian Lutheranism and found out something quite surprising in that there are a lot more bodies then i initially anticipated (I mapped this research using Claude).

https://preview.redd.it/xxco3nlhaayg1.png?width=1368&format=png&auto=webp&s=a814dcf32b3109d451a820ee9cce5704b3528cd6

So as a Lutheran I obviously believe that baptism actually *creates* faith in infants.

I was wondering though how does this work with adult baptism, where faith seems to need to exist prior to baptism?

And also how exactly does the forgiveness element of baptism work for adults, in the sense I'm assuming they're already forgiven through faith in Christ, how then is forgiveness conferred onto them during their baptism?

Thanks all!

I’ve been studying the differences between the Catholic and Orthodox approaches to the biblical canon, and I’m trying to understand the internal logic of the Orthodox position.

Catholicism distinguishes clearly between:

• The canon (closed, universal, defined for all Catholics), and
• Liturgical texts (which may include things like Psalm 151 or the Prayer of Manasseh, but are not considered Scripture).

Orthodoxy, as I understand it, does not maintain this distinction. Instead:

• There is a minimum canon shared by all,
• And then additional books depending on local liturgical usage.

This seems to imply that canonicity varies by geography, whereas I thought inspiration by definition would be universal.

So I’m wondering:

Why is the distinction between “canonical Scripture” and “liturgical texts” considered unnecessary in Orthodoxy, and how does the Orthodox model avoid making the canon effectively relative to local custom?

Thank you all.

EDIT: I understand now, thank you all!

Hey all, I’m Lutheran and part of a small mixed‑tradition Bible study at a buddy's house with a few Reformed guys, one High‑Church Anglican friend, and me as the lone Lutheran. The study itself is great, good fellowship, good discussion, no issues.

The only time things get a little complicated is when they do “communion” at the end.

My Anglican buddy and I both abstain, each for our own sacramental reasons. The Reformed guys partake, and one of the reformed guys says the words of institution (they're more reformed in soteriology and more independent church in terms of how church structure works).

My Reformed friend who leads the study is very respectful about it, he doesn’t pressure us, and he understands we’re acting according to conscience. But we did have a bit of a back‑and‑forth over text recently (not hostile, just he was kind of asking the Lutheran view and pushing back a bit on why he doesn't quite agree). It made me realise how easily theology can feel divisive even when everyone involved is trying to be charitable.

I fully understand the teaching on the Sacraments and the Office of the Ministry. I also understand why I abstain in this setting. But at the same time, I wish these things didn’t create tension or require so much explanation. I really appreciate these guys, and I wish we could all share the same understanding of the Lord’s Supper without it becoming a point of friction.

I’m not looking to argue with them, just trying to navigate mixed tradition friendships faithfully without compromising what I believe Christ instituted.

Advice/Prayers appreciated.