# Calvinism and Lutheranism



## J. Dean

I've been over on Gene Veith's blog for a bit, and I'm finding that several of the Lutherans on that site (conservative ones from what I gather) tend to distance Lutheranism from Calvinism in some ways. Am I missing something on this? While Lutheranism differs from Calvinism on the sacraments, I didn't think that there was that much difference in other matters. 

Those of you with more experience on this, what say you about Lutheranism on divine sovereignty, election, etc? Are they with Calvin or more against him?


----------



## torstar

To me the biblical Lutherans are the easily the closest to a Truly Reformed view. Their homilies, writings, podcasts, theology, and people have been very helpful in my Road to Geneva. 

They don't accept Calvinism or its Systematic Theology at face value, but the diffs aren't that much to overcome for contact. 

[Far more so than Baptists who call themselves Reformed.]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I disagree Kent concerning the Baptist thought. Confessional Baptists hold to a strong third use of the law. Not all Lutherans do. I am a reformed Baptist and I see differences between Calvinism and Lutheranism. (as perceived in Reformed thought) It is between how they perceive the law is related to grace or the gospel. Lutherans hold to a strong dichotomous view of law and gospel instead of just seeing the distinctions between the two and how they relate and work together in sanctification. The Gospel is defined differently from theologian to theologian. Some view it as just being about justification (Lutheranism) as to where in true Calvinism (or reformed theology) it is more defined as also including sanctification and glorification. (ie the perserverance of the saints) That is how I understand it. I guess I could be incorrect. But I don't think so.

This is also a on going debate with some even now days. And I honestly believe what is being pawned off as Reformed Thought today in some Reformed Churches is actually a proto-Lutheran view of soteriology. It isn't Reformed in my estimation.


----------



## torstar

We can agree to disagree safely here...

I have spent a lot of time with biblical Lutheran media and people and much appreciate the areas of agreement. 

There are clear diffs but Lutherans kind of "invented" a lot of the theology that Reformed picked up.

(And I'm very skeptical about the level of true commitment to a confession by certain akin denominations, but that's just me and a few years of trying to fit in...)


----------



## Philip

J. Dean said:


> Those of you with more experience on this, what say you about Lutheranism on divine sovereignty, election, etc? Are they with Calvin or more against him?



The Lutherans I have talked to would say that they believe in predestination, but not Calvin's double predestination (which, truth be told, not all reformed theologians have been big on, either).

Lutherans have a huge emphasis on paradox, so for a Lutheran, law and Gospel are in paradox, as are faith and reason, foreordination and responsibility, Christ and culture, etc. Calvinists, in contrast, have been more concerned with resolving the paradoxes. Thus, for instance, Søren Kierkegaard's thought is very much within the Lutheran tradition, whereas a good Calvinist would be uncomfortable with it.

And this doesn't mention the normative principle of worship.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

torstar said:


> We can agree to disagree safely here...



And where might that be so I can understand. Especially as it pertains to the question. Actually Lutheranism has had many differing views espoused. Even semi-pelagiansim which Melancton led the Lutheran Church into. As far as Calvin and Luther were expressed they did have differences even though Luther came closer to Luther's view of the third use of the law later in life as I understand it.


----------



## J. Dean

P. F. Pugh said:


> The Lutherans I have talked to would say that they believe in predestination, but not Calvin's double predestination (which, truth be told, not all reformed theologians have been big on, either).


Now see, that doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Grillsy

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Even semi-pelagiansim which Melancton led the Lutheran Church into.



I always hear that said. All the Lutheran clergy that I know would deny this accusation. He may have softened some of what Luther said and waivered in a few spots but to say he "led the Lutheran Church into" semi-pelagianism is a bit unfair. Although, even among Lutherans, Melancthon has his critics. 

That being said, Melancthon did author the Augsburg Confession (mostly), which Master Calvin signed.


----------



## Philip

J. Dean said:


> Now see, that doesn't make sense to me



The idea is the absence of positive reprobation. Reprobation, for someone who denies double predestination, is passive---part of the foreordaining act, but not a kind of negative election, a predestination to damnation. Thus, in this view, God is active in electing people from damnation, but passive with regard to the reprobate, simply letting them fall.



