# Theology of the Cross vs Theology of Glory



## Unoriginalname

I have had very little interaction with Lutherans do to my geography but I have seen them use this distinction. Yet I have no idea what it means. Could someone explain what is implied by this distinction and is their a similar concept in reformed theology?


----------



## J. Dean

From my relationship with Lutherans, I gather that the Theology of the Cross is essentially Christ-centered, gospel centered theology; whereas a theology of glory is used to describe man-centered, man-exalting theology. 

Although this is more common with Lutherans, I have heard Reformed people such as Sproul and Horton use these terms as well.


----------



## Elizabeth

This might be a helpful article, "Luther's Theology of the Cross" Luther's Theology of the Cross


----------



## Marrow Man

Yes, Dr. Trueman gives an excellent analysis of this distinction, straight from the Reformer's mouth. It is Lutheran terminology, but not something confined to Lutheranism. As J. Dean points out above, it is the essential difference between a God-centered (and biblical) theology v. a man-centered (and experience-derived) theology.


----------



## moral necessity

Unoriginalname said:


> I have had very little interaction with Lutherans do to my geography but I have seen them use this distinction. Yet I have no idea what it means. Could someone explain what is implied by this distinction and is their a similar concept in reformed theology?



I think it has to do with Gospel-Centered versus "Glorifying God-Centered" theology. Luther emphasized the Gospel and justification very much. Calvinists had more emphasis towards "man's chief end is to glorify God" and spoke more of sanctification then Luther did.

in my opinion, such a phrase as the one you hear, is noting the distinction between Lutherans and Calvinists over the emphasis each places on either justification or sanctification. Lutherans emphasize the cross. Calvinists emphasize more the bringing of glory to God with our lives because of the cross.

Blessings!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Trueman's article is very helpful, speaking to his own (our) tradition about a closely related tradition (Lutheran), that is still a bit alien to us, due to a cultural divide that goes down to a remarkable sibling rivalry. We are of the younger-brother stock. Lest a Lutheran object to his comments in any way, it should be remembered that he's not accommodating a Lutheran audience by what he says, but is speaking a Reformed vocabulary to a Reformed audience. That said, simply taken as an historical presentation, it is hardly objectionable, and evidently laudatory (but it's not unheard of for Lutherans to resent how much we appreciate "their" Luther--after all, they despise Calvin, so why can't we do the decent thing and reciprocate?).

Lutherans would never deny "the glory of God," or outright deny that men should "glorify God" as a matter of course. But there is an *allergy* among them to almost any talk about "glory" or "glorifying." They instinctively react to a statement like the first answer to the WSC with a reflex-response: "That's a theology of glory."

WRONG. It's actually very far away from what Luther called "the theology of glory." Just because someone uses the word, or is more comfortable than Lutherans talking about the whole matter of glory in its proper place, doesn't mean that he has become entranced with "a theology of glory." The theology of glory is deeply problematic because it is NOT the glory of God, but the glory of man. It tries to dress up human efforts in gaudy presentation; it tries to impress men with grandeur and splendor; it tries to cover up the scandal of the cross by introducing magic and glitz.

You want ironic? Go to a Reformed church, where there is little or no musical accompaniment to the singing, or where a separate choir is eschewed _in principle_ as being an unwarranted introduction of "glory" into the worship (obviously, there is a big "spectrum" of fidelity to historic Reformed standards). And compare that to a typical Lutheran church where there's plenty of religious rigamarole, where choirs and organs have never been excluded on principle, where high religious art is welcomed.

The Reformed (on paper) believe that the plainer the worship, the more evident is the glory of God, because human additions are minimized. Lutherans, who have a completely different worship-principle (an "inclusive" rather than "exclusive" regulation) relative to the Medieval Roman heritage we share, retain all sorts of distracting human inventions to worship, thus instituting a "theology of glory" in their worship practice. They mock as impossible the Reformed attitude that "we are taken to heaven when we worship;" preferring their view that in worship "heaven comes down to earth," and thus infuses the mundane with spiritual splendor.

When you think about it, the two views are actually not that far apart, formally speaking. Both involve us in an "eschatological inbreaking" of the world-to-come with this one. But the Lutherans accuse us of introducing "human effort" into our _direction of travel._ (We don't, but are rather "carried" to heaven by Holy Spirit). Lutherans think of themselves as being content to remain here on earth as God in Christ comes to us, as he repeats his humiliation again and again for us, and they emphasize that this is very _monergistic_ in their view (Christ's _direction of travel_ being downward). This Christology lends itself to their view of the Lord's Supper. The Reformed tend to emphasize in this age the settled, exalted Session of Christ, "whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things," Act.3:21.

