# Calvinistic Lutherans



## BG

Do any of you know of any "Calvinistic Lutheran" groups ?


----------



## InevitablyReformed

I know that the LCMS and ELCA are definitely not Calvinists as neither of them affirm "double" predestination. They also believe that one can have saving faith and lose it. The WELS denom. is probably your best chance:

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) -


----------



## JDKetterman

InevitablyReformed said:


> I know that the LCMS and ELCA are definitely not Calvinists as neither of them affirm "double" predestination. They also believe that one can have saving faith and lose it. The WELS denom. is probably your best chance:
> 
> Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) -



I'm afraid you wouldn't have much "luck" there either. They are more confessional than the LCMS and their confessions do teach that one can fall away. If you want to commune with them, you need to believe fully in the Lutheran confessions.


----------



## dannyhyde

WDG said:


> Do any of you know of any "Calvinistic Lutheran" groups ?



What exactly do you mean by "Calvinistic Lutherans?"


----------



## JM

Crypto-Calvinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## shackleton

The Lutheran theology I have read, Mueller, which is the book they use at Concordia, states that Calvinism means to read too much into what is specifically stated in scripture. They do not like the Calvinistic notion of election or predestination.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

The WELS would be horrified to see themselves described as Calvinistic Lutherans!


----------



## PresbyDane

The funny thing being hat if you go back and read Luther himself he is just as outspoken on the socalled "calvinistic issues" as Calvin was.


----------



## JM

Lutheranism was hijacked by Philipp Melanchthon and should be called Melanchthonism.


----------



## PresbyDane



Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ReformedChapin

Mg gf is one, she adheres to the doctrines of grace but goes to a Lutheran Church. 

-----Added 1/3/2009 at 01:27:21 EST-----



JM said:


> Lutheranism was hijacked by Philipp Melanchthon and should be called Melanchthonism.



Why do you say that? I think their concept of election and the Lords Supper is very Lutheranish. At least for the WELS and LCMS.


----------



## dannyhyde

JM said:


> Lutheranism was hijacked by Philipp Melanchthon and should be called Melanchthonism.



Serious Lutheran scholars, among them Robert Kolb, would seriously disagree. It's an old canard the "true"(_gnesio_) Lutherans threw up against those they called "crypto-Calvinists." The baseless nature of the claim can be demonstrated by the fact that both groups considered themselves followers of Luther and that nearly all in both camps were educated under Melanchthon, whether in person or through his texts.


----------



## BG

dannyhyde said:


> WDG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any of you know of any "Calvinistic Lutheran" groups ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you mean by "Calvinistic Lutherans?"
Click to expand...


Lutherans that have a Calvinistic view of Salvation.


----------



## Poimen

R. Scott Clark said:


> The WELS would be horrified to see themselves described as Calvinistic Lutherans!



True but I am still  at your description.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

WDG said:


> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WDG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any of you know of any "Calvinistic Lutheran" groups ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you mean by "Calvinistic Lutherans?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lutherans that have a Calvinistic view of Salvation.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by "Calvinistic"?

If by "Calvinistic" you mean, "the five points," that's a very truncated definition of "Calvinist." 

The confessional Lutherans (who hold the Book of Concord) reject limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. They agree with us on total depravity (or at least some of them do) and they agree with us on unconditional election. They reject reprobation also. 

We (confessional Reformed and Lutherans) agree on justification and on the broad outlines of the law/gospel distinction.

Beyond soteriology, we disagree on Christology, baptism, the supper, ecclesiology, and worship among other things.

Here are a couple of charts that might help:

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/Ref-RomeChart1.pdf

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/Ref-RomeChart2.pdf


----------



## JM

> Luther and the Lutheran church at first shared the doctrine of predestination and election, Luther in his treatment of free will reproducing the Augustinian form of the doctrine in a strict manner. The predestination of Luther and Melanchthon proceeded, not from their conception of God, but rather from the doctrine of sin and grace. Melanchthon was less disposed than Luther to press the doctrine of absolute predestination, and, in his "synergistic" tendencies, laid increasing stress on human freedom, until he at length rejected the doctrine of absolute predestination. He was blamed by strict Lutheranism for yielding too much to Pelagianism. But the Lutheran "Formula of Concord," prepared in 1577, was not a very logical and consistent presentation of the case, for, opposed at points to Augustinianism, it fell back, in the end, on election in the Augustinian spirit. Or, to put the matter in another form, the "Formula of Concord" may be said to have held with Augustinianism, but to have differed by maintaining a Universal call along witha particular election, and it rejected the decree of reprobation. Later Lutheranism adopted a moderate form of doctrine, wherein predestination was often identified with prescience. But Lutheranism ought not, in strictness, to be identified, as is sometimes done, with the Arminian theory. The Lutheran doctrine of predestination was further developed by Schleiermacher, who emphasized the efficiency of grace, while adopting its universality in the Lutheran sense.



NETBible: Predestination



> The Modern Lutheran church does not stand with Martin Luther on the issue of predestination, and thus suffers from an internal contradiction. It's efforts to modify Luther's views and to present a more moderate case for predestination ultimately end in conflict with Luther's uncompromising doctrine of God's Sovereignty. However, before critically analyzing the writings of Luther, an examination must be made of the various presuppositions possible in approaching Luther's writings.





> ...Luther through the eyes of the Book of Concord, the standard book of Lutheran confession, which was compiled thirty-four years after Luther's death in 1546. In other words, the Concord Paradigm looks at more recent developments of Lutheran theology and reads Luther in that light.



Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination



> He had great loyalty to Martin Luther. This relationship was somewhat impaired in the later years of Luther because of doctrinal differences, but the relationship was never destroyed.





> Melanchthon modified his position on predestination and free will. In the beginning he held to the convictions of Luther, but later changed. He made this change to appease Rome and to find common ground with the papal system, for Rome was violently opposed to election and predestination. Melanchthon had many conferences with Reformed and Roman divines, and wanted peace at all costs. It was the influence of Erasmus, the humanist, that caused him to abandon what he thought was fatalistic theology. He taught a cooperation (synergism) of the divine and human wills in the work of conversion. He went back to semi-Pelagianism and laid the ground for Arminianism in Lutheran theology. He believed that God had to take the initiative to convict of sin, but man could accept or reject divine grace. Thus he said, “God draws the willing” to salvation. He would not, however, condemn the doctrines of unconditional election, predestination and total depravity of the human will because Luther had always held to these so tenaciously. He tolerated Augustinianism as a theological opinion, but rejected it himself. The Augsburg Confession, which is the basis for all Lutheran theology, is a product of Melanchthon and not of Luther.



http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/jac_arnold/CH.Arnold.RMT.5.pdf


----------



## Staphlobob

There is a world of difference between Luther and "Lutheranism." If anything Luther was more of a "5 pointer" than Calvin. 

OTOH, "Lutheranism" didn't really come about until 1580 and the completion of the Book of Concord. By that time there was a significant change in their understanding of salvation. What is authoritative for Lutheranism is the Book of Concord, not Luther. I used to say - and still do - that Lutherans hold to the "T" and "U" of TULIP. But the LIP is thrown out.

BTW, the ELCA is NOT Lutheran by any known definition of the word. Heaven only knows what is the nature of that association.


----------



## PresbyDane

I would fully  with that.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Staphlobob said:


> There is a world of difference between Luther and "Lutheranism." If anything Luther was more of a "5 pointer" than Calvin.
> 
> OTOH, "Lutheranism" didn't really come about until 1580 and the completion of the Book of Concord. By that time there was a significant change in their understanding of salvation. What is authoritative for Lutheranism is the Book of Concord, not Luther. I used to say - and still do - that Lutherans hold to the "T" and "U" of TULIP. But the LIP is thrown out.
> 
> BTW, the ELCA is NOT Lutheran by any known definition of the word. Heaven only knows what is the nature of that association.



Kevin, I agree. Just to be clear, that's why I spoke of confessional Lutherans.


----------



## BG

Are Confessional Lutherans Reformed? 

Is there a movement within Lutheranism toward Reform?


----------



## MOSES

This is an intersting thread for me. I am a member of the OPC, but I am attending a Lutheran Church (LCMS). I will continue to attend until a Reformed church gets started in my area (there are no reformed churches near where I live, and I hold membership at the nearest OPC to me). The LCMS has closed communion, so my family and I are not able to partake, unless we became members. 
So, I have a dilema. Do I become a member, setting aside some of my disagreements, so I can partake, OR, do I continue as is and not partake, essentially being just like one who is under church discipline and not able to partake (which, in my opinion, is not a good position to be in)? Or, do I commute to the OPC I'm a member of at least once a month when they take communion?