Grillsy said:


> That being said, Melancthon did author the Augsburg Confession (mostly), which Master Calvin signed.



Good to know.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Grillsy said:


> I always hear that said.



There is a reason for that. The Lutheran Clergy I have known wouldn't say they were Calvinists and some would even say that we cooperate synergistically with God in Salvation. Melancthon's retreat into semi-pelagianism was a later development. Thus he could have affirm much of the reformation confessions and author the Augsburg. I think that is acknowledged by most and is common knowledge. I read a book on Covenant Theology by Peter Golding (that I looked for and can't find right now) that proposed Melanthon was one of the earlier theologians who devised a Covenant Theology in order to refute Calvinism. Sorry I can't find my copy to reference it to you.


----------



## Grillsy

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The Lutheran Clergy I have known wouldn't say they were Calvinists and some would even say that we cooperate synergistically with God in Salvation



That is surprising and sad that they would say such things. I, myself, have never known a conservative, confessional, Lutheran pastor who espoused synergism. In fact the BoC would reject such teaching. Were these LCMS Lutherans or WELS or were they ELCA? 

Quoting from _Lutheranism 101_ published in 2010 by Concordia, the publishing arm of the LCMS:

"We don't choose to follow Jesus. We don't become Christians by asking Him into our hearts. We don't make a decision for Jesus. Unbelievers cannot do these things because [they] are dead to God. And the Almighty God does not stand at the door of our hearts knocking but powerless to turn the doorknob and let Himself in. The Holy Spirit calls people to faith when and where He chooses, and He uses the Gospel to make it happen."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I did find this on a few encyclopedic web sites. It is evidently copied from source to source....



> Melanchthon's ever ready pen, clear thought, and elegant style made him the scribe of the Reformation, most public documents on that side being drawn up by him. He never attained entire in-dependence of Luther, though he gradually modified some of his positions from those of the pure Lutherism with which he set out. His development is chiefly noteworthy in regard to these two lead-ing points—the relation of the evangelium or doctrine of free grace (1) to free will and moral ability, and (2) to the law and pcenitentia or the good works connected with repentance. At first Luther's cardinal doctrine of grace appeared to Melanchthon inconsistent with any view of free will ; and, following Luther, he renounced Aristotle and philosophy in general, since "philosophers attribute everything to human power, while the sacred writings represent all moral power as lost by the fall." In the first edition of the Loci (1521) he held, to the length of fatalism, the Augustinian doctrine of irresistible grace, working according to God's immutable decrees, and denied freedom of will in matters civil and religious alike. In the Augsburg Confession (1530), which was largely due to him, freedom is claimed for the will in non-religious matters, and in the Loci of 1533 he calls the denial of freedom Stoicism, and holds that in justification there is a certain causality, though not worthiness, in the recipient subordinate to the Divine causality. In 1535, combating Laurentius Yalla, he did not deny the spiritual incapacity of the will per se, but held that this is strengthened by the word of God, to which it can cleave. The will co-operates with the word and the Holy Spirit. Finally, in 1543, he says that the cause of the difference of final destiny among men lies in the different method of treating grace which is possible to believers as to others. Man may pray for help and reject grace. This he calls free will, as the power of laying hold of grace. Melanchthon's doctrine of the three concurrent causes in conversion, viz., the Holy Spirit, the word, and the human will, suggested the semi-Pelagian position called Synergism, which was held by some of his immediate followers.



You will find it in Encyclopedia Britannica here. The encyclopædia britannica: a ... - Google Books It is on the bottom left side column to the top right side.

If you google semi-pelagian and Melancthon you will see a lot. Just give it a go. From reformed resources to secular. It is pretty common knowledge he believed in synergistic cooperation in the later years.


----------



## J. Dean

PuritanCovenanter said:


> There is a reason for that. The Lutheran Clergy I have known wouldn't say they were Calvinists and some would even say that we cooperate synergistically with God in Salvation. Melancthon's retreat into semi-pelagianism was a later development. Thus he could have affirm much of the reformation confessions and author the Augsburg. I think that is acknowledged by most and is common knowledge. I read a book on Covenant Theology by Peter Golding (that I looked for and can't find right now) that proposed Melanthon was one of the earlier theologians who devised a Covenant Theology in order to refute Calvinism. Sorry I can't find my copy to reference it to you.


