# Lutherans vs. Reformed



## Reed

Hey all -
I was looking into the differences between the way we understand the Lord's Supper and the way the Lutherans understand it. 

I found a great resource on the CCEL web site in Phillip Schaaf's History of the Christian Church

at:

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/7_ch07.htm

This chapter on the disagreement over the sacrement of the Lord's Supper goes a long way in explaining the division in Protestantism.

Regards,
Reed


----------



## ChristopherPaul

The Lutheran church is a bit of a mystery to me.

Is the main difference between Presbyterians and Lutherans the view on the Lord's Supper?

I thought Lutherans were Arminian in theology, but in listening to Todd Wilken (Lutheran Parish Pastor) on Issues Etc., he sounds like he defends the reformation doctrines as much as the Confessional Presbyterians.

Could someone please educate me on Lutheranism and what makes them different from confessional Presbyterian churches?


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> The Lutheran church is a bit of a mystery to me.
> 
> Is the main difference between Presbyterians and Lutherans the view on the Lord's Supper?
> 
> I thought Lutherans were Arminian in theology, but in listening to Todd Wilken (Lutheran Parish Pastor) on Issues Etc., he sounds like he defends the reformation doctrines as much as the Confessional Presbyterians.
> 
> Could someone please educate me on Lutheranism and what makes them different from confessional Presbyterian churches?



Some of the main differences include not only the sacrament of the Lord's Supper but also Baptism (the Lutherans have there own form of Baptismal Regeneration). They also do not hold to the RPW nor to covenant theology. They also have a different view of election and predestination (primarily due to the influence of Melanchton vs Luther).

If you go to the LCMS web site they have a section on their doctrine based on a Q & A format. It is really pretty good and very informative.

Don't bother with the ELCA. There isn't much difference between them and the PCUSA. Very liberal.


----------



## wsw201

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Wayne, can you provide the URL for the "LCMS"?



Sure can! Here you go.

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod


----------



## crhoades

For what it's worth, they wouldn't go for limited atonement or the 3rd use of the law either.

I attended a Missouri Synod church in college for a while. It is the only church close to reformational, God-centered preaching in that town. Church planters anyone? Bowling Green, KY


----------



## Me Died Blue

Another difference is the Lutherans' greater emphasis on the dichotomous nature of Law and Gospel throughout Scripture.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Another difference is the Lutherans' greater emphasis on the dichotomous nature of Law and Gospel throughout Scripture.



Although it is difficult to differentiate between Reformed/Lutheran on this one lately...


----------



## cupotea

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Another difference is the Lutherans' greater emphasis on the dichotomous nature of Law and Gospel throughout Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although it is difficult to differentiate between Reformed/Lutheran on this one lately...
Click to expand...


What do you mean, crhoades?


----------



## Saiph

Luther was antinomian.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Hey Michael, nice to see you here again! I have a hunch as to what Chris might mean, particularly in light of the smiley, but I'll leave that to him...for now I'll just say let's not allow this to turn into a theonomy thread!


----------



## cupotea

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Luther was antinomian.



Have you ever read the Small Catechism? You may want to some time. When you do please note how much time Luther spends expositing and applying the decalogue.


----------



## Saiph

Luther's smaller catechism is fine, his commentary on Galatians, is not.


----------



## cupotea

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Luther's smaller catechism is fine, his commentary on Galatians, is not.



So, he is to be dismissed as an antinomian for the Commentary of Galatians but not for the far more important and influential Catechism?

I'd say Luther was inconsistent and often confused in his understanding of Law and Gospel, but not an antinomian.

That's pretty strong stuff, Saiph.


----------



## Saiph

Not saying disregard him altogether. Just that in general I find him to be antinomian. And I will add to that by saying anyone who denies theonomy is antinomian as well. But that is another thread.


----------



## cupotea

Here's a quote from the Commentary on Galatians, it's certainly not a complete exposition of Luther's view of the Law but as an example, I'd hesitate to call it antinomian:

_But Paul treateth not here of the civil use of the law, for another use of the law is divine and spiritual, which is to increase transgressions, that is to say, to reveal unto a man his sin, his blindness, his misery, his iniquity, his ignorance, hatred and contempt of God, death, hell, judgment and the deserved wrath of God. Of this use the Apostle treateth notably in the seventh to the Romans. -Commentary on Galatians iii:19_


----------



## cupotea

Well, Saiph, I'm not sure if we've met before. I haven't been around much lately.

I'm pleased to meet you, and, by your estimation, I too am antinomian.

Just so you know.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> But that is another thread.