Note: I met with the pastor of the LCMS before attending and we had a 5 hour conversation on theology, mainly the sacraments and calvinism. We were actually in agreement on a lot of things, much more then I expected. Some of the key things, which may perhaps relate to this thread were these:

- Monergistic salvation (we were in agreement). The Lutheran Pastor condemned arminianism.
- The Lord's supper. We both seemed to hold to Calvins view (though he espoused Melanchton's...but Calvin and Melanchton's views were essentially the same), and we both rejected Zwinglism (memorialism) and Rome's Transubstantiation (as well as Consubstantiation).
- Baptism. We both saw baptism as a sign and seal of being brought into the kingdom by the work of the Holy Spirit. I.e., Baptism is "passive" in nature, not "active".
- A rejection of pre-millinialism and NT only Christianity
- A support of the Law of God...that it is both useful and necessary, and essential in a Law/Gospel distinction.

So....we were in agreement on How God saves (monorgestically) as well as the sacraments.
Of course, we quibbled quite a bit over Limited atonement. But he did agree that the atonement was not universal in the sense that it is universally effectual; that it is effectual to believers only. In this way he was able to say that the atonement is "Limited".


----------



## Staphlobob

MOSES said:


> and we both rejected ... (as well as Consubstantiation).



This is great! It's wonderful to see someone acknowledge that "consubstantiation" is not a Lutheran teaching. Amen!


----------



## shackleton

Is it possible to be non-Calvinistic reformed? That is, they came out of the reformation, are not dispensational or revivalistic, practice the sacraments and baptize babies. They are not a part of the Anabaptist revolution. I am thinking of Lutherans and Anglicans they are technically reformed but not Calvinist's. (I am not referring to liberals)


----------



## ReformedChapin

Staphlobob said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> and we both rejected ... (as well as Consubstantiation).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is great! It's wonderful to see someone acknowledge that "consubstantiation" is not a Lutheran teaching. Amen!
Click to expand...


From my conversations with Lutherans they reject the terminology consubstantiation but still hold to a physical presence in the sacrament otherwise known to them as the Sacramental Union of Christ in, with and under the elements.


----------



## MOSES

Didn't Calvin not only sign and support the Augsburg confession (Lutheran confession), but also specifically helped (infuenced) Melanchton in his wording on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Teaching that the body and blood of Christ are truly "exhibited" in the sacrament...and that they are *not* merely represented. Calvin also saying that the sacrament is not an empty sign, but that the thing signifed must truly be there.
???


----------



## Scott1

Most of us are aware, Luther's _Bondage of the Will_ is one of the strongest advocates for what we now call "Calvinism." It is a classic in terms of helping people understanding the "five points" and the overarching topic of the sovereignty of God.


----------



## ReformedChapin

Scott1 said:


> Most of us are aware, Luther's _Bondage of the Will_ is one of the strongest advocates for what we now call "Calvinism." It is a classic in terms of helping people understanding the "five points" and the overarching topic of the sovereignty of God.



I was confused by Bondage of the Will when trying to understand Lutheran system of soteriology. Luther in Bondage seemed to me at first glance to hold to the 5 points to me in that book when fighting Erasmus; he just didn't address all the issues clearly.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

MOSES said:


> Didn't Calvin not only sign and support the Augsburg confession (Lutheran confession), but also specifically helped (infuenced) Melanchton in his wording on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Teaching that the body and blood of Christ are truly "exhibited" in the sacrament...and that they are *not* merely represented. Calvin also saying that the sacrament is not an empty sign, but that the thing signifed must truly be there.
> ???



Yes, Calvin most likely signed the unrevised (invariata) 1530 Augsburg and he certainly supported the 1540/1 (I can't remember just now which year) Variata, in which Philipp revised Art 10 on the Supper (as already suggested in this thread).