 
Did Luther and Melancthon not agree on this?


----------



## Grillsy

PuritanCovenanter said:


> If you google semi-pelagian and Melancthon you will see a lot. Just give it a go. From reformed resources to secular. It is pretty common knowledge he believed in synergistic cooperation in the later years.



Touche. I still do no think it is true that he "led the Lutheran Church" into semi-pelagianism. I tried to show that in my above post. As a matter of fact some of Melancthon's ideas began to split the Lutherans after Luther's death.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Well, your experience with Lutherans and mine are far different. One quote doesn't make a whole stance for the whole of Lutherans. Kind of like Presbyterians. Kind of like Baptists. lol. There are some solid Lutherans and some that are less than. From the Missouri Synod down they tend to grow semi. I knew a few Missouri guys who were semi. They were Pastors.


----------



## Grillsy

PuritanCovenanter said:


> One quote doesn't make a whole stance for the whole of Lutherans. Kind of like Presbyterians. Kind of like Baptists. lol.



Very true.


----------



## NB3K

What's amazing is that John Calvin & Martin Luther believed in the same Providence, Election, and many other things, I believe the only thing that separated them was on communion.
Calvin considers Luther to be his spiritual father.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

J. Dean said:


> Did Luther and Melancthon not agree on this?



Luther held to a very strong stance that man was utterly depraved and was dead. One book that is a must read for Christians is Luther's Bondage of the Will. I heartily recommend it.


----------



## Philip

NB3K said:


> What's amazing is that John Calvin & Martin Luther believed in the same Providence, Election, and many other things, I believe the only thing that separated them was on communion.
> Calvin considers Luther to be his spiritual father.



Normative vs. regulative principle? They do look awfully similar on a lot of things, but Calvin tends to be more systematic.


----------



## JM

Rev. Fisk on YouTube has taken a few swings at Calvinism. He calls Reformed theology scholasticism and rationalistic. He once mentioned Calvin's comment about Jesus showing up in the upper room after His resurrection, Calvin believe Jesus must have got into the room via a window, Fisk used this it illustrated a point...that I don't recall.



jm


----------



## NB3K

P. F. Pugh said:


> Normative vs. regulative principle? They do look awfully similar on a lot of things, but Calvin tends to be more systematic.



Yes I believe Luther would agree and affirm the Doctrine's of Grace, I have glanced at a number of his works in Luther's glosses and scholia on Romans and I am with Luther all the way. But Calvin shines brighter as if the Holy Spirit meant to have a greater our pouring on Calvin. Of all the Reformers, I believe Calvin produced a 100 fold.


----------



## discipulo

P. F. Pugh said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's amazing is that John Calvin & Martin Luther believed in the same Providence, Election, and many other things, I believe the only thing that separated them was on communion.
> Calvin considers Luther to be his spiritual father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normative vs. Regulative principle? They do look awfully similar on a lot of things, but Calvin tends to be more systematic.
Click to expand...


As far as the Normative vs. Regulative Principle of Worship is concerned. We may be closer to the Lutheran principle than we confessionally should be...


----------



## mvdm

Kuyper saw large differences between Calvinism and Lutheranism:



> Who had the clearest insight into the reformatory principle, worked it out most fully, and applied it most broadly, history points to the Thinker of Geneva and not to the Hero of Wittenberg. Luther as well as Calvin contended for a direct fellowship with God, but Luther took it up from its subjective, anthropological side, and not from its objective, cosmological side as Calvin did. Luther's starting-point was the special-soteriological principle of a justifying faith; while Calvin's extending far wider, lay in the general cosmological principle of the sovereignty of God. As a natural result of this, Luther also continued to consider the Church as the representative and authoritative “teacher,” standing between God and the believer, while Calvin was the first to seek the Church in the believers themselves. As far as he was able, Luther still leaned upon the Romish view of the sacraments, and upon the Romish cultus, while Calvin was the first in both to draw the line which extended immediately from God to man and from man to God. Moreover, in all Lutheran countries the Reformation originated from the princes rather than from the people, and thereby passed under the power of the magistrate, who took his stand in the Church officially as her highest Bishop, and therefore was unable to change either the social or the political life in accordance with its principle. Lutheranism restricted itself to au exclusively ecclesiastical and theological character, while Calvinism put its impress in and outside the Church upon every department of human life. Hence Lutheranism is nowhere spoken of as the creator of a peculiar life-form; even the name of “Lutheranism” is hardly ever mentioned; while the students of history with increasing unanimity recognize Calvinism as the creator of a world of human life entirely its own.


