u/PerceptionCandid4085

As someone who is Lutheran, and came to be Lutheran through roughly 4 years of self-study across pretty much every denomination/other religions, I was wondering as the title says above, are there any elements of theology outside of Lutheranism that you find fascinating.

My main 3 areas (among many) include:

1. Icons - differences between Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox).

2. Canon formation / textual variances - Canon lists, Old Testament (LXX vs MT), New Testament (Patriarchal text vs Alexandrian text).

3. Fringe/Interesting Religious Groups Including - Hebrew Israelites, Nation of Islam, The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light.

As a Lutheran who's been looking into Orthodox theology, and genuinely appreciates the things I've been reading I wanted to ask a question.

With regards to more recent converts there's a lot who come from non-denom/evangelical backgrounds and make claims like "Protestants don't believe in the real presence/baptismal regeneration" and it's something I've seen a lot of.

So I was wondering do any of you guys who have been Orthodox for a long time feel like newer converts in their zeal are chasing people away from the Orthodox church because of sweeping generalisations that they make.

I am asking this question specifically because friends of mine who are Orthodox/Catholic (and have been for a while) seem a lot more informed of the differences between Protestant groups and their own.

But comments from newer converts who seem to be overzealous and make sweeping generalisations about high church Protestantism could likely make it seem to others outside of Orthodoxy that Orthodox are uniformed of other traditions.

I expect this is mainly a new convert thing, but just wanted to get some insight into if any long-time Orthodox potentially see this as damaging to the identity of the Orthodox church at all or you wish newer converts would stop doing things like this.

To be extremely clear this isn't a critique of Orthodoxy or it's theology, rather I'm trying to understand how this kind of behaviour is perceived by other Orthodox Christians.

TLDR: Do you think new converts making sweeping generalisations of other denominations when interacting online can give outsiders an inaccurate picture of Orthodoxy or make the Church seem less informed than it actually is?

I've spent the better part of the last 3 years wrestling with church history which is why I left Pentecostalism and became Lutheran.

I really love Lutheranism, but there's also a part of me wondering - what if Luther got some things wrong?

In Fighting:

I've been looking at all the in-fighting between different Lutheran groups and it's made me wonder if perhaps an arbiter or authority to determine what scripture teaches would stop all this splintering.

I think something else that's also been bugging me is the question of the canon:

How is it that the LXX is used by Catholics/Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox/Church of the East, and yet they disagree about many things but somehow independently of one another (like in the case of the Ethiopian church) come to the conclusion to use the LXX over the MT.

Episcopal Structure:

Also how is it that Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox all come to the conclusion that bishop, presbyter and deacon are seperate ontological offices, whereas Lutherans don't.

These are just some of my current wrestlings, any advice/answers would be much appreciated!

Peace and Blessings!

edit: Thank you to everyone for such thoughtful responses!

So basically I was watching a youtube video about a Protestant's journey to Catholicism (this is relevant).

In the comments were hundreds of Protestants who were saying how happy they were to have "found the true church" or are "finally home" etc

But as a Protestant (Lutheran) who's still trying to figure out whether Orthodoxy/Catholic is the "true church", while also seeing similar claims from Oriental Orthodoxy it's making me really uneasy.

These people truly believe they've found Christ's church and are so sure, but if Eastern Orthodoxy is true then despite their certainty, they're wrong.

I wish it wasn't so hard to try decipher all this.

Because when weighing the consequences I'm genuinely trying to do my best to go where God would want me, and it feels like I need to be a theologian to understand all sides of the argument when even some of the greatest minds from all sides can't agree.

Have any of you ever doubted whether you where part of Christ's church, and if so how did you resolve it?

Thank you all!

For context I'm 22 and over the last 4 years I've been studying business at university preparing myself for a corporate role in consulting.

I also only have 4 months left in my degree and naturally this has caused me to do a lot of thinking.

After reflecting on my past experiences, my current part-time job, the fact I already study theology in my own time and the general direction that I feel would bring meaning to my life I've decided to pursue chaplaincy.

I've already constructed a general roadmap for this including qualifications needed, costs and preferred areas of chaplaincy. I've also contacted the institution I plan to study with and have got some helpful advice from them.

However, there's still some ambiguity around this decision, and pushback from my parents. I know they care and I can see their primary concern is stability and a high-income job for me.

I believe this is also rooted in their feelings that I'm wasting my potential by pursuing chaplaincy as my GPA places me in the top 5% of my university cohort and I have an internship at a highly respected company and naturally they expect me to transition into a prestigious role in the workplace.

But I also feel that for me a role in chaplaincy (or any role) has never been about money or status, but rather about undertaking something that genuinely makes a difference in other peoples' lives while using the natural gifts and talents God has given me.

I'm trying to navigate this with appropriate discernment, and would appreciate any advice on how to let God lead and/or personal insights from similar experiences you've had.