{Moderate}

Indeed - so here, let's keep on the topic of the differences between Lutheran and Reformed theology. I understand that the understanding of the nature and role of the Law is one such relevant difference, but let's not go beyond that into theonomy in this thread.


----------



## cupotea

Sorry Chris, I'm an inveterate Luther-lover...got your mod note and WILCO.


----------



## Saiph

I love Luther also. But, keeping on topic, his idea on law makes a dichotomy between Law/Grace that is not taught by Owen. in"Sin & Temptation". The Law of the flesh/law of the spirit is a dichotomy.

The law is gracious, and grace demands obedience to the law.

Luther is great. And antinomianism is not heresy in my opinion, just dangerous.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I love Luther also. But, keeping on topic, his idea on law makes a dichotomy between Law/Grace that is not taught by Owen. in"Sin & Temptation". The Law of the flesh/law of the spirit is a dichotomy.
> 
> The law is gracious, and grace demands obedience to the law.
> 
> Luther is great. And antinomianism is not heresy in my opinion, just dangerous.



John Owen would be surprised to find that he did not agree with Luther on law and gospel. He quoted Luther more often than almost any other British Puritan.

From the forthcoming volume on justification:



> Britain´s greatest seventeenth-century theologian, John Owen (1616"“1683) used the same hermeneutic. In his "œGreater Catechism" (1645), he argued that, relative to justification, the law is that Word of God which teaches us our need of a Savior and the gospel is that which offers us our salvation. This distinction was even more evident in his _The Doctrine of Justification by Faith_ (1677). In his preliminary remarks, he reminded the reader that the doctrine of justification was the central concern of the Reformation. He quoted J. H. Alsted (1588"“1638) who called the Protestant doctrine of justification, "œthe article by which the church stands or falls." He also quoted and agreed with Luther who said, "œIf I lose the doctrine of justification, the whole Christian doctrine has been lost." He recognized that there was a movement during his life to downplay the significance of the doctrine of justification among some Reformed writers.
> 
> Among the issues he addressed in the first chapter was the "œorder, relation, and use of the law and the gospel." The law is "œpresented unto the soul with its terms of righteousness and life, and with its curse in case of failure. Without this the gospel cannot be rightly understood nor the grace of it duly valued." The gospel, in contrast, is the "œrevelation of God´s way of relieving souls of men from the sentence and curse of the law, Rom i.17." In justification, the function of the law is to convict sinners. The gospel, not the law, is the "œprincipal" of faith. He was zealous to maintain "œthe order and use of the law and the gospel, with their mutual relation unto one another"¦."
> 
> In view of these examples, on this question (as on most others of its kind) any distinction between British and Continental Reformed theology must be drawn very carefully indeed. The Reformed consensus in the classical period was quite firm on this basic hermeneutical issue.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Luther's smaller catechism is fine, his commentary on Galatians, is not.



Which of his lectures on Galatians? 1519? 1535?

Antinomian how?

Luther spent decades battling Agricola's antinomianism and always insisted on the logical necessity of sanctity as the natural fruit of justification. The law is the standard and measure of that sanctity.

Luther has never been described as an antinomian in responsible academic Luther literature, of which there is a great lot!

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> For what it's worth, they wouldn't go for limited atonement or the 3rd use of the law either.
> 
> I attended a Missouri Synod church in college for a while. It is the only church close to reformational, God-centered preaching in that town. Church planters anyone? Bowling Green, KY



Actually, whatever one might find in a particular congregation (the LCMS is about 3.5 million whereas our largest, the PCA is about 300,000) the Third Use of the Law (tertius usus legis) is taught clearly in the Book of Concord, the doctrinal standard of the LCMS.

rsc


----------



## Saiph

Didn't Luther coin the phrase "antinomian" ? I am not a scholar, or seminarian. But what I read in his work is here:

I have Graebner's 3rd edition of the commentary. Is that poor translation?


Check out page 77


> He (Christ) permitted the Law to accuse Him, sin to condemn Him, and death to take Him, to abolish the Law, to condemn sin, and to destroy death for me.



The Law did not accuse the one who perfectly kept it. And He did not abolish the Law.

Another quote:


> Christ's purpose in coming was the abolition of the Law, not with the intention of laying down new laws, but "to redeem them that were under the law" . . . In other words (explaining John 8:15, John 12:47) "I came not to bring more laws, or to judge men according to the existing Law. I came to judge and to condemn the Law, so that it may no more judge and condemn the world."
> 
> page 153



He takes his zeal for justification _extra nos_ a little too far. I like Luther also, but by my understanding, those passages, and several more I have underlined are antinomian. If you would like more I will take the time to type them in.