The Stone Lectures CALVINISM AS A LIFE SYSTEM Page 23,24


----------



## Heidelberg1

J. Dean said:


> I've been over on Gene Veith's blog for a bit, and I'm finding that several of the Lutherans on that site (conservative ones from what I gather) tend to distance Lutheranism from Calvinism in some ways. Am I missing something on this? While Lutheranism differs from Calvinism on the sacraments, I didn't think that there was that much difference in other matters.
> 
> Those of you with more experience on this, what say you about Lutheranism on divine sovereignty, election, etc? Are they with Calvin or more against him?



This was an interesting discussion between Kim Riddlebarger and Todd Wiken (LCMS) on Issues, etc. They go through the five points. 

Kim Riddlebarger on Calvinism & Lutheranism: A Comparison


----------



## jwithnell

I think it's fair to say that the Reformed folks built on a foundation made by Luther. Any time you have a common root, there's likely to be similarities. And I agree with an above poster that _Bondage of the Will_ is a must-read!

It seems to me that consubstantiation was an outflow of another philosophy within Lutheranism and for the life of me, I can't remember what it is. It pertains here primarily because I remember it being distinct from reformed thought. The online resources focus on communion and not the broader viewpoint that I'm trying to remember.


----------



## dudley

I was a Lutheran for a while after leaving the Roman catholic church and before becoming a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian. I was also a Methodist after being Lutheran and an Episcopalian right after I left the Roman catholic church. The biblical Lutherans are the easily the closest to a Truly Reformed Protestants concerning the bible and basic beliefs. They don't accept Calvinism or its Systematic Theology 

On the sacraments they are very close to the Roman Catholics particularly on the Lords Supper…they believe Christ is truly present in the bread ..but differ from the Romanists who believe the bread and wine actually become the real body of Christ and they worship it…..which I think is repulsive. Lutherans at least do not worship the bread.


----------



## James Swan

NB3K said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Normative vs. regulative principle? They do look awfully similar on a lot of things, but Calvin tends to be more systematic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I believe Luther would agree and affirm the Doctrine's of Grace, I have glanced at a number of his works in Luther's glosses and scholia on Romans and I am with Luther all the way. But Calvin shines brighter as if the Holy Spirit meant to have a greater our pouring on Calvin. Of all the Reformers, I believe Calvin produced a 100 fold.
Click to expand...

 
While Luther certainly believed in double predestination, it was expressed in a much different way than the Reformed posit. To claim Luther’s allegiance though to a bare stated five points of Calvinism is fraught with contextual danger. Anyone attempting to baldly attribute these five popular theological slogans without qualification to Luther do not have his writings on their side. For Luther it is the hidden God who predestines, but this God is not to be sought after or scrutinized. He is to be avoided entirely. As a pastor, Luther was concerned about those who would be entangled by scrupulous introspection, something that plagued him. Therefore, discussions about predestination were best avoided. The emphasis was placed on the positive proclamations of the gospel. He would advise his hearers to cling to the positive voice of Christ’s gospel. For Luther, discussions of predestination provide little comfort to the Christ’s sheep. Luther use of paradox allowed for an unlimited atonement in scope. He rarely discusses any sort of irresistible grace, and even those with the Holy Spirit can have that Spirit depart.


----------



## Sola Fide

Having spent some time investigating Lutheranism (where I live there are no confessional Reformed churches but there is a Lutheran one), here are some thoughts.

On election, Lutherans officially believe in single predestination. But their emphasis on the revealed God in Christ (disliking talking about the hidden things as James says) means it doesn’t really feature much. In fact, much of the popular Lutheranism you might encounter will talk as if the whole idea of predestination is an alien, reformed concept. They much prefer to talk about election in the concrete context of baptism.