-----Added 1/3/2009 at 09:45:55 EST-----



MOSES said:


> This is an intersting thread for me. I am a member of the OPC, but I am attending a Lutheran Church (LCMS). I will continue to attend until a Reformed church gets started in my area (there are no reformed churches near where I live, and I hold membership at the nearest OPC to me). The LCMS has closed communion, so my family and I are not able to partake, unless we became members.
> So, I have a dilema. Do I become a member, setting aside some of my disagreements, so I can partake, OR, do I continue as is and not partake, essentially being just like one who is under church discipline and not able to partake (which, in my opinion, is not a good position to be in)? Or, do I commute to the OPC I'm a member of at least once a month when they take communion?
> 
> Note: I met with the pastor of the LCMS before attending and we had a 5 hour conversation on theology, mainly the sacraments and calvinism. We were actually in agreement on a lot of things, much more then I expected. Some of the key things, which may perhaps relate to this thread were these:
> 
> - Monergistic salvation (we were in agreement). The Lutheran Pastor condemned arminianism.
> - The Lord's supper. We both seemed to hold to Calvins view (though he espoused Melanchton's...but Calvin and Melanchton's views were essentially the same), and we both rejected Zwinglism (memorialism) and Rome's Transubstantiation (as well as Consubstantiation).
> - Baptism. We both saw baptism as a sign and seal of being brought into the kingdom by the work of the Holy Spirit. I.e., Baptism is "passive" in nature, not "active".
> - A rejection of pre-millinialism and NT only Christianity
> - A support of the Law of God...that it is both useful and necessary, and essential in a Law/Gospel distinction.
> 
> So....we were in agreement on How God saves (monorgestically) as well as the sacraments.
> Of course, we quibbled quite a bit over Limited atonement. But he did agree that the atonement was not universal in the sense that it is universally effectual; that it is effectual to believers only. In this way he was able to say that the atonement is "Limited".



Yes, we do have a lot more in common with confessional Lutherans than many on both sides seem to recognize. I see a nearly Luthero-phobia among some Scottish and American Presbyterians and there is definitely a Calvino-phobia among most confessional Lutherans. I've written on the latter (coming out this year, Dv) but I don't have a complete grasp on the Luthero-phobia yet. Here's a lecture on Lutherophobia.


----------



## BG

R. Scott Clark

Thank you for the link I will try to listen to it tomorrow after Church.


----------



## MOSES

R. Scott Clark said:


> Yes, we do have a lot more in common with confessional Lutherans than many on both sides seem to recognize.



It seems that many "Reformed Calvinist" folks have a lot more non-phobia (or tollerance for) with modern American culture Baptists, then they do for Lutherans. I find that to be extremely odd. Lutherans and (at least) 'old school' Calvinists have way more in common. The common friendship between Luther, Calvin, Melanchton, etc. is completey opposite of that of latter Calvinists and Ana-baptists.
Yet today, it seems to be just the opposite of that.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

MOSES said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do have a lot more in common with confessional Lutherans than many on both sides seem to recognize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that many "Reformed Calvinist" folks have a lot more non-phobia (or tollerance for) with modern American culture Baptists, then they do for Lutherans. I find that to be extremely odd. Lutherans and (at least) 'old school' Calvinists have way more in common. The common friendship between Luther, Calvin, Melanchton, etc. is completey opposite of that of latter Calvinists and Ana-baptists.
> Yet today, it seems to be just the opposite of that.
Click to expand...


Others have noted that same phenomenon. At least the confessional Lutherans, who regard us as "crafty sacramentarians" (Book of Concord), also regard us a baptized! Our consistent Baptist friends do not recognize us as baptized. In a formal sense, then, to Baptists, inasmuch as baptism is a testimony of faith for them and for us a testimony of our inclusion into the visible covenant community, we're not even Christians. 

Part of the difficulty is the nature of modern (post-17th century) Baptists. They are rebellious offspring from the Reformed Churches and the confessional Baptists do share other aspects of our theology that the confessional Lutherans rejected (as listed above). 

Thus, we have some important things in common with the confessional Lutherans and some important things in common with the confessional Baptists but we differ significantly from both. 

That we tend to relate more to Baptists probably says more about the Baptist willingness to identify themselves as "Reformed" and our willingness to let them to do it and the relative isolation of the Lutheran communions from the rest of American evangelicalism and their unwillingness to even recognize confessional Reformed folk as fellow "Protestants." I've corresponded with Lutheran scholars who bristle at being grouped together with confessional Reformed folk as "confessional Protestants." 