Peace and blessings!

So basically I'm a Christian (not Orthodox) but wanted some advice from people who's experiences are different to mine.

To be quite honest I'm having quite a rough go of it these past few months.

For some context, I'm in my early 20s and have had CPTSD, depression and anxiety for the past 6 years. Some days are good others are bad and overall life has been a bit of a roller coaster as of late.

But something I continue to struggle with is being close to God.

I go to church on Sundays, and on Sunday nights I attend a bible study with some people my age.

I also study theology in my spare time and spend time in prayer both in the morning and at night which includes prayer from a prayer book, the Jesus prayer, and also just me talking to God.

But I never really feel like my relationship with God is progressing. I don't blame Him for the trials I've been through or the fact most days I just feel numb, but despite my best intentions to progress, I just can't seem to crack the code.

It seems like no amount of head knowledge, or time spent in prayer, or church services attended is resulting in anything that looks like a deeper relationship with God (in the sense I'm doing these things but I don't feel like there's a change in my heart).

Any advice would be appreciated.

So basically I'm a relatively new (confirmed) Lutheran and really find it much more grounding then my previous denominational background.

But to be quite honest I'm having quite a rough go of it these past few months.

For some context, I'm in my early 20s and have had CPTSD, depression and anxiety for the past 6 years. Some days are good others are bad and overall life has been a bit of a roller coaster as of late.

But something I continue to struggle with is being close to God.

I go to church on Sundays, and on Sunday nights I attend a bible study with some people my age.

I also study theology in my spare time and spend time in prayer both in the morning and at night which includes prayer from a prayer book, the Jesus prayer, and also just me talking to God.

But I never really feel like my relationship with God is progressing. I don't blame Him for the trials I've been through or the fact most days I just feel numb, but despite my best intentions to progress, I just can't seem to crack the code.

It seems like no amount of head knowledge, or time spent in prayer, or church services attended is resulting in anything that looks like a deeper relationship with God (in the sense I'm doing these things but I don't feel like there's a change in my heart).

Any advice would be appreciated.

Context:

So basically I've been reading into church history a bit more (as a new Lutheran).

From what I've seen:

The early church presents two distinct pictures of ministry structure.

In 1 Clement, presbyter and bishop appear to be one office, with deacons serving alongside them.

But in Ignatius's letters, bishop, presbyter, and deacon are presented as three distinct and hierarchical offices ontologically.

Question 1

Why do Clement and Ignatius present different ministry structures and do Lutherans understand Ignatius's threefold ministry as a later development rather than divinely necessary / mandated?

Question 2

Given that Lutherans couldn't receive bishops to ordain and were forced to essentially abandon the episcopal structure, why didn't they retain it by creating a new episcopate instead of choosing to use Clement to theologically justify presbyteral ordination?

Thank you all in advance.

Edit:

Thank you to everyone who responded, peace and blessings!

While I appreciate the OSB is for those new to the faith, I was wondering is there any similar type of study bible that provides a similar format/commentary but in a bit more depth?

Thanks all :)

So I'm a relatively new Lutheran (around 6 months), and toward the start of the year I realised my previous denomination (not Lutheranism) wasn't where I was feeling spiritually fed / didn't align with Christ's teachings (views of the sacraments, tradition etc).

So I spoke to a mentor of mine (from that denomination) via text about my belief shifts.

Needless to say it didn't go well and I was told if I'm joining Lutheranism then I shouldn't come back (even socially) to my old church or any groups/social events that had people from the church.

It was quite hurtful, and even though time has passed and I love me new congregation and I'm really seeing spiritual fruits, I really am having a hard time forgiving this person.

If you could offer advice / prayers I'd really appreciate it.

I’m currently in about my third year of studying Orthodoxy. I’ve attended Divine Liturgy, read primary sources, dug into church history, and followed more debates than I can count.

For context, I’m Lutheran so I’m already comfortable with tradition, structure, sacramental theology, baptismal regeneration, and the real presence. None of that is a barrier for me.

Despite all that, I still don’t feel close to actually accepting Orthodoxy. And that’s not because I don’t want to, if Orthodoxy is true, I would genuinely be willing to join. I just haven’t reached that level of conviction yet.

Meanwhile, I see a lot of people converting to Orthodoxy or Catholicism very quickly, sometimes after only a few months of exposure.

In contrast, I’ve probably spent at least a hundred hours studying, praying, attending liturgy, and trying to understand the tradition from the inside but I still feel like I’m stuck in the same place.

I’m not sure how long this process is supposed to take, or whether this kind of slow, uncertain journey is normal.

So I wanted to ask:

For those of you who took a long time to convert (or who wrestled with doubts for years), what helped you move forward?

I’m not looking to argue, I'm just genuinely seeking advice from people who’ve been through a similar process.

Peace and Blessings to you all!

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.