You mention differences on the sacraments. Of course, the theology here has a big impact. My reading of the Reformed position is that primarily, the sacraments nurture our faith in Christ. But for Lutherans, baptism actually imparts faith in infants. And there seems to be a strong emphasis in preaching on looking to our baptism, rather than to the work of Christ and the need for faith (Lutherans no doubt will say this is a false choice).


----------



## J. Dean

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Luther held to a very strong stance that man was utterly depraved and was dead. One book that is a must read for Christians is Luther's Bondage of the Will. I heartily recommend it.


 
Funny you should bring that up. That's what I'm reading  And it was interesting to see how close Luther sounds to Calvin on depravity and election.

---------- Post added at 07:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 AM ----------




Sola Fide said:


> Having spent some time investigating Lutheranism (where I live there are no confessional Reformed churches but there is a Lutheran one), here are some thoughts.
> 
> On election, Lutherans officially believe in single predestination. But their emphasis on the revealed God in Christ (disliking talking about the hidden things as James says) means it doesn’t really feature much. In fact, much of the popular Lutheranism you might encounter will talk as if the whole idea of predestination is an alien, reformed concept. They much prefer to talk about election in the concrete context of baptism.
> 
> You mention differences on the sacraments. Of course, the theology here has a big impact. My reading of the Reformed position is that primarily, the sacraments nurture our faith in Christ. But for Lutherans, baptism actually imparts faith in infants. And there seems to be a strong emphasis in preaching on looking to our baptism, rather than to the work of Christ and the need for faith (Lutherans no doubt will say this is a false choice).


 Now how do they get around the whole issue of baptism? Because that sounds no different than the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation by baptism.


----------



## Sola Fide

J. Dean said:


> Now how do they get around the whole issue of baptism? Because that sounds no different than the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation by baptism.



They do affirm that baptism saves. Luther reconciles this with justification through faith by saying that infant baptism creates the faith by which an infant is justified.


----------



## MICWARFIELD

I completely agree Randy. Calvinism differs from Lutheranism with regard to the strong Law-Gospel distinction. Although, a great many modern Reformed authors have adopted the Lutheran view.


----------



## JM

CALVINISM AND LUTHERANISM, THE WORKS OF BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD, Volume V

