Do Lutheran churches follow what the Bible teaches?

This answer weighs the seven statements you quoted, in the words you gave, against Scripture. Each one is weighed on its own, and then all seven are weighed together.

Three things are outside it. It does not weigh how any particular congregation actually teaches or lives; that would need evidence beyond these seven statements. It did not check that your quotations match the published confessions and catechism. And it says nothing about whether any person, living or dead, adult or child, stands right with God. That is not ours to judge.

What Scripture says

Paul shuts the door on being justified before God by what we do:

The Psalms say the same: "And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." (Psalms 143:2)

The reason is that everyone is under sin:

Romans 3:10-18 builds this charge from the Psalms and Isaiah. For example: "They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." (Psalms 14:3) The source passages behind Psalms 14:3, Psalms 53:3, Psalms 5:9, Psalms 140:3, Psalms 10:7, Psalms 36:1 and Isaiah 59:7-8 were each read in their whole chapter. In their own setting they describe evil, deceit and violence, alongside prayer and God's mercy. Romans applies them to Jews and Gentiles alike and to guilt before God. Where those psalms speak of righteous people, those words are not erased by Paul's use of them.

Then Paul names where justification does come from:

Romans 4 sets a wage that is owed against a gift that is counted:

David's words are these: "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered." (Psalms 32:1) "Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile." (Psalms 32:2)

Abraham's faith is described as trust in what God promised: "And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform." (Romans 4:21) It is counted to us too, as faith in the God who raised Jesus:

The same message runs through Paul's other letters:

Titus holds grace and good works together. Salvation does not come from works, yet good works must be kept up:

"Christ, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins"

A search of Scripture's text for the English word "satisfaction" found it only twice, and neither place is about Christ. Both forbid taking a payment in place of a murderer's life:

So the statement's point, that Christ bore our sins by his death, does not rest on that word. It rests on these passages, together with Romans 3:24-26 above:

The Greek word behind "propitiation" in Romans 3:25 is the word behind "mercyseat" here: "And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly." (Hebrews 9:5) Hebrews 9 then moves from the old sanctuary to Christ's own blood and eternal redemption. That chapter's setting is what links the two. A shared word number alone would not.

A search for the word "merits" found no occurrence. The conclusion here does not rest on that absence. It rests on the plain passages about grace, debt and faith above.

What "justified" and "imputed" mean here

Scripture uses "justified" in more than one way. "And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John." (Luke 7:29) This cannot mean making a sinful God righteous; the people were declaring God right. "But wisdom is justified of all her children." (Luke 7:35) Romans 4:5, by contrast, speaks of God justifying the ungodly and counting faith for righteousness. James 2, taken below, speaks of faith being shown, working with deeds, and being made perfect.

"Imputed", "counted" and "reckoned" in Romans 4 render one Greek word. Paul uses it for "conclude" in Romans 3:28, and here: "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:11) In each sentence it is read for what that sentence says. Romans 4 states that righteousness is counted to the believer. It does not say that faith is changed into some substance called righteousness.

The hardest passages against it, and what they show

James 2. James is the strongest challenge to an unqualified "faith only":

James and Romans both quote one verse from Genesis: "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." (Genesis 15:6) That reckoning came before the offering of Isaac in Genesis 22, where the blessing is also tied to obedience:

James does not say that Abraham bought God's favour. He says that faith worked with works and was made perfect by them, and that the later act fulfilled the earlier word. Rahab's own words show the faith behind her act: "And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath." (Joshua 2:11) Then she acted on it: "Then she let them down by a cord through the window: for her house was upon the town wall, and she dwelt upon the wall." (Joshua 2:15) "And she said unto them, Get you to the mountain, lest the pursuers meet you; and hide yourselves there three days, until the pursuers be returned: and afterward may ye go your way." (Joshua 2:16) The words "Friend of God" were also checked where Scripture first uses them of Abraham: "But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend." (Isaiah 41:8) "Art not thou our God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham thy friend for ever?" (2 Chronicles 20:7)

So the texts separate two things: earning a standing before God, which Romans rules out, and a living faith completed in obedience, which James requires. Neither writer is set aside.

