How do Reformed View the Confessions of the Lutheran Church?

[Dachaser]

Are their Augsburg Confession seen as being in same tradition as those held by Reformed Christians then?

 

[Justified]

The Augsburg Confession was a somewhat more broad of a confession to the extent that some Reformed subscribed it, especially the "variata" edition (e.g. John Calvin).

The other confessions such as the Formula of Concord, while certainly a part of the confessional Protestant heritage, are not really a part of the Reformed heritage.

 

[KeithW]

This is as far as I've gotten in my own studying Lutheranism vs. Calvinism. Here are a few dates in history to help set a context.

• 1530 - the Augsburg Confession was written by Melancthon
• 1537 - the Smalcald Articles were written by Luther
• 1546 - Luther died
• 1560 - Melancthon died
• 1577 - men wrote the Formula Of Concord in 1577, to stop the influence of Calvinism within the Lutheran church

Election - Luther wrote about election in his book "The Bondage Of The Will" but not in his Smalcald Articles or catechisms. He did not explain what election was but simply talked about it as a divine prerogative of God. Lutherans do not believe in election.

Original Sin also called "Total Depravity" by Calvinists - the Augsburg Confession and Smalcald Articles have very clear definitions of this which match the Calvinist perspective.

Free Will - Luther wrote against man's free will when it comes to making a choice for God in his book "The Bondage Of The Will". The Augsburg Confession says the same thing. But the Formula Of Concord introduces contradictions to original sin and lays the foundation for man's free will. It goes as far as saying, here is the verse which supports our view, but do not go looking in the Bible for verses to contradict this.

So Lutherans talk of God's sovereignty, original sin, man's free will, and have no idea of what election is.

 

[MichaelNZ]

Free Will - Luther wrote against man's free will when it comes to making a choice for God in his book "The Bondage Of The Will". The Augsburg Confession says the same thing. But the Formula Of Concord introduces contradictions to original sin and lays the foundation for man's free will. It goes as far as saying, here is the verse which supports our view, but do not go looking in the Bible for verses to contradict this.

The modern Lutheran churches have actually diverged from Luther on their teaching on free will. I have read that Luther taught double predestination, while the modern Lutheran churches go with Melancthon and teach single predestination (i.e. God predestines people to salvation but not to damnation).

So Lutherans talk of God's sovereignty, original sin, man's free will, and have no idea of what election is.

I've been listening to the Just and Sinner podcast by Jordan Cooper, who was formerly Reformed but is now a Lutheran pastor. He does a great job of explaining election from a Lutheran perspective.

 

[KeithW]

I've been listening to the Just and Sinner podcast by Jordan Cooper, who was formerly Reformed but is now a Lutheran pastor. He does a great job of explaining election from a Lutheran perspective.

How does he explain it?

---------------

Returning to the original post about Reformed doctrines vs. Lutheran doctrines...

I was going through my notes from earlier this year where I wrote to a couple of friends who are Reformed to explain what I was learning about Lutheranism.

...a group of Lutherans wrote and publish[ed] the "Formula Of Concord". This is a clarification and expansion of Lutheran doctrine, including election. At the time it was not universally accepted by Lutheran churches. It teaches man's complete inability towards God. God gives His Holy Spirit to men in salvation to overcome their resistance towards God. But in a different section man has the ability to resist the Holy Spirit in conversion. This is a contradiction. [In total depravity] Man can only resist God. God gives man the Holy Spirit during/near conversion to overcome this resistance but man can still resist God? The wording of this section I literally cannot logically decipher. The "formula" teaches total depravity, universal atonement, and resistible grace.

In contrast the so called "5 points of Calvinism" teaches total depravity, limited atonement (atonement limited to the people God chooses, aka election), and irresistible grace.

I had the opportunity to ask the pastor's brother, the Lutheran college professor, what is the Lutheran view of election? He said it was a long answer and it took him about 10 minutes. At the end I noticed the length was because so many different ideas about God and what is in the Bible have to be viewed certain ways to arrive at the Lutheran view. (He did not actually get to a real answer but see further along where I mention that Lutheran doctrine states man has total inability towards God, God wants all men to be saved, and men can resist the Holy Spirit at conversion.) Here are some of his comments.

• While their is language of election it is a mystery which cannot be understood.
• There is tension between God's power and man's will.
• The Calvinistic view is too determistic. It removes the reason to preach.
• The Calvinistic view is too logical.
• God wants all men to be saved.
• God's overriding attribute is love.
• By definition love can be disappointed.

Late in the conversation I mentioned I understood the Calvinistic view of election. I also mentioned I had read in Luther's book "Bondage Of The Will" that Luther talks about election and reprobation. The professor's response was twofold. That book was early Luther and later he backed off on that view of election. Also that Melancthon cautioned Luther to back off on that view of election. Then the professor recommended that I read the part of the "Book Of Concord" called the 'Formula Of Concord'.

I had already read the Formula Of Concord and was feeling out the professor on how willing he might be to dialogue vs monologue on the subject. So this is what one Lutheran professor is teaching about "election" at the local Lutheran university.

---------------

Another Reformed doctrine is the inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and authority of Scripture. A different Lutheran professor came to our church and gave a series of lectures. His PhD is in the wisdom books and that is what his lectures were on. The following is from notes I took during his lectures.

• "Editors" of the Bible scoured wisdom which already existed in the world and brought it into the Bible, especially from Eastern religions.
• The Jews take on traditions from what is older.
• Sages searched the world for wisdom and that is why it is in the Bible.
• Part of the book of Proverbs was copied verbatim from the Egyptians.
• Scripture is tradition, not inspiration.
• Wisdom got "Jewicized" and was brought into the Bible.
• The Bible contains errors.
• Sometimes what you read in the Bible is wrong.
• God can intervene in the world, but for the most part leaves it alone.