The law is perfect and just and good. No we cannot be justified by keeping it, because in our flesh it is impossible to keep it. But Christ did not abolish one iota of it. It is still our perfect standard, and mirror by which we judge ourselves, and the expression of our love to God is to keep it in by the power of the Holy Spirit.






[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Larry Hughes

"I do prefer this book (Luther's Commentary on Galatians) excepting the whole Bible, before all books I have ever seen" - Puritan John Bunyan

Saiph,

I would suggest reading more on Luther and Luther himself because from what I glean on this post from some - Luther is missed not a little but entirely, completely, almost as if speaking of a Luther that is a figment of someone's imagination.

Luther being antinomian doesn't even pass the laugh test. I suggest reading his Hied. Disputation and commentary. 

The Law = Gracious is completely contradictory and also muddles Covenant theology completely.


----------



## Saiph

Larry I do read Luther, and the Law is exceedingly gracious. It is the expression of God's character. Are you forgetting Psalm 119 ?

Here are a few more quotes from Luther (Galatians Commentary):



> True enough, Christ also taught and expounded the Law. But it was incidental. It was a sideline with Him. He did not come into the world for the purpose of teaching the Law, as little as it was the purpose of His coming to perform miracles. Teaching the Law and performing miracles did not constitute His unique mission to the world. The prophets also taught the Law and performed miracles. In fact, according to the promise of Christ, the apostles performed greater miracles than Christ Himself. (John 14:12.) The true purpose of Christ's coming was the abolition of the Law, of sin, and of death.
> 
> page 155



Christ did NOT abolish the Law. And would you call the Beatitudes "incidental" ? ? ? Luther is elevating justification by faith above sanctification, wherein we are enabled to obey that law more and more by walking in the Spirit.

Do you know he did not even think the book of James to be canonical ? Why ? Because it reads like the law. Do this, live this way, we are justified before men by these actions, etc . . . 

I am not saying Luther was a heretic by ANY means. And I certainly believe there are degrees of antinomianism. And Luthers brand is most typical, and near the top of the scale.

He was no theonomist though. 

Note what he says on page 163:



> This sentence clinches Paul's argument. He says: "With the Holy Spirit in our hearts crying, 'Abba, Father,' there can be no doubt that God has adopted us for His children and that *our subjection to the Law has come to an end."* We are now the free children of God. We may now say to the Law: "Mister Law, you have lost your throne to Christ. I am free now and a Son of God. You cannot curse me any more." Do not permit the Law to lie in your conscience. Your conscience belongs to Christ. Let Christ be in it and not the Law



He beautifully explains how we cling to Christ and His righteousness, but he does damage to the idea of following Christ when he says our subjection to the law has come to an end.

As long as you read Luther through the lens of justification you are fine. Buy take his comments about the law too universally, and you will succumb to easy-believism and antinomianism. 

Here is another quote where he does not do justice to the idea that our faith works iself out in obedience to God's holy law from page 188:



> Paul, however, refers particularly to the abolition of the moral law. If faith alone in Christ justifies, then the whole Law is abolished without exception. And this the Apostle proves by the testimony of Isaiah, who bids the barren to rejoice because she will have many children, whereas she that has a husband and many children will be forsaken.





[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## cupotea

I've already weighed in on this but, I guess I'll give a wrap up:

Luther was not, by any measured assessment, an antinomian. I understand why someone who believes anyone who "is not theonomic" (preseumably according to his definition of who is and isn't theonomic) is therefore antinomian.

But then, it's probably no surprise that I think the latter conclusion every bit as irresposnsible as the former.

I hate the Exquisitely, Truly Reformed, and I think God does too.


----------



## Saiph

Michael, I am in no way Truly Reformed.

To tell you the truth, by Matt's (Webmaster) article on "what does it mean to be reformed", I am actually NOT reformed at all. Because I disagree with his assessment concerning the sacraments.

I would think that anyone who holds to the five solas is reformed. 
Credo or Paedo.

I also do not agree completely with the RPW, or EP. 
I also believe in paedo-eucharist.
I actually find Luther's view of the Lord's Supper more appealing than Calvin's
I do not agree with the Puritans understanding of the 2nd commandment (protestant). I think art representing Christ is acceptable.

I am not criticizing Luther or YOU for what I term antinomian.

However, if one does not believe that God's law, is not relevant, or authoritative, in all areas of life today, then they are is some degree accepting a form of antinomianism. 

We all have the seeds of antinomianism within us. Romans 7. The law of the flesh, works against the law of the Spirit.

We can disagree peacefully.