Romans 2 and Matthew 12: judgment by deeds.

These are true as written. Romans 2 rebukes hearers who break the law and sets out the standard of fair judgment. Romans 3 then concludes that all are under sin, and rules out deeds as the ground on which a sinner is justified. Judgment according to deeds stands. It does not follow that anyone earns acquittal by their own merit. Neither passage lets obedient living be cut away from saving faith.

Luke 7: forgiven "for she loved much".

In Jesus' story the debtors have nothing to pay, and the debts are freely forgiven. The scene ends by naming faith as what saved her. The link between much forgiveness and much love stands, and so does her real love. But love is not made the price of forgiveness. The same Greek word for "saved" is used in another sense here: "And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace." (Luke 8:48) There it means a bodily healing. In Luke 7, forgiveness fixes its sense.

Readings struck out

• "Works earn the first standing before God." This would make Romans 4:4-5 and Ephesians 2:8-9 false.
• "A spoken claim or a bare acknowledgment, with no obedience, saves." This would make James 2:14, 17, 19, 24 and 26 false, and also these words: "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:4) Paul rejects it too: "God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Romans 6:2) "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." (Romans 6:14) "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid." (Romans 6:15)
• "James is only about convincing other people and has nothing to do with salvation." James 2:14 asks about saving, 2:22 speaks of faith made perfect, and 2:23 of Scripture fulfilled. This reading leaves those clauses out.
• "Romans 2 is false or beside the point, because works play no part at judgment." The text says the opposite, as shown above.
• "Luke 7:47 makes loving acts the purchase price of forgiveness." The story's debtors had nothing to pay, and verse 50 names faith.

Galatians says the same. It warns against seeking justification by law, and describes living faith:

Verdict on statement 1

Scripture teaches this: the substance of statement 1. A person is justified freely, by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith, and not by any debt earned through their own works. That faith is living trust in Christ; obedience and love cannot be removed from it.

One care point. The statement says people are justified "when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake." That trust is directed to Christ and God's promise. It must not be turned into confidence in a claim about oneself, cut loose from Christ. Nothing here is a verdict on any reader's heart.

---

What Scripture says about baptism and salvation

Christ commands it:

Scripture joins baptism to forgiveness, the Spirit, and Christ's death and rising:

Peter says plainly that baptism saves, and says how:

The flood account Peter points to reads: "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark." (Genesis 7:23) Peter calls the relation a "figure". He explains baptism's saving by Christ's resurrection and a good conscience toward God, and expressly not by washing dirt off the body.

Other passages join God's cleansing, washing, the Spirit and Christ, beside Titus 3:5 above:

Titus does not expressly name water baptism. Ephesians names water "by the word", but gives no rule about infants. The shared cleansing language links these passages in thought; it does not make every one of them about the same act. None of them makes ordinary water enough, and none makes the washing a human work that earns anything. Titus 3:5 itself rules out "works of righteousness which we have done". The Greek word for "washing" in Titus 3:5 and Ephesians 5:26 is the same. The search for "regeneration" found only one other place, and it is about the future: "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matthew 19:28) In Titus it describes God's saving renewal by the Holy Ghost, not merely a word shared with a water rite.

So: reducing baptism to an act that has nothing to do with God's saving work does not keep these words true. Statement 2's "through Baptism is offered the grace of God" has this support.