And one can see, then, how the Lutheran divine Presence has a tendency to sanctify every human effort that isn't outright forbidden. In our Reformed view, all that junk has to be left behind, because none of it gets carried with our spirits to heaven, and anything that's here on earth should only be the authorized elements that have God's promise attached, and will actually help us avoid too much distraction. But in Lutheranism, God just uses feeble human efforts--whether bread and wine, or Bach's St. Matthew's Passion--to give men a spiritual experience that "feels spiritual." Do you see the difference in "direction of travel," and how the RPW plays into that?

Let me repeat the irony: Reformed worship (in strict Confessional terms) is the MOST truly glorious, because it is the LEAST infected with "the theology of glory," being most heavenly and least distracted. Whereas Lutheran worship, unencumbered with total restrictions on unauthorized elements, has no formal Confessional prohibition on the introduction of a mundane "theology of glory," being jumbled together with the real means of grace (Word and Sacrament).


P.S. I don't think the ToG/ToC issue has nearly as much to do with the Justification/Sanctification relative emphasis in the two traditions, seeing that expression as probably more typical of the Lutheran perspective on the divide.


----------



## Bookmeister

moral necessity said:


> Unoriginalname said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have had very little interaction with Lutherans do to my geography but I have seen them use this distinction. Yet I have no idea what it means. Could someone explain what is implied by this distinction and is their a similar concept in reformed theology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it has to do with Gospel-Centered versus "Glorifying God-Centered" theology. Luther emphasized the Gospel and justification very much. Calvinists had more emphasis towards "man's chief end is to glorify God" and spoke more of sanctification then Luther did.
> 
> in my opinion, such a phrase as the one you hear, is noting the distinction between Lutherans and Calvinists over the emphasis each places on either justification or sanctification. Lutherans emphasize the cross. Calvinists emphasize more the bringing of glory to God with our lives because of the cross.
> 
> Blessings!
Click to expand...


No! No! No! The theology of glory is definitely not Reformed theology. It is man-centered. Both Lutherans and Reformed would hold to the theology of the cross.


----------



## J. Dean

Contra_Mundum said:


> You want ironic? Go to a Reformed church, where there is little or no musical accompaniment to the singing, or where a separate choir is eschewed _in principle_ as being an unwarranted introduction of "glory" into the worship (obviously, there is a big "spectrum" of fidelity to historic Reformed standards). And compare that to a typical Lutheran church where there's plenty of religious rigamarole, where choirs and organs have never been excluded on principle, where high religious art is welcomed.
> 
> The Reformed (on paper) believe that the plainer the worship, the more evident is the glory of God, because human additions are minimized. Lutherans, who have a completely different worship-principle (an "inclusive" rather than "exclusive" regulation) relative to the Medieval Roman heritage we share, retain all sorts of distracting human inventions to worship, thus instituting a "theology of glory" in their worship practice. They mock as impossible the Reformed attitude that "we are taken to heaven when we worship;" preferring their view that in worship "heaven comes down to earth," and thus infuses the mundane with spiritual splendor.


But a Lutheran would say that the RPW is a theology of glory in that it is Pharisaical and legalistic because they do not believe in the RPW. In essence, both sides are accusing each other of a theology of glory on different grounds, and both think they are right.


----------



## moral necessity

Bookmeister said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unoriginalname said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have had very little interaction with Lutherans do to my geography but I have seen them use this distinction. Yet I have no idea what it means. Could someone explain what is implied by this distinction and is their a similar concept in reformed theology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it has to do with Gospel-Centered versus "Glorifying God-Centered" theology. Luther emphasized the Gospel and justification very much. Calvinists had more emphasis towards "man's chief end is to glorify God" and spoke more of sanctification then Luther did.
> 
> in my opinion, such a phrase as the one you hear, is noting the distinction between Lutherans and Calvinists over the emphasis each places on either justification or sanctification. Lutherans emphasize the cross. Calvinists emphasize more the bringing of glory to God with our lives because of the cross.
> 
> Blessings!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No! No! No! The theology of glory is definitely not Reformed theology. It is man-centered. Both Lutherans and Reformed would hold to the theology of the cross.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I am in error then. I thought I read of that quote before being used to describe the differences between Luther and Calvinistic theology, and their different emphasis on justification and sanctification respectively. Take my comments with a grain of salt then, until I can research my readings a little more. 

I wasn't advocating that Calvinists don't hold to a theology of the cross.

This is more what I was getting at, not that I agree with the author's thoughts. The comments after the article are worth a look too: http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/18/the-calvinist-case-against-lutheranism/ 

Blessings!