----------



## cupotea

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> For what it's worth, they wouldn't go for limited atonement or the 3rd use of the law either.



Since orthodox, confessional Lutherans agree with the Reformed only on the first two points of TULIP, I can understand what you're saying and agree.

But your comments re the 3rd use of the law are incorrect. The Lutheran confessions *strongly* support the 3rd use. Perhaps you've run across some Lutheran individual who is either non-confessional, or ignorant of the confessions. But if so, be aware of this and don't universalize a particular.

Also, just to let others know, the difference between Lutheran and Reformed understanding of Holy Communion centers on the presence of the human nature of the Risen Christ in the elements. Lutherans say "yes", Reformed say "no." Lutherans have traditionally labelled Reformed "Nestorian" and Reformed have traditionall labelled Lutherans "Eutychian." 

The ELCA is neither evangelical nor Lutheran. (I also hesitate to call them a church as they are more of a social organization. And, though they're located in North America I suspect that, given their political slant, they are more inclined to be America-haters.) 

Though the mid-west LCMS seems to be orthodox, their east and west coast districts are only a few years behind the ELCA and their pastors and presidents are very envious of them. In fact I once encountered an LCMS president (bishop) who said, "I believe in Scriptural inerrancy insofar as I experience the gospel." Those are his EXACT words. Beware.

WELS and CLC are more solid.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Mark,



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Didn't Luther coin the phrase "antinomian" ? I am not a scholar, or seminarian. But what I read in his work is here:



I don't know. That's an interesting question. I'll look into it. 



> I have Graebner's 3rd edition of the commentary. Is that poor translation?



The standard edn of Luther's works is _Luther's Works_ (in English; the critical edn is the _Luthers Werke_ publ. in Weimar in the 19th c and reprinted since.



> Check out page 77
> 
> 
> 
> He (Christ) permitted the Law to accuse Him, sin to condemn Him, and death to take Him, to abolish the Law, to condemn sin, and to destroy death for me.
Click to expand...


Luther taught at least two (and implicitly) three uses of the law. They are numbered differently by different folks, but they are:

1. The elenctic use - that use which drives the sinner to Christ. It is this use Luther is describing here. All confessional Protestants, including those who wrote the Anglican Articles agreed with him on this. This is why Paul said that we are no longer under the law. Whoever is outside Christ, is under the law. Whoever is in Christ, i.e., legally united to him and to whom has been imputed Christ's righteousness, is no longer under the law that says: do and live.

2. The civil use - in Christendom it was agreed that the magistrate had a duty to enforce both tables of the law. Most confessionalists have abandoned this view as unbiblical. 

3. The normative use - the law as the standard of Christian obedience in Christ. Some Luther scholars (e.g., Werner Elert and others) have argued that Luther did not teach the 3rd use but most confessional Lutherans (those that hold the Book of Concord faithfully) find him teaching it. 

Defined historically, antinomianism is the rejection of the third use. Even those who argue Luther did not teach the 3rd use do not argue that he rejected it. 

1. In your critique you did not observe the distinctions that Luther was making. 

2. You have an idiosyncratic definition of antinomianism, so that anyone who is not a theonomist or theocrat (of some sort) is an antinomian. This does strike me as a particularly fair way to critique Luther.

3. You have not observed the distinction that all the Protestants made between the two kingdoms. They did it differently, but the all agreed that otoh, Christ is Lord over all things but otoh, he exercises his Lordship in the civil and ecclesiastical realms differently. 

On your account everyone who makes such a distinction (Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Melanchthon, etc) would have to be judged antinomian.

rsc


----------



## Saiph

Kevin,

Good to hear from a Lutheran on this board. 
You are the first one I have seen. Thank you for your insight.

What do you think of Luther's law/grace dichotomy ?
What did he mean when he said the law was "abolished" ?

Would appreciate your input.

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph

R. Scott Clark,




> 1. In your critique you did not observe the distinctions that Luther was making.



I hold to those distinctions myself, but of the five books I may have missed something regarding use #3. (It is intrinsically in the catechism on the decalogue though)




> 2. You have an idiosyncratic definition of antinomianism, so that anyone who is not a theonomist or theocrat (of some sort) is an antinomian. This does strike me as a particularly fair way to critique Luther.



I agree. I defined what I meant by antinomian. And it is stricter than the historic sense.

Fair ? I would love to discuss this with Luther. He could take it. We are talking about the guy who would not even shake hands with Zwingli over a disagreement on the eucharist. 




> 3. You have not observed the distinction that all the Protestants made between the two kingdoms. They did it differently, but the all agreed that otoh, Christ is Lord over all things but otoh, he exercises his Lordship in the civil and ecclesiastical realms differently.