"Baptism" is not one uniform word

Scripture uses "baptism" and "baptize" for different things, so not every use can be read as the same act:

Jesus also uses the word for his coming suffering:

The same Greek verb is used for ordinary washing before a meal:

Other places where the word appears concern who John was, or where his baptism came from:

None of these gives a rule about who may be baptized or at what age. John's baptism looked forward to Christ: "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4) John also called for fruit: "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Luke 3:8) Paul later distinguishes John's baptism from baptism in Jesus' name:

Disciples did the baptizing in Jesus' ministry: "(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)" (John 4:2) The order of events differs from one account to another. In Saul's case, Ananias states a purpose: "And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 9:17) Then comes what happened: "And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." (Acts 9:18) A stated purpose is not read as a separately dated outcome. In Acts 19 the Spirit came after baptism, when hands were laid on. Because the narrated orders differ, the accounts cannot all be forced into one fixed sequence. Yet Scripture still says: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," (Ephesians 4:5) and "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:13)

"Necessary to salvation": what it can and cannot mean

"Necessary" can reach two very different things.

As obedience to God's command joined to the gospel, baptism is required. It must not be waved away as optional.

As an absolute boundary, meaning that God gives no saving grace, forgiveness or life before the water, the claim fails. Acts 10 shows why:

Scripture then explains what happened there, in Peter's own report and at the council:

This is Scripture explaining the event itself, not an argument from a baptism the text fails to mention. The gift came first, and baptism was still commanded afterward.

A third question is different again: is every person who dies without water baptism lost? That is not established by these passages. Acts 10 does not prove it either way, because verse 48 goes on to record the baptism. Mark 16 does not state it:

The first half promises salvation to the one who believes and is baptized. It does not say that every unbaptized person is condemned. The second half condemns unbelief; it does not say baptism may be disobeyed. Other passages promise life and salvation to those who believe and call on the Lord:

So the plain saving promises must not have a blanket condemnation based on water alone added to them. Nor should one "necessary" claim simply be swapped for another.

John 3: born of water and of the Spirit

New birth is necessary; Jesus says so. The closest connection shown in Scripture for "water and Spirit" is God's promise in Ezekiel. John 3 does not quote it, but it speaks of the same cleansing and the same Spirit:

Three readings of "water" were weighed:

• Water means baptism. John's surrounding setting includes baptism. Even so, Acts 10-11 rules out making the outward washing a universal prerequisite that must come before God's gift.
• Water describes God's cleansing together with the Spirit. Then John 3 does not itself lay down a rule about a water rite.
• Water means natural birth. This reading can point to the flesh/Spirit contrast in verse 6, but nothing in the passage equates water with childbirth. Ezekiel gives a closer, demonstrated link between cleansing and the Spirit.

The answer does not turn on which of the first two is right. Under either, the new birth Christ requires stands, and an absolute "no grace before water" rule fails.

Other hard passages about baptism

Simon. "Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done." (Acts 8:13) Afterward Peter told him: "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God." (Acts 8:21) "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." (Acts 8:22) These are the apostle's words, reported as written; nothing here decides Simon's end. They show that baptism cannot be treated as an automatic release from any later need to repent.

The eunuch. "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (Acts 8:37) "And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." (Acts 8:38) Wholehearted belief was the condition of permission in that encounter. The verse sets no age rule.

Paul's commission. "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Corinthians 1:17) This sets Paul's chief task of preaching against personally baptizing. The same paragraph records baptisms he did carry out (1 Corinthians 1:16, quoted below), so it cannot cancel the command.

The dying criminal. "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43) This is a direct promise. The account does not say whether he had been baptized. It supports Christ's authority to give life, but it is not the main proof of any exception for the unbaptized.

Children: what the passages show

Adult examples alone do not settle this, so the reading looked further.

Passages that include children:

"Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (Matthew 18:14) This states the Father's will. On its own it does not report an outcome.

God can act in the very young:

Luke 1:15 is a promise about one named child. It defeats any claim that God cannot act in a person before they can understand as an adult. It does not make that one child's case a guarantee for every infant.

Circumcision was given to infants:

Colossians 2:11-12, quoted above, calls the Christian's circumcision one "made without hands" and links it to baptism and to "the faith of the operation of God". That relates baptism to the old sign. It gives a strong argument that children are not simply outside God's covenant care. But it does not expressly carry over the eight-day rule, the males-only limit, or the inclusion of purchased household members into baptism.