Be aware that when some confessional Lutheran folk look at confessional Reformed folk they see Jimmy Swaggart. I've heard some describe wacky evangelicals as "Reformed." They make no distinction between Calvin and the Anabaptists. We're all "fanatics" as far as they're concerned. Every time I talk with confessional Lutheran folk they seem genuinely shocked at how much we agree. 

Some, perhaps much, of this goes back to the 19th-century identity formation of American confessional Lutherans as "not Calvinist." You might be shocked at what Lutherans write about Calvin -- whom they've rarely read. You wouldn't recognize the poor fellow. He wouldn't recognize himself. They know he signed the Augsburg and they take it as evidence of his "craftiness." There's a deeply held suspicion that is probably impossible, in this life, to overcome.


----------



## jwithnell

At one point, Covenant and Concordia seminaries in St. Louis allowed students to take some classes from either school for credit recognizing some of the similar heritage between our understandings of scripture, particularly the doctrines of grace. 

I've been fairly close to the ELCA, and its forerunner the LCA, most of my life, and it seems to have a familial relationship to Luther's teachings rather than confessional -- in other words, it has tremendous respect for the man and fond memories of his influence but holds to very little of the truth that was dear to him. I think he would be horrified by what came out of the German seminaries from the 1800s on, particularly the rejection of the authority of God's word.


----------



## davidsuggs

Isn't Michael Horton a Lutheran?


----------



## Ivan

davidsuggs said:


> Isn't Michael Horton a Lutheran?



No.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Horton]Michael Horton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


----------



## ReformedChapin

davidsuggs said:


> Isn't Michael Horton a Lutheran?








Michael Horton

The Rev. Dr. Michael S. Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Westminster Seminary California (Westminster Seminary California - Home) . He is the main host of The White Horse Inn radio broadcast and editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine (www.modernreformation.org). He received his M.A. from Westminster Seminary California, his Ph.D. from Wycliff Hall, Oxford and the University of Coventry, and also completed a Research Fellowship at Yale University Divinity School.

Dr. Horton is the author/editor of more than fifteen books, including Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of God-Centered Worship, The Law of Perfect Freedom, Made In America, Where In The World Is The Church, We Believe: Recovering the Essentials of the Apostles' Creed, Covenant & Eschatology, Lord and Servant, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology, and many others. His most recent book is Too Good to be True: Finding Hope in a World of Hype. 

*Dr. Horton is a minister in the United Reformed Churches of North America*. He has served two churches in southern California and currently resides with his wife, Lisa, and four children in Escondido, California.

About Us | White Horse Inn


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

Would Gene Veith qualify? I know he's a Tabletalk regular. I'd assume he's at least got some respect for Calvinism.


----------



## SRoper

I think David was making a joke.


----------



## Scott1

ReformedChapin said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us are aware, Luther's _Bondage of the Will_ is one of the strongest advocates for what we now call "Calvinism." It is a classic in terms of helping people understanding the "five points" and the overarching topic of the sovereignty of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was confused by Bondage of the Will when trying to understand Lutheran system of soteriology. Luther in Bondage seemed to me at first glance to hold to the 5 points to me in that book when fighting Erasmus; he just didn't address all the issues clearly.
Click to expand...


You're right Luther's _Bondage of the Will_ was written in the context of his debate with Erasmus and not a comprehensive treatise on what we now call the "five points." 

However, in it, he clearly lays out biblical objection to the Arminian-influenced notion of man initiating and determining his own salvation.

In that way, he very effectively (and passionately) refuted the countervailing points that would be made again by the remonstrants (those who refuted the "five points of Calvinism" as a necessary and related system of doctrine).


----------



## shackleton

MOSES said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do have a lot more in common with confessional Lutherans than many on both sides seem to recognize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that many "Reformed Calvinist" folks have a lot more non-phobia (or tollerance for) with modern American culture Baptists, then they do for Lutherans. I find that to be extremely odd. Lutherans and (at least) 'old school' Calvinists have way more in common. The common friendship between Luther, Calvin, Melanchton, etc. is completey opposite of that of latter Calvinists and Ana-baptists.
> Yet today, it seems to be just the opposite of that.
Click to expand...