----------



## J. Dean

Part of the reason why Lutherans look upon the Calvinist stress of sanctification with suspicion and disdain is because they believe the Reformed are basing assurance on good works and thus following the error of the Arminians in making the evidence of faith the basis of faith. They believe that an overemphasis on sanctification and assurance will lead to a theology of glory (and in fairness I don't think this is entirely off in some cases) and as a result they will lump Calvinists and Arminians together in criticisms regarding this.

Former Calvinist-turned-Lutheran Jordan Cooper talks about this. Here's an excerpt from his testimony, taken from http://issuesetc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/JOURNAL_MASTER_4.pdf . I don't know if he's being fair, but he does hit upon a danger that Christians-Reformed or otherwise-can stumble into if we are not careful about self-examination and assurance. Judge for yourselves whether or not his argument is valid. I highlighted the part that picks up at his conversion to Calvinism and enrollment in a Reformed College...


> Though these times were often uplifting and edifying, arrogance began to manifest itself in me. The conversations began to shift from the beauty of Christ’s work on the cross to the logical order of God’s eternal decrees. My young college mind imagined that it had the capacity to understand the mind of God. Though this was largely due to my own sinful nature, there are aspects of Reformed theology that breed a sort of intellectual arrogance: everything has to be characterized, everything has to be logical, everything about God must be figured out.
> 
> Another issue I faced in Calvinistic Christianity was that it had still not taken me beyond the subjectivism of my evangelical days. Though I understood that salvation was all of grace, there always seemed to be an element of works in the equation. My faith had to constantly be tested so that I would know if it was genuine. Since Christ’s death was seen to be done only on behalf of the elect, I had to find out if I was elect--how did I know if I was among the elect? It could not be through my faith, because so many have false faith. I had to examine my works to see if my faith was indeed genuine. It was not outward works, however, because hypocrites also performed outwardly good acts. Thus the only way to gain certainty of my position before God was through examining my motivations. Were they truly to please God or to please myself? Knowing the evil in my heart as I do, this type of examination always left me in despair.


----------



## Doulos 2

This book will you understand the matter. It's short and clear.

http://www.amazon.com/Being-Theolog...2842802&sr=8-1&keywords=theology+of+the+cross


----------



## Sola Fide

I find it interesting that some confessional Lutherans question the importance of the ToC/ToG distinction to Luther in his maturer writings. See, for instance, the following from a Lutheran blog:
Lutheran Mythbusting: The Theology of the Cross is Gospel and Essential to Luther’s Theology | CyberBrethren - A Lutheran Blog


----------



## R. Scott Clark

The distinction between the theology of the cross (_theologia crucis_) and the theology of glory (_theologia gloriae_) is not solely a Lutheran distinction. The Reformed picked up the distinction and articulated it a little differently by distinguishing between archetypal theology (_theologia archetypa_) and ectypal theology (_theologia ectypa_) or more simply, the Creator/creature distinction (Van Til). It's a basic Protestant distinction between what God knows and the way he knows it and what we know it and the way we know it. Calvin made use of the distinction between the theology of the cross and the theology of glory in his commentary on the Psalms. See Herman Selderhuis' excellent book. Here is an essay where I made use of the distinction.

I quite like Bruce's application re worship. That's exactly right.


----------



## py3ak

I think this distinctive contrast is one of the primary things we need to learn from Luther. It is true that it can most certainly be found in Calvin (I think of several of the sermons on Psalm 119, for instance) and others, but of course Luther has a characteristic energy of expression which is hard to duplicate.
Luther gives a powerful expression to this idea in showing that Christ was a theologian of the cross in the remarkable sermon, _Two Kinds of Righteousness_.

An obvious place to look into the matter is Luther's Heidelberg Disputation.

Note Thesis 21 and its explanation:


> *A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.*
> 
> This is clear: He who does not know Christ does not know God hidden in suffering. Therefore he prefers works to suffering, glory to the cross, strength to weakness, wisdom to folly, and, in general, good to evil. These are the people whom the apostle calls "enemies of the cross of Christ" (Phil. 3:18), for they hate the cross and suffering and love works and the glory of works. Thus they call the good of the cross evil and the evil of a deed good. God can be found only in suffering and the cross, as has already been said Therefore the friends of the cross say that the cross is good and works are evil, for through the cross works are dethroned and the "old Adam", who is especially edified by works, is crucified. It is impossible for a person not to be puffed up by his "good works" unless he has first been deflated and destroyed by suffering and evil--until he knows that he is worthless and that his works are not his but God's.


----------