Households were baptized:

The ages in Lydia's household are not given. Stephanas's household was later devoted to serving the saints. That proves neither that infants were present at the earlier baptism nor that none were.

Passages that show believers being baptized:

These are clear examples of believing people being baptized. None of them states a minimum age, and none says infants must be excluded.

The Great Commission's wording. Matthew 28:19-20 reaches "all nations" and includes both baptizing and teaching, but states no minimum age. The Greek word for "teach" there was traced through every place it occurs:

These uses tie the commission to making disciples and kingdom instruction. They do not supply an age limit, and the order of words in the English cannot create one.

Jesus and the children. In Matthew the scene is described like this: "Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them." (Matthew 19:13) "And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence." (Matthew 19:15) It was laying on of hands and prayer, not a recorded baptism. Luke 18 still forbids keeping infants from Christ.

"Your children ... holy."

The same sentence calls the unbelieving spouse "sanctified", and verse 16 still treats that spouse's salvation as an open question. So "holy" here cannot automatically mean final salvation. The passage says nothing about these children being baptized.

Birth alone does not make anyone God's child.

Their settings in Genesis 21, Genesis 25 and Isaiah 54 were read. These passages rule out an argument that children belong to God automatically through physical descent from a believing household. They do not shut children out.

Infancy is not a proven ground of sinlessness. "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalms 51:5) With the "all have sinned" argument of Romans 3, this rules out treating infancy as an independently proven ground of innocence. That is not a judgment about any particular child.

The readings on children

Three positions were weighed.

1. Baptize children who are within the promise and among "all nations", with faith understood as God's gift rather than an adult achievement. Acts 2:39, Matthew 28:19, Genesis 17 and Colossians 2 give a positive argument for including them, and Luke 18 forbids keeping infants from Christ. But no passage read expressly records an infant being baptized, or commands that circumcision's age carry over to baptism. This reading cannot claim that the household accounts prove infants were baptized, or that the rite guarantees grace regardless of faith.
2. Baptize those whose receiving of the word and belief are confessed, following Acts 2:41, 8:12, 8:37 and 16:31-34. These are positive examples of believers being baptized. But they state no universal minimum age and do not exclude infants. This reading cannot claim that infant baptism is expressly forbidden, or that children cannot receive God's action.
3. Withhold Christ's grace from every unbaptized child, or declare every baptized child finally saved because of the act. This is struck out. Neither conclusion follows from the texts. Peter's words about conscience and faith (1 Peter 3:21), and the order of events in Acts 10, oppose the idea that the act works automatically. Luke 18 gives a positive reason to welcome children rather than use a rite as a barrier.

Between the first two, the passages gathered speak to this but don't settle it. They affirm that children are welcome to Christ and that believers are baptized, but they do not state exactly how the two meet: which children are baptized, and when. This is a limited question about recipients and timing, not silence about baptism or about children. Under either reading, salvation does not come automatically from descent or ordinary washing, children are welcome to Christ, and believers' baptism is affirmed. Under neither may all unbaptized children be condemned, and no child's destiny is judged here.

Statement 3: forgiveness, death and the devil

Scripture names who conquers death and the devil:

Colossians 2:12-15 joins baptism, faith, forgiveness and Christ's triumph. Romans 6:3-4 and 22-23 join sharing Christ's death, new life, holiness and eternal life as God's gift. So there is a warranted link between baptism and receiving Christ's benefits. The link is not a power of its own in the water.

Deliverance from death means Christ's victory and a future resurrection, not instant bodily immortality now:

The Old Testament sources of 1 Corinthians 15 (Genesis 2, Psalms 8, Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13) were read. The same chapter asks: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:29) This is a rhetorical question arguing against people who deny the resurrection; it is not a command. It might describe people acting on behalf of the dead, or an act understood in relation to death and resurrection. The answer does not turn on which: under either reading it commands no practice for infants and explains no mechanism of baptism. Its argument for the resurrection stands.