I wonder if it is because almost every reformed person I know started out life as a baptist and know very little about Lutherans?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Staphlobob

Scott1 said:


> You're right Luther's _Bondage of the Will_ was written in the context of his debate with Erasmus and not a comprehensive treatise on what we now call the "five points."
> 
> However, in it, he clearly lays out biblical objection to the Arminian-influenced notion of man initiating and determining his own salvation.
> 
> In that way, he very effectively (and passionately) refuted the countervailing points that would be made again by the remonstrants (those who refuted the "five points of Calvinism" as a necessary and related system of doctrine).



Almost everything Luther wrote was done in the context of debate. Lots of polemic there. Because he was fighting so many enemies on so many fronts, Luther never had the opportunity to set his thoughts down in a systematic manner. I think the Smalcald Articles are the closest he ever came to this theological endeavor.

Consequently one has to study a lot of Luther to get a grasp of his thoughts, his life, and the historical setting in which he lived. Sproul seems to have done this.


----------



## BG

R. Scott Clark,


Great message, thanks.


----------



## ReformedChapin

Staphlobob said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right Luther's _Bondage of the Will_ was written in the context of his debate with Erasmus and not a comprehensive treatise on what we now call the "five points."
> 
> However, in it, he clearly lays out biblical objection to the Arminian-influenced notion of man initiating and determining his own salvation.
> 
> In that way, he very effectively (and passionately) refuted the countervailing points that would be made again by the remonstrants (those who refuted the "five points of Calvinism" as a necessary and related system of doctrine).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost everything Luther wrote was done in the context of debate. Lots of polemic there. Because he was fighting so many enemies on so many fronts, Luther never had the opportunity to set his thoughts down in a systematic manner. I think the Smalcald Articles are the closest he ever came to this theological endeavor.
> 
> Consequently one has to study a lot of Luther to get a grasp of his thoughts, his life, and the historical setting in which he lived. Sproul seems to have done this.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget A Treatise of Jews and Their Lies.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

davidsuggs said:


> Isn't Michael Horton a Lutheran?



No, no more than I am or any confessionally Reformed minister and prof at Westminster Seminary California is "Lutheran." All Reformed folk are "Lutheran" when it comes to justification, in some sense, but none of us can be confessionally Lutheran. 

People do say this and it just amazes me. He does a radio show with a Lutheran and a Baptist (but no one ever accuses him of being "Baptist"). He gets called "Lutheran" (as I do) for simply standing up for what the Reformed Churches confess about justification. It's a strange world when one becomes "Lutheran" for being Reformed. As I tell my students, "If Lutheran is the worst thing they can say about me, bring it on."

As has already been pointed out, he's a minister in good standing in the URCs. He's an associate pastor in Christ Reformed Church, Santee, CA and he was a founding pastor of Christ Reformed, Anaheim.

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 10:02:02 EST-----



shackleton said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we do have a lot more in common with confessional Lutherans than many on both sides seem to recognize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that many "Reformed Calvinist" folks have a lot more non-phobia (or tollerance for) with modern American culture Baptists, then they do for Lutherans. I find that to be extremely odd. Lutherans and (at least) 'old school' Calvinists have way more in common. The common friendship between Luther, Calvin, Melanchton, etc. is completey opposite of that of latter Calvinists and Ana-baptists.
> Yet today, it seems to be just the opposite of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if it is because almost every reformed person I know started out life as a baptist and know very little about Lutherans?
Click to expand...


This is a good observation. I don't know of many Lutherans (we've had a few at WSC) who've become Reformed but I know a fair number of ex-Baptists who've become confessionally Reformed. The confessional Lutherans were somewhat isolated from American evangelicalism ethnically and theologically and liturgically. That isolation carries over to the present.

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 10:03:51 EST-----



SRoper said:


> I think David was making a joke.



Hard to tell in writing (w/o emoticons). That question gets asked in earnest a lot. I've answered more than a few times.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

R. Scott Clark said:


> Be aware that when some confessional Lutheran folk look at confessional Reformed folk they see Jimmy Swaggart. I've heard some describe wacky evangelicals as "Reformed." They make no distinction between Calvin and the Anabaptists. We're all "fanatics" as far as they're concerned. Every time I talk with confessional Lutheran folk they seem genuinely shocked at how much we agree.