All of these comments together demonstrate the liberal view of Scripture called higher criticism or historical criticism. Here is an excerpt about this methodology published by Paul Zimmerman in "A Seminary In Crisis". This book is about the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) seminary in St. Loius in the 1970's. On of the problems identified by the LCMS denomination with this particular LCMS seminary had to do with the view of Scripture which was being taught.

Another branch of the historical–critical method was referred to as historical criticism. It evaluated the historical data found in a biblical book and compared it to secular history and the findings of archaeology. A common assumption of users of this method was that any reference to the supernatural was to be rejected and not regarded as rooted in fact. Thus, divine intervention of God to assist Israel was rejected out of hand.

I don't think Reformed theology holds this view of Scripture. But this is what is being taught at the local Lutheran university.

 

[Pilgrim]

I've been listening to the Just and Sinner podcast by Jordan Cooper, who was formerly Reformed but is now a Lutheran pastor. He does a great job of explaining election from a Lutheran perspective.

How does he explain it?

---------------

Returning to the original post about Reformed doctrines vs. Lutheran doctrines...

I was going through my notes from earlier this year where I wrote to a couple of friends who are Reformed to explain what I was learning about Lutheranism.

...a group of Lutherans wrote and publish[ed] the "Formula Of Concord". This is a clarification and expansion of Lutheran doctrine, including election. At the time it was not universally accepted by Lutheran churches. It teaches man's complete inability towards God. God gives His Holy Spirit to men in salvation to overcome their resistance towards God. But in a different section man has the ability to resist the Holy Spirit in conversion. This is a contradiction. [In total depravity] Man can only resist God. God gives man the Holy Spirit during/near conversion to overcome this resistance but man can still resist God? The wording of this section I literally cannot logically decipher. The "formula" teaches total depravity, universal atonement, and resistible grace.

In contrast the so called "5 points of Calvinism" teaches total depravity, limited atonement (atonement limited to the people God chooses, aka election), and irresistible grace.

I had the opportunity to ask the pastor's brother, the Lutheran college professor, what is the Lutheran view of election? He said it was a long answer and it took him about 10 minutes. At the end I noticed the length was because so many different ideas about God and what is in the Bible have to be viewed certain ways to arrive at the Lutheran view. (He did not actually get to a real answer but see further along where I mention that Lutheran doctrine states man has total inability towards God, God wants all men to be saved, and men can resist the Holy Spirit at conversion.) Here are some of his comments.

• While their is language of election it is a mystery which cannot be understood.
• There is tension between God's power and man's will.
• The Calvinistic view is too determistic. It removes the reason to preach.
• The Calvinistic view is too logical.
• God wants all men to be saved.
• God's overriding attribute is love.
• By definition love can be disappointed.

Late in the conversation I mentioned I understood the Calvinistic view of election. I also mentioned I had read in Luther's book "Bondage Of The Will" that Luther talks about election and reprobation. The professor's response was twofold. That book was early Luther and later he backed off on that view of election. Also that Melancthon cautioned Luther to back off on that view of election. Then the professor recommended that I read the part of the "Book Of Concord" called the 'Formula Of Concord'.

I had already read the Formula Of Concord and was feeling out the professor on how willing he might be to dialogue vs monologue on the subject. So this is what one Lutheran professor is teaching about "election" at the local Lutheran university.

---------------

Another Reformed doctrine is the inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and authority of Scripture. A different Lutheran professor came to our church and gave a series of lectures. His PhD is in the wisdom books and that is what his lectures were on. The following is from notes I took during his lectures.

• "Editors" of the Bible scoured wisdom which already existed in the world and brought it into the Bible, especially from Eastern religions.
• The Jews take on traditions from what is older.
• Sages searched the world for wisdom and that is why it is in the Bible.
• Part of the book of Proverbs was copied verbatim from the Egyptians.
• Scripture is tradition, not inspiration.
• Wisdom got "Jewicized" and was brought into the Bible.
• The Bible contains errors.
• Sometimes what you read in the Bible is wrong.
• God can intervene in the world, but for the most part leaves it alone.

All of these comments together demonstrate the liberal view of Scripture called higher criticism or historical criticism. Here is an excerpt about this methodology published by Paul Zimmerman in "A Seminary In Crisis". This book is about the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) seminary in St. Loius in the 1970's. On of the problems identified by the LCMS denomination with this particular LCMS seminary had to do with the view of Scripture which was being taught.

Another branch of the historical–critical method was referred to as historical criticism. It evaluated the historical data found in a biblical book and compared it to secular history and the findings of archaeology. A common assumption of users of this method was that any reference to the supernatural was to be rejected and not regarded as rooted in fact. Thus, divine intervention of God to assist Israel was rejected out of hand.

I don't think Reformed theology holds this view of Scripture. But this is what is being taught at the local Lutheran university.

It is not what Lutheran conservatives believe either. Assuming this person is on the faculty of Concordia University, it seems that there may be more work to do in the "Battle for the Bible" in the LCMS. The liberals are said to have been removed from the seminaries in the late 70s, but perhaps some remain in the universities or have crept back in?

 

[Dachaser]

Chris, would thatpart of the "split" in their churches alongside things such as ordaining Gay clergy, and views on salvation issues?

 

[Dachaser]

Michael, do you know how they differ on their views regarding the 5 points of Grace then?

 

[Dachaser]

Thank you Even!
So they would be same as beingin the Confessional church, but distinct from Reformed, like their own branch altogether, correct?