"Gives eternal salvation to all who believe this." These words can express trust in Christ's promise. Mark 16:15-16 speaks of believing the preached gospel, and John says what that belief is about:

The phrase must not put belief that a ceremony works in the place of Christ as the one trusted for salvation.

Verdict on statements 2 and 3

• Scripture teaches that baptism is commanded, and that it has a saving connection with forgiveness, Christ's death and rising, faith, and a good conscience toward God. Calling it empty of saving meaning is not what Scripture teaches.
• This is not what Scripture teaches: that no saving gift or Holy Spirit can be received before water. Acts 10 records the gift first and the command to baptize after.
• Not established by the passages gathered: that everyone who dies without water baptism is lost.
• Not established: the duty to baptize infants, and the condemning of those who reject infant baptism and say children are saved without it. Equally, infant baptism is not shown to be forbidden, and children must not be declared unable to receive God's action. How the welcome of children and the baptism of believers meet is spoken to but not settled by the passages gathered, as explained above.
• Statement 3 is supported when it confesses forgiveness, deliverance from death and the devil, and eternal salvation as Christ's saving gifts, received with faith. It is not supported as power in ordinary water, or as faith in a ceremony in place of Christ.

So statement 2 cannot be affirmed as one joined whole without these distinctions. Nothing here decides where any child, living or dead, stands before God.

---

What Scripture says

Christ instituted the meal, and "body" and "blood" are his own words for what he gives. The "blood of the covenant" language goes back to the source passage Hebrews also draws on: "And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words." (Exodus 24:8)

Paul explains the meal:

This is real sharing with a real object, which calls for undivided allegiance. It is not an empty remembering that could sit harmlessly beside idol worship. The comparisons in verses 18-21 concern sharing in an altar or with devils, that is, allegiance and participation. They do not claim that devils are handed out as food. The Greek word for "communion" here is also used for "fellowship": "God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." (1 Corinthians 1:9) "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1:7) Sharing in Christ is real without being defined as a physical mixing. That fact does not empty the words "body" and "blood" at the meal either.

Paul's second passage:

Paul keeps calling what is eaten "bread". The concrete wrong in Corinth included selfish eating that left others hungry, so the warning is not only about a mistaken idea of what the elements are made of. Verse 32 separates the Lord's chastening from condemnation with the world.

Readings struck out

• "It is only a remembrance, with no communion in Christ's body and blood." This denies 1 Corinthians 10:16 and leaves the guilt "of the body and blood of the Lord" in 11:27 unexplained. Remembrance is commanded, but the text never says remembrance is all the meal is.
• "If the communion is real, it can no longer be called bread and fruit of the vine." Matthew 26:29 and 1 Corinthians 11:26-28 keep those words. Calling a true sign "bread" does not disprove real sharing, and calling the sharing real does not erase the bread.
• "Eating saves every eater, with no faith, discernment or obedience." This would make 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 false.
• "Every unworthy receiver's judgment is final condemnation." 1 Corinthians 11:32 separates chastening from condemnation.

John 6

The chapter begins after the feeding with ordinary bread and moves to the bread from heaven; its manna quotation was checked in Exodus 16 and Psalms 78. Verse 35 joins coming to Christ with never hungering, and believing with never thirsting. Verses 47 and 54 both promise life. Verse 63 cannot mean that the flesh he gives for the world's life is worthless, since verses 51 and 55 say the opposite. It names the Spirit as the giver of life and his words as spirit and life, and verse 64 at once names unbelief. Equally, the strong flesh-and-blood language cannot be swapped for a detached mental exercise.

Verse 59 places this teaching in a synagogue, not at the Supper. It sheds light on receiving Christ and his life, but it does not expressly equate every eating there with every outward eating at the Supper. In particular, the life promised to every eater in John 6 cannot be pressed onto the unworthy eaters of 1 Corinthians 11. Neither text may be denied to make them fit.

