There's a bit of sleight-of-hand going on in this post. You start out with a straightforward discussion of Luther's career, but as soon as we get to the theological background, all of a sudden we're talking about the Reformed, not the Lutherans. Luther was not Reformed.
Of course, much of what you say about justification is consistent with Luther's teachings. But the implied dichotomy between Sola Fide and the "Roman sacramental system" is not true of Luther or of Lutheranism. In particular, contrasting the Tridentine view of baptism as the instrumental cause of justification with the Reformed view (implying, given the context, that it is also Luther's view) is highly misleading, given that we Lutherans hold firmly to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
Chris is right on that point, but even so, Lutheranism is closer to Reformed-ism than to Catholicism.
Catholicism: "You are not saved yet. You need the sacraments, to help you become saved."
Lutheranism: "Rome says you need sacraments to help you become saved. But you have already been saved. However, you still need the sacraments, to remind you that you have already been saved."
Calvinism (de facto if not doctrinally): "Rome says you need sacraments to help you become saved.
But you have already been saved. Therefore you do not need the sacraments." An error, but an understandable one given what the Calvinist Reformers were reacting against.
Tom,
Your caricature of Lutheranism suggests that we teach that one is saved prior to, and apart from, the sacraments; and that the purpose of the sacraments is pedagogical ("to remind you that you have already been saved"). This is false.
We are saved by grace, and we receive grace through the means of grace: Word and Sacrament. Nothing in Lutheranism teaches or suggests that there is any other way to receive grace (and thus to be saved, since we are saved by grace alone) than through the Word and the Sacraments.
It is not true that Lutheranism is closer to the Reformed than to Catholicism. For the Reformed, justification by faith is opposed to the objective, saving character of the sacraments; for us, the objective, saving character of the sacraments is the foundation of justification by faith.
Well, Chris, if your version is true Lutheranism, then I'm off to Geneva.
Everything I have been taught puts Lutheranism, like Calvinism (although, interestingly, against Bro. Martin himself) in the "once saved, always saved" category. Therefore sacraments seal something already accomplished; they are not something we "need to do". This may not be close to the Reformed view but it is even further from the Catholic view which holds that God will punish us again, for sins that Christ supposedly already propitiated, if we fall away.
Or have I completely misunderstood what I've signed up for? Someone other than Chris confirm or deny?
I should add that since Lutherans uphold infant baptism it would be hold that someone is saved before they are baptised. OTOH, it would be weird to deny that some people baptised as children seem, as far as human senses can tell (ie, using the James test for its intended purpose!), to have never had saving faith.
have I completely misunderstood what I've signed up for?
I take it from this question that you have become, or are contemplating becoming, a member of a Lutheran congregation. If you need someone to "confirm or deny" what I have said, the best person is the pastor of your congregation. Ask him if the Lutheran Church does not indeed teach baptismal regeneration, and if the sacraments are not objective means of grace, through which God conveys forgiveness of sins (i.e. salvation) to us.
Many church bodies claim the designation "Lutheran", but they do not all teach and confess the same things. If your congregation denies baptismal regeneration and the salvific character of the sacraments, you have no need to head for Geneva; you are already there.
While I stand by my previous comment that your pastor is the best one to "confirm or deny", there are other Lutherans in the blogosphere who can attest to the doctrine I have laid out here. This post, posted yesterday by the Welsh Lutheran Chris Williams, is outstanding.
I know technically it's not Someone other than Chris [to] confirm or deny, but at least it's Some other Chris to confirm or deny.
Chris,
I was confirmed in the Lutheran Church of Australia 11 years ago, as an adult convert, after spending many, many, many hours discussing theology with the pastor. Apart from the fact that my baptism as a Catholic baby was not required to be (indeed, was required not to be) repeated, we didn't dwell on the topic. The main Lutheran works of theology I recall being given to read were One in the Gospel by Friedemann Hebart and George W Forell's The Augsburg Confession: A Contemporary Commentary. Admittedly, both are relatively brief -- not hefty enough to be worth throwing at the devil! -- but neither gave much attention to baptismal regen either. Forell, discussing the Augs Con's declaration that "Baptism is necessary for salvation", interpreted this as [my paraphrase, from memory] "meaning no more than that faith is necessary for salvation, and that baptism is the inevitable result of faith". (BTW, if anyone has a copy -- mine was loaned -- you're welcome to confirm or correct that line).
Both books, IIRC, emphasised the Lutheran importance of the Eucharist but every pastor LCA I've ever spoken to have emphasised that "sacraments are not 'something you do to become saved, stay saved, or become more saved'."
"Jesus, remember when you come into your Kingdom."
Jesus says: "Today you will be with me in Paradise."
I enjoyed your discussion above 
Helped me to understand some of the nuances between Reformed, Lutheran and Catholic thought.
Grace and Peace to you,
John
www.GodSci.org
[God and Science]
Maybe someone could clarify the Lutheran and Roman Catholic positions on the following cases:
1. Smith acquires faith in Jesus Christ, but dies soon afterwards, before he has time to do any good works. His previous life is very sinful.
2. Jones acquires faith in Jesus Christ, but dies soon afterwards, before he has time to be baptized or take Communion.
Are Smith and Jones saved, or not?
Lutheran: Smith and Jones are both saved.
I don't really know where Catholics stand on this one.
What do you feel about the Anti-Semetic publication written buy Luther "The Jews and thier lies"? let me know what you feel. also check out these websites.
www.apostlesjourney.com and www.apostlesbootcamp.net
Commenting by HaloScan