It is unfortunate that a great body of the scientific discussion which, since Max Goebel ("Die religiose Eigenthumlichkeit der lutherischen und der reformirten Kirchen," Bonn, 1837) first clearly posited the problem, has been carried on somewhat vigorously with a view to determining the fundamental principle of Calvinism, has sought particularly to bring out its contrast with some other theological tendency, commonly with the sister Protestant tendency of Lutheranism. Undoubtedly somewhat different spirits inform Calvinism and Lutheranism. And undoubtedly the distinguishing spirit of Calvinism is rooted not in some extraneous circumstance of its antecedents or origin -- as, for example, Zwingli's tendency to intellectualism, or the superior humanistic culture and predilections of Zwingli and Calvin, or the democratic instincts of the Swiss, or the radical rationalism of the Reformed leaders as distinguished from the merely modified traditionalism of the Lutherans -- but in its formative principle. But it is misleading to find the formative principle of either type of Protestantism in its difference from the other; they have infinitely more in common than in distinction. And certainly nothing could be more misleading than to represent them (as is often done) as owing their differences to their more pure embodiment respectively of the principle of predestination and that of justification by faith. The doctrine of predestination is not the formative principle of Calvinism, the root from which it springs. It is one of its logical consequences, one of the branches which it has inevitably thrown out. It has been firmly embraced and consistently proclaimed by Calvinists because it is an implicate of theism, is directly given in the religious consciousness, and is an absolutely essential element in evangelical religion, without which its central truth of complete dependence upon the free mercy of a saving God can not be maintained. And so little is it a peculiarity of the Reformed theology, that it underlay and gave its form and power to the whole Reformation movement; which was, as from the spiritual point of view, a great revival of religion, so, from the doctrinal point of view, a great revival of Augustinianism. There was accordingly no difference among the Reformers on this point: Luther and Melanchthon and the compromising Butzer were no less jealous for absolute predestination than Zwingli and Calvin. Even Zwingli could not surpass Luther in sharp and unqualified assertion of it: and it was not Calvin but Melanchthon who gave it a formal place in his primary scientific statement of the elements of the Protestant faith (cf. Schaff, "Creeds," i. 1877, p. 451; E. F. Karl Miller, "Symbolik," Erlangen and Leipzig, 1896, p. 75; C. J. Niemijer, "De Strijd over de Leer der Praedestinatie in de IXde Eeuw," Groningen, 1889, p. 21; H. Voigt, "Fundamentaldogmatik," Gotha, 1874, pp. 469-470). Just as little can the doctrine of justification by faith be represented as specifically Lutheran. Not merely has it from the beginning been a substantial element in the Reformed faith, but it is only among the Reformed that it has retained or can retain its purity, free from the tendency to become a doctrine of justification on account of faith (cf. E. Bohl, "Von der Rechtfertigung durch den Glauben," Leipzig, 1890). Here, too, the difference between the two types of Protestantism is one of degree, not of kind (cf. C. P. Krauth, "The Conservative Reformation and its Theology," Philadelphia, 1872). Lutheranism, the product of a poignant sense of sin, born from the throes of a guilt-burdened soul which can not be stilled until it finds peace in God's decree of justification, is apt to rest in this peace; while Calvinism, the product of an overwhelming vision of God, born from the reflection in the heart of man of the majesty of a God who will not give His glory to another, can not pause until it places the scheme of salvation itself in relation to a complete world-view, in which it becomes subsidiary to the glory of the Lord God Almighty. Calvinism asks with Lutheranism, indeed, that most poignant of all questions, What shall I do to be saved? and answers it as Lutheranism answers it. But the great question which presses upon it is, How shall God be glorified? It is the contemplation of God and zeal for His honor which in it draws out the emotions and absorbs endeavor; and the end of human as of all other existence, of salvation as of all other attainment, is to it the glory of the Lord of all. Full justice is done in it to the scheme of redemption and the experience of salvation, because full justice is done in it to religion itself which underlies these elements of it. It begins, it centers, it ends with the vision of God in His glory: and it sets itself before all things to render to God His rights in every sphere of life- activity.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

J. Dean said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason for that. The Lutheran Clergy I have known wouldn't say they were Calvinists and some would even say that we cooperate synergistically with God in Salvation. Melancthon's retreat into semi-pelagianism was a later development. Thus he could have affirm much of the reformation confessions and author the Augsburg. I think that is acknowledged by most and is common knowledge. I read a book on Covenant Theology by Peter Golding (that I looked for and can't find right now) that proposed Melanthon was one of the earlier theologians who devised a Covenant Theology in order to refute Calvinism. Sorry I can't find my copy to reference it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Luther and Melancthon not agree on this?
Click to expand...

 
From my reading many years ago, if I recollect correctly, they didn't agree but Luther held Melancthon in high regard and as a close friend. They had a very deep loving friendship that endured a lot together. They fought the good fight together against the their flesh, the world and the devil. Luther always admired PM for his scholarship and struggle for finding out the truth.


----------



## Reformation Monk

I've spent time in both the Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod..... ( the ELCA isn't even worth mentioning here in this topic; as they have become totally apostate ). 

Here are the main "obvious" differences that I saw. 

1. They do believe in the "real presence." - the element's and or host containing the actual blood and body of our Lord. 
2. They believe in baptismal regeneration. 
3. They believe that one can lose their salvation. 

These are all area's that of course point to Rome and it's Heretical Mass in my opinion. 

Dave


----------



## Reformation Monk

After further reflection of my above comments I would just like to add: that Lutheran's of course place a very heavy emphasis on the Sacrament's, i.e., Baptism, Communion and the proclamation of the Word; as being a mean's of Grace. 

But in a Catholic "Continual Grace" or in other words; it's the Church and Faith which is Faith and Works. In other words, to Lutherans, one must stay close to the Sacrament's of the Church to continue to receive saving Grace. While a Lutheran would never say, as a Catholic would, "_I am *being* saved_." They would affirm that they are saved by faith, but in the same breath they would say that one can lose salvation if one drift's away long enough. 