"Body" also means the church

Scripture uses "body" for the congregation too:

1 Corinthians 12:13, quoted above, says the same. Scripture also explains one saying of Jesus about his body directly: "But he spake of the temple of his body." (John 2:21) The same word does not decide its sense in every place. The church context shapes the Corinthian warning, but it does not replace the body given for the disciples and the blood shed for sins.

The command against eating blood

Scripture forbids consuming blood:

Yet Christ expressly commands the cup and calls it his covenant blood (Matthew 26:27-28), while Matthew 26:29 still names what is drunk as fruit of the vine. The general ban cannot cancel Christ's particular command, and the Supper cannot become a general licence to eat blood. This tells against inventing an ordinary physical explanation, such as the cup being chemically blood. It is not a reason to deny real communion.

What stands, and what stays open

What stands, with strong positive support: Christ instituted the Supper. His body and blood are truly part of what he gives. There is communion, real sharing, in them in the bread and cup. The meal is a remembrance and proclaims his death. Unworthy receiving brings serious judgment.

How this happens, the texts do not explain. Two readings keep every verse true:

• First reading: Christ gives his body and blood with the bread and cup, as he promised, as more than a memorial in the mind. This reading cannot claim that the words alone explain a physical location "under" the bread, or a bodily manner of distribution.
• Second reading: the bread and cup are true signs through which believers really share in Christ by the Spirit. Offenders become guilty by profaning what the signs stand for and the shared body. This reading must affirm real communion; an empty-symbol version was already struck out.

Neither reading may deny the truth of Christ's words.

Who receives. Statement 4 says the body and blood "are distributed to those who eat", so the reach of reception is part of the question. On the first reading, even an unworthy outward eater receives Christ's body and blood, to judgment rather than benefit. On the second, that eater profanes the signs and the shared meal and so incurs real guilt against Christ, without receiving him to salvation. The guilt in 1 Corinthians 11:27 does not by itself prove bodily eating, because Scripture speaks of real guilt and real sin against Christ without any eating:

Those passages do not explain away 1 Corinthians 10:16. Under either reading, real communion in Christ's body and blood in the meal must be affirmed.

Verdict on statements 4 and 5

Strong positive support establishes statements 4 and 5 where they say that Christ instituted the Supper and gives his body and blood in it, with real communion in them. "Under the bread and wine" can express this joining without naming a physical mechanism. The words must not be made to claim a chemical or spatial explanation they do not give. The rejection in statement 4 concerns those who deny the presence and distribution it states, not expressly every account of how it happens.

What the passages read do not settle is the manner, and the further claim that every outward eater, an unbelieving eater included, bodily receives the body and blood. That question stays open between the two readings above. The institution, real communion, remembrance, the bread, and the warning are not open.

---

What Scripture says

Christ gave his disciples a real ministry concerning forgiveness:

Ministry continues in the church:

In John 20 sins are the object, so "remit" there means forgiveness. That is not true of every place the same Greek word appears; elsewhere it means "leave" or "suffer". This ministry does not come from the human agent's own power. Christ keeps his place:

The commission in John 20 stands with that verse because it is Christ's own sending and gift, not a rival mediator. Jesus' critics asked: "And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" (Luke 5:21) That is the objectors' question, not a divine ban on any commissioned ministry. Jesus answered by showing his own authority: "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house." (Luke 5:24)

Personal confession, correction and forgiveness are commanded:

In Matthew 18:15-18 a private approach comes first, then witnesses and the church if needed; that witness rule was checked in Deuteronomy 19. In James 5, forgiveness is the Lord's work. These passages support personal confession, correction, prayer and forgiveness. They do not limit confession to a minister, require a fixed private form of words, or make that form the only way to forgiveness. Your quotation does not claim any of those things either, so none of them is charged to it.