A friend of mine (retired Marine) was stationed in Michigan and he only had a Lutheran Church as an option. He heard this common refrain. Even the folks on TBN were referred to as "Reformed". I think it's a culturally conditioned thing sort of like if you went to a Southern Baptist Church in a dry town in Texas and tried to convince them that Jesus really did make water into wine.

I really love the WHI but I think the show gives many Reformed folk the idea that we could just walk into a Lutheran Church and feel right at home but I think Rosenbladt is much more like Luther than most Lutherans you'd actually run into.


----------



## JDKetterman

Semper Fidelis said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be aware that when some confessional Lutheran folk look at confessional Reformed folk they see Jimmy Swaggart. I've heard some describe wacky evangelicals as "Reformed." They make no distinction between Calvin and the Anabaptists. We're all "fanatics" as far as they're concerned. Every time I talk with confessional Lutheran folk they seem genuinely shocked at how much we agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A friend of mine (retired Marine) was stationed in Michigan and he only had a Lutheran Church as an option. He heard this common refrain. Even the folks on TBN were referred to as "Reformed". I think it's a culturally conditioned thing sort of like if you went to a Southern Baptist Church in a dry town in Texas and tried to convince them that Jesus really did make water into wine.
> 
> I really love the WHI but I think the show gives many Reformed folk the idea that we could just walk into a Lutheran Church and feel right at home but I think Rosenbladt is much more like Luther than most Lutherans you'd actually run into.
Click to expand...



I was actually one of those odd ones that became converted to the Reformed faith from Lutheranism. When you speak about what most Lutherans think about us, you're pretty much right. In the LCMS church I was at, I did meet some Calvinists, but only in the broad sense of the word. They were usually looked at badly as evangelicals. When I was Lutheran at the time, I already had much sympathy with Calvin since Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will was one of the first works of his that I read. 

There is a lot that the Reformed have in common with Lutherans, but one thing that I did notice within Lutheranism is a down playing with the third use of the Law. Although their confessions teach the third use of the Law, but I noticed the tendency in the LCMS to lean towards being antinominian. The Law for them was usually seen in a negative light. Overall though, I think we much in common with our Lutheran brethren.


----------



## LawrenceU

Can I just slip something in here?

I read a reference above that seemed to equate Baptists with Anabaptists. Two completely different theologies. Baptists are not the 'grandchildren' of Anabaptists.

Thanks.

Over.


----------



## Christusregnat

LawrenceU said:


> Can I just slip something in here?
> 
> I read a reference above that seemed to equate Baptists with Anabaptists. Two completely different theologies. Baptists are not the 'grandchildren' of Anabaptists.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Over.



This depends on whom you talk to. Some baptists (such as verduyn or Bill Downing) make this link. I believe that the 1644 London Baptist also makes the link to the Anabaptists.

So, while you may not trace your heritage, some may.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Stomata leontôn

Interesting thread. I have learned some things.


----------



## yeutter

The Evangelical Church [Evangelical Synod of North America], which merged with the Reformed Church of the United States to form the Evangelical and Reformed Church, was sort of a Calvinistic Luthern denomination. Reinhold Neibuhr was originally a member of this body. Eden Theological Seminary was affiliated with the Evangelical Church.
The Evangelical Church liturgy was Lutheran. She either subscribed to the 1540 version of the Augsburg Confession or permitted one to hold to the 1540 Variata exceptions to the 1530 Augsburg. I think this was also the confessional position of the Church of Wuerttemberg. 
Melanchthon wrote the 1540 _*Confessio Augustana Variata*_ to keep the Reformed in union with the Lutherans. The issue was the sacraments, not the doctrines of grace.


----------



## LawrenceU

Christusregnat said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I just slip something in here?
> 
> I read a reference above that seemed to equate Baptists with Anabaptists. Two completely different theologies. Baptists are not the 'grandchildren' of Anabaptists.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This depends on whom you talk to. Some baptists (such as verduyn or Bill Downing) make this link. I believe that the 1644 London Baptist also makes the link to the Anabaptists.
> 
> So, while you may not trace your heritage, some may.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...


Actually the 1644/46 LBC explicitly denies it:


> The
> CONFESSION
> Of Faith, of those Churches
> which are commonly (though falsely)
> called ANABAPTISTS.