I think it would be also interesting if someone who is a lot more familiar with Reformation History that I am; to maybe help highlight the differences between Calvin and Luther? I think that would be pretty helpful to the OP.

Dave

P.S... I'm not saying that the Reformed Church doesn't believe that the Sacrament's as a means of Grace, but it is different then my above mentioned Lutheran meaning.


----------



## James Swan

Why do Lutheran believe salvation can be lost? Why do the Reformed say it can't?

I recently came across a few paragraphs from Reformed theologian Geerhardus Vos about this. Ponder this, as I have been doing:



> When we compare the representations of the on final state of man as they have been developed by the different theological traditions, there immediately arises a fundamental difference of great importance for the doctrine of the covenant of works. According to the Lutherans man has ready reached his destination in that God had placed him in a state of uprightness. Eternal life was already in his possession. In his situation the highest ideal was realized. Nothing more need be added to execute God's purpose in creating man. Man was mutable, that is true, and he could fall away from the state of original uprightness and bliss. But for the Lutheran conception this is not a stage that points forward to something else, but rather that which was usual and normal and to be expected. From this it follows that the same condition returns in the state of grace to which fallen man is brought by Christ. Precisely because mankind's destination had already been reached before the fall in Adam, Christ can do nothing but restore what was lost in Adam. And since the destination already realized was fully compatible with mutability and the possibility of falling, the sinner who has been brought back to his destination by Christ must necessarily have to remain at this level. Lutheran theology is, therefore, wholly consistent when it teaches an apostasy of the saints. It does not at all object to uniting the state of justification and sonship with the possibility of such an apostasy.



-snip- (I 'm skipping the discussion of the Pelagian view) -snip-



> The Reformed view of the original state of man leads to a totally different result. It was a state of perfect uprightness in which he knew the good and did it consciously. As long as he remained in that state, he could also be sure of God's favor. Up to this point the Reformed view concurs with the Lutheran. But whereas the latter can be satisfied by perpetuating such a state and extending it indefinitely, the Reformed view fixes its gaze on something higher. It sees man not as being placed in eternal bliss from the beginning, but as being placed in such a way that he might attain to eternal bliss. There still hovers above him the possibility of sin and death which is given with his mutable freedom. He is free to do the good out of his good nature but he has not yet attained the highest freedom which can do good only. The latter is placed before him as an ideal. The means of obtaining it is the covenant of works. Here too the state of grace is again ultimately determined by the idea of man's destiny in the state of original uprightness. What we inherit in the second Adam is not restricted to what we lost in the first Adam: it is much rather the full realization of what the first Adam would have achieved for us had he remained unfallen and been confirmed in his state. Someone placed in that state can never again fall from it. As truly as Christ is a perfect Saviour, so truly must he bestow on us the perseverance of the saints.


Source: Richard Gaffin, ed. _Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos _(Philipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing co., 1980) p.242-243.


----------



## Notthemama1984

James Swan said:


> For Luther, discussions of predestination provide little comfort to the Christ’s sheep.



I was under the impression that Luther wrote on predestination much more than Calvin. Am I mistaken?


----------



## James Swan

Chaplainintraining said:


> James Swan said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Luther, discussions of predestination provide little comfort to the Christ’s sheep.
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that Luther wrote on predestination much more than Calvin. Am I mistaken?
Click to expand...


In his book _Chosen By God_, R.C. Sproul lays out his past intellectual resistance to the doctrine of predestination. “My struggle with predestination began early in my Christian life. I knew a professor of philosophy in college who was a convinced Calvinist. He set forth the so-called ‘Reformed’ view of predestination. I did not like it. I did not like it at all. I fought against it tooth and nail all the way through college.” Part of Sproul’s argumentation for eventually embracing the Reformed view includes a list comparing those who hold similar Reformed-esque views against those who do not. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards are stacked against Pelagius, Arminius, Melanchthon, Wesley, and Finny. Sproul points out that such a comparison doesn’t prove one view correct over the other, but “we must take seriously the fact that such learned men agreed on this difficult subject.” Sproul states,



> It is important for us to see that the Reformed doctrine of predestination was not invented by John Calvin. There is nothing in Calvin’s view of predestination that was not earlier propounded by Luther and Augustine before him. Later, Lutheranism did not follow Luther on this matter but Melanchthon, who altered his views after Luther’s death. It is also noteworthy that in his famous treatise on theology, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin wrote sparingly on the subject. Luther wrote more about predestination than did Calvin.