"An enumeration of all sins is not necessary"

The statement cites this psalm:

Psalm 19:12 is a question followed by a prayer. A prayer, on its own, does not report that it was granted. But it does reach faults the speaker cannot even see, so a full conscious list is plainly beyond anyone. The positive case is completed by other passages. Jesus declares a man justified after a general cry for mercy:

Jesus commands a general prayer for forgiveness:

And 1 John 1:9 promises cleansing "from all unrighteousness".

Under the old covenant, the yearly rite confessed Israel's sins as a whole, without a separate inventory of each person's offences:

Confession in exile concerned humbled hearts and God remembering his covenant, not a private rite as such:

Hebrews explains that this repeated rite gives way to Christ's one offering, full access, faith and cleansing. Its sources in Psalms 40, Jeremiah 31 and Exodus 24 were read:

But known sins are not to be hidden. Specific known wrongs are confessed specifically:

Readings struck out

• "Christ gave no ministry of remitting or retaining sins." This would make John 20:21-23 false.
• "Forgiveness requires listing every sin." Jesus declared the publican justified after a general cry for mercy (Luke 18:13-14).
• "A general confession is licence to hide known wrongs." Psalms 32:5 and Leviticus 5:5 oppose this.
• "Confession doesn't matter." This would contradict 1 John 1:9 and James 5:16.

Verdict on statement 6

Keeping personal confession, and a ministry of forgiveness that depends on Christ, is a supported application of these commands and of Christ's commission. Listing every sin is not required by these texts. Known sins should still be confessed honestly.

Not established: a uniquely prescribed private rite, an exact formula, an office that alone may hear confession (from these verses alone), or any human authority independent of Christ. Your quotation does not claim these things. Scripture specifies the commission more fully than the way it is carried out. Keeping personal absolution is supported whether it is understood as proclaiming and assuring forgiveness or as an exercised remission that depends on Christ. That limit on the details cannot be used to deny the commission itself. This is an assessment of the wording you gave, not an accusation.

---

What Scripture says

Scripture draws a real distinction between what the law does and what God gives in Christ:

Romans 3:20, quoted under statement 1, says that the law brings the knowledge of sin and justifies no one. Galatians says the same:

That last verse quotes: "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD." (Leviticus 18:5) Galatians 3 also quotes the curse on whoever does not keep the law: "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen." (Deuteronomy 27:26) It quotes the curse on one hanged on a tree: "His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." (Deuteronomy 21:23) It quotes faith: "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith." (Habakkuk 2:4) And it quotes the promise to Abraham: "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 12:3) All of these were read in their settings, and the differences between promise, requirement, curse and faith were kept.

Making law-keeping the price of Christ's gift would contradict Romans 4:4-5 and this verse:

Romans 4 adds: "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all," (Romans 4:16)

The hard passages: the distinction is not a split

Scripture also forbids turning Law and Gospel into two hostile messages, a clean break between Old and New Testaments, or permission to drop warnings and obedience:

The gospel was already preached to Abraham, and the gospel includes judgment:

The law has a lawful use, tied to sound doctrine and the gospel:

The law itself holds God's promise to change hearts:

Christ came to fulfil the law, not to destroy it:

The commandments James cites were checked in their sources: "Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13) "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14) "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:18)

The gospel itself proclaims forgiveness and calls for belief, confession and hearing:

Acts 13 also warns against despising this message. Its sources were read in Psalms 2 and 16, Isaiah 55, Isaiah 49 and Habakkuk 1. Romans 10's sources were read in Deuteronomy 30, Isaiah 28, Joel 2, Leviticus 18, Isaiah 52 and Isaiah 53. Ephesians 2:8-10, quoted above, holds the gift and good works together without making the works the source of the gift.

"Rightly divided"

The Greek word behind "rightly dividing" occurs only here in the index used, so there is no second use from which to build a technical "Law and Gospel" definition. Its surrounding verses give its sense: handling the truth faithfully, against empty talk and error:

The next chapter says all Scripture is useful, for salvation through faith in Christ and for good works:

Verdict on statement 7

Scripture teaches the substance of the distinction: the law exposes sin and states God's requirements, while the saving promise and gift come through Christ. Diligent, faithful handling of the word is commanded. Statement 7 can express these truths.