That is the header above the first article.


----------



## Staphlobob

ReformedChapin said:


> Let's not forget A Treatise of Jews and Their Lies.


 
I don't think that was as systematic much as it was consistent. Luther spewed this stuff for years. He even got sick of it himself and regretted doing it, but seemed to go back to it again and again.

Lots of people here in the Baltimore-Washington D.C. corridor make trips to the Holocaust Museum (a very worthwhile place), but are often surprised when I have to point out to them that, while Luther was vilely anti-Jewish, to say that he was anti-Semitic would be anachronistic.


----------



## ReformedChapin

Staphlobob said:


> ReformedChapin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not forget A Treatise of Jews and Their Lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that was as systematic much as it was consistent. Luther spewed this stuff for years. He even got sick of it himself and regretted doing it, but seemed to go back to it again and again.
> 
> Lots of people here in the Baltimore-Washington D.C. corridor make trips to the Holocaust Museum (a very worthwhile place), but are often surprised when I have to point out to them that, while Luther was vilely anti-Jewish, to say that he was anti-Semitic would be anachronistic.
Click to expand...


Didn't mean to imply it was systematic just trying to further show Luthers polymic nature.


----------



## MOSES

As I said earlier concerning that there is not a reformed Presbyterian church near where I live, though I am a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and that I am currently attending a Lutheran Church (lcms):

Well...I am going to be taking up membership in the Lutheran Church. (Mainly because you have to be a member there in order to partake of communion).

So, before long I guess you will officially have a Calvinist-Lutheran in your midst.


----------



## asc

R. Scott Clark said:


> Part of the difficulty is the nature of modern (post-17th century) Baptists. They are rebellious offspring from the Reformed Churches and the confessional Baptists do share other aspects of our theology that the confessional Lutherans rejected (as listed above).



I think it makes sense that since "reformed" baptists broke away from Reformed churches that the two groups would be closer than with Lutherans. There is a shared history, a shared library, a shared religious language, a shared liturgy, and a shared ethnicity than makes the association much more natural; despite the large disagreements over baptism, etc.


----------



## MOSES

asc said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the difficulty is the nature of modern (post-17th century) Baptists. They are rebellious offspring from the Reformed Churches and the confessional Baptists do share other aspects of our theology that the confessional Lutherans rejected (as listed above).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it makes sense that since "reformed" baptists broke away from Reformed churches that the two groups would be closer than with Lutherans. There is a shared history, a shared library, a shared religious language, a shared liturgy, *and a shared ethnicity *than makes the association much more natural; despite the large disagreements over baptism, etc.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by "a shared ethnicity"?


----------



## Cranmer1959

Luther himself believed in double predestination as anyone who reads the Bondage of the Will knows. The problem is Luther didn't write much more on the issue than that. and unfortunately, Melancthon went back in the semi-pelagian direction. Melanchthon was unfortunately the architect behind the Augsburg Confession.


----------



## ReformedChapin

Cranmer1959 said:


> Luther himself believed in double predestination as anyone who reads the Bondage of the Will knows. The problem is Luther didn't write much more on the issue than that. and unfortunately, Melancthon went back in the semi-pelagian direction. Melanchthon was unfortunately the architect behind the Augsburg Confession.



I have read bondage of the will and I don't Luther specified about double predestination. I think it would be assuming too much.


----------



## Mark Hettler

Dr. Clark, I wanted to say that I found your observations regarding Calvinism and Lutheranism (and Luther) particularly helpful and insightful.


----------



## asc

MOSES said:


> asc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it makes sense that since "reformed" baptists broke away from Reformed churches that the two groups would be closer than with Lutherans. There is a shared history, a shared library, a shared religious language, a shared liturgy, *and a shared ethnicity *than makes the association much more natural; despite the large disagreements over baptism, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "a shared ethnicity"?
Click to expand...


I'm no church historian, but I think after the Reformation, the Reformed and
Lutheran churches were dominant in different countries, and some of this
split is still present to this day. Lutherans were predominant in German and
northern Europe: Norway, Sweden, etc. While Reformed churches were 
dominant in England and Scotland (and thus the Puritans in America), and
Netherlands. (and then other countries like France remained staunchly Roman
Catholic and persecuted the Protestants).


----------