Luther wrote more about predestination than Calvin? Melanchthon altered Luther’s view on predestination for subsequent Lutherans? Such statements could easily lead to equivocating Luther and Calvin’s view of predestination, as well as Luther’s view with the so-called five points of Calvinism. Some in the Reformed camp have done precisely this. Lorraine Boettner’s The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination asserts Luther “went into the doctrine as heartily as did Calvin himself” and “He even asserted it with more warmth and proceeded to much harsher lengths in defending it than Calvin ever did.” Duane Edward Spencer’s popular primer on Calvinism places Luther among those “stalwart theologians” that have held “to the precious doctrines of grace known as Calvinism.” Edwin Palmer’s introduction to Calvinism refers to Luther as a “good Calvinist.” The classic Steele and Thomas overview of Calvinism includes Luther as a champion listed on the “role call of Calvinists.”

Sproul probably isn’t in error in his claim that Luther wrote more about predestination than Calvin did in his Institutes, if indeed Sproul is comparing this to _The Bondage of the Will_. Throughout his career though, Calvin did indeed write more on the subject than Luther did. After his _Bondage of the Will_, only a handful of brief statements can be corralled together. 

Not all from a Reformed perspectives are so haphazard with Luther. Herman Bavinck posits much differently: “Luther accordingly, increasingly avoided the speculative doctrine of predestination, the will of divine good pleasure, the hidden God, preferring to focus on the ministry of Word and sacraments, to which grace is bound, and giving increasing prominence to God’s universal redemptive will, his expressed will."


----------



## Notthemama1984

James Swan said:


> Sproul probably isn’t in error in his claim that Luther wrote more about predestination than Calvin did in his Institutes, if indeed Sproul is comparing this to The Bondage of the Will. Throughout his career though, Calvin did indeed write more on the subject than Luther did. After his Bondage of the Will, only a handful of brief statements can be corralled together.
> 
> Not all from a Reformed perspectives are so haphazard with Luther. Herman Bavinck posits much differently: “Luther accordingly, increasingly avoided the speculative doctrine of predestination, the will of divine good pleasure, the hidden God, preferring to focus on the ministry of Word and sacraments, to which grace is bound, and giving increasing prominence to God’s universal redemptive will, his expressed will."



Thanks for the info.


----------



## James Swan

This excerpt was from a seminary paper, my apologies for lack of documentation. I'll probably post an extended version of this on my blog.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Your paper or someone else's?


----------



## James Swan

Chaplainintraining said:


> Your paper or someone else's?


 
Oh sorry, it's my paper. I wrote it recently for Mid-America Reformed Seminary. I've been doing Luther studies though for a number of years. 

I posted a larger extract here.

The paper was around 30 pages, and I went into comparing Luther's theology to the 5 points of Calvinism. I'll probably post other excerpts, time allowing.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Cool. Looks like good reading.


----------



## ddharr

I grew up in a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church attended until I was about 19. We had 3 years of catechism- 12 years old to 14- using the Luther's Catechism. This was a requirement prior to taking the Lords Supper. Maybe I was missing a few cylinders at the time but I was never taught the elements become the actual blood and flesh of Christ, I was taught they were representative. I was about 19 when I first heard about John Calvin. The 5 points of Calvinism when introduced to me were extremely helpful in organizing my files in my brain, seemed I had all kinds of thoughts on doctrines. For example, We were taught that people who do not believe in Christ will go to Hell and if your in Hell Christ did not love you yet he died for you. A big problem I had and have with the Lutherans is their adoption of Roman Catholic ten commandments which eliminates the 2nd commandment. They still, however, seem to have a reasonable worship service. As I think about it, other than their unsystematic theology, it is probably not much different than what I am experiencing in the URC I am attending.


----------



## J. Dean

Good article. Well-written.


----------