Not established: that 2 Timothy 2:15 itself means the full technical Law/Gospel distinction. The verse is a general command to handle the truth carefully, not a statement of that scheme. And the distinction cannot be stretched to make the law evil, discard the commandments, make the gospel free of warning, or cut all the Old Testament off from all the New. Nothing like that may be slipped into an affirmation of statement 7.

---

Scripture itself holds these together: faith in Christ as God's gift, baptism as a commanded act joined to his saving work, real communion in Christ at the Supper, personal confession with a ministry of forgiveness, and a careful distinction between law and grace. None of them makes a human act a payment that earns anything. Titus 3 holds side by side "not by works", the washing and the Spirit, grace, and keeping up good works. Romans moves from justification by faith (chapters 3-5) to baptism into Christ and commands against sin (chapter 6). These are positive connections in the text, not merely an absence of contradiction.

But the seven cannot be endorsed as a whole without qualification:

• read as an absolute boundary, baptism's "necessary" conflicts with Acts 10-11 and 15;
• the duty to baptize infants, and the condemnation attached to it, go beyond what the passages on who receives baptism show;
• that every outward eater bodily receives Christ's body and blood is more detailed than the passages read establish.

Equally, rejecting all seven would deny Scripture's plain words about saving, communion, Christ's commission and grace.

Two points work in the statements' favour. The quoted confession on absolution does not itself require a unique formula. And "under the bread and wine" need not be read as a proposed physical mechanism.

---

The reading used Scripture alone, in the King James text, with no commentator, church or tradition deciding anything. It searched by English words, by concepts, and by the original-language words behind key terms. Every passage relied on was read in its surrounding chapter. Where the New Testament quotes the Old, the source passage was read too. These include:

• the Psalms behind Romans 3;
• Genesis 15, 17 and 22 behind Romans 4 and James 2;
• Joshua 2 for Rahab;
• Isaiah 41 and 2 Chronicles 20 for "friend of God";
• Genesis 12, Deuteronomy 21 and 27, Leviticus 18 and Habakkuk 2 behind Galatians 3;
• Joel 2 and Psalms 16, 110 and 132 behind Acts 2;
• Isaiah 53 behind Acts 8 (and Luke 22:37);
• Numbers 21 and Ezekiel 36 alongside John 3;
• Exodus 16, Psalms 78 and Isaiah 54 behind John 6;
• Psalms 8 and 22 and Isaiah 8 behind Hebrews 2;
• Deuteronomy 19, Exodus 20 and 21, Leviticus 19 and Isaiah 29 behind Matthew 18, James 2 and Mark 7;
• Exodus 32, Jeremiah 9, Amos 9, Isaiah 40 and Malachi 3 behind passages in 1 Corinthians, Acts and the Gospels;
• Psalms 82 behind John 10.

These checks confirmed where quotations come from. They were not treated as new grounds for doctrine.

One warning from Scripture applies to every side of this question. Human tradition must not be raised to the level of God's command, and God's commands must not be dropped:

Limits, stated plainly:

• Not every book of Scripture was opened. Broad searches returned many passages that were not read. Those are listed in the record as unread, not described as irrelevant. No claim is made anywhere that Scripture is silent on a matter.
• The three questions left open are bounded by the passages above and by the readings that were tested. They are: which children are baptized and when; how the Supper's giving happens and how far bodily reception reaches; and the exact form in which absolution is administered. The conclusions on them are narrower than a claim that every possible passage has been weighed.
• Some early copies of Scripture lack Mark 16:9-20 and Acts 8:37. Their numbered text was used here, manuscript history was not decided, and no conclusion depends only on either passage.
• The quotations were not checked against the Lutheran publications themselves, and no particular congregation's teaching or practice was examined.
• No one's standing before God, and no child's destiny, is judged here.

Each verse above can be opened in its chapter and checked.