This has got me intrigued. Could you explain more what you mean. 
Church/State ? City of God ? I am taking Bahnsen's view of the seperation. How did I cross the line ?



> On your account everyone who makes such a distinction (Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Melanchthon, etc) would have to be judged antinomian.



Not in the historical sense. And I would argue that Calvin was a theonomist. But perhaps we should start a new thread.

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph

When Paul said we are not under the law he meant "under its comdemnation". Am I wrong here ?


----------



## cupotea

> _Originally posted by Saiph_ What do you think of Luther's law/grace dichotomy ? What did he mean when he said the law was "abolished" ?



I'm anything *but* a scholar on Luther. In fact, I've never read his commentary on Galatians! 

But the law/gospel (I don't think it's law/grace) dichotomy is, as far as I understand it, a hermeneutic. It was Luther's understanding that a true theologian is one who has the incredibly difficult task of discerning where law and gospel are found throughout the Bible, and how to apply each.

The law is intended to speak to the proud, self-righteous. Its purpose is to crush them and drive them to despair. Then, in their hopelessness the gospel is to be applied, giving them the promise of forgiveness through Jesus Christ.

So, in this sense the law is *always* necessary for we always have the arrogant self-righteous with us. In fact, we ourselves often fall into that sin. (For me it's daily.) Thus all of us continue to need to hear the law.

If Luther said the law is "abolished' (I believe you that he did, I just don't know when and where he said it) then I can only assume he meant it in this existential sense - that the claims of the law on the sinner are abolished when he receives justification through faith in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Don't know if this helps, but this pretty much exhausts my rather skimpy knowledge of such things.<G>


----------



## cupotea

Saiph said:


> I would think that anyone who holds to the five solas is reformed.
> Credo or Paedo.
> 
> I also do not agree completely with the RPW, or EP.
> I also believe in paedo-eucharist.
> I actually find Luther's view of the Lord's Supper more appealing than Calvin's
> I do not agree with the Puritans understanding of the 2nd commandment (protestant). I think art representing Christ is acceptable.



I'm probably 4 out of 5 with you here.

Hmm, I have other questions but this is probably not the place to ask them.


----------



## Myshkin

Where/when did this breakdown over law/gospel issues between the reformed and lutheran begin?

It seems to me that the two were in harmony on this issue (3 uses, strict distinction on law/gospel)), while some Lutheran have abandoned their Book of Concord on this point, and in response (?) some reformed have misconstrued the third use. 

Just my limited observation, but I find it peculiar that those in the reformed camp who think that the law/gospel distinction as maintained by Luther (and Calvin and Beza) is strictly "Lutheran", are those who are sympathetic to Theonomy. This "Lutheranization" of Calvinism, as they call it, seems to be a prominent slogan/idea among the Federal Visionaries, also.

The Alliance of Confessing Evagelicals, Modern Reformation magazine, and the White Horse Inn are really strong on these issues to the point that some consider them "Lutheran" and "antinomian". I am thankful for groups like these that stand up to and do their part to tear down the straw-men that float around the reformed field.


----------



## Saiph

Perhaps I read too much through the lens of theonomy. Luther was also up against a Goliath of monolithic works based Rome. Of course he is going to take the focus off of law a bit more than today, where easy believism abounds.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Would Galatians not be read much more consistently if we saw the 'law' as being the ceremonial law?


----------



## Saiph

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Would Galatians not be read much more consistently if we saw the 'law' as being the ceremonial law?



Sure, but did Christ abolish the ceremonial ?
No, he fulfilled it. It is perpetually kept in His one sacrifice. Hebrews 10.

When Paul said Christ is the "end" of the law for them that believe I think he means telos. Or ultimate fullfillment and meaning.

Of course if that it what Luther meant by "abolish", that is, fulfilling it so the Levitical priesthood passes away, then I agree. He should have been more clear though.

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

It is hard to be clear when you are downing Wittenberg brew!


----------



## Larry Hughes

Saiph,

I guess that´s what I mean for if you can say Luther elevates justification over sanctification there are only three possibilities: 1. You really, no offense, haven´t read Luther. At least not so as to understand. 2. You really don´t understand sanctification. 3. Or both.

The Law is good and salutary, gracious in that sense, but it is not in the least grace or Gospel, neither in justification nor sanctification. If one believes that one IS Romish at the least or not in the faith at all in the worst.

Your reading Luther like a literal dispensationalist. Christ came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. And thus He has done so entirely & nothing falls short. What pithy Law fulfillment will one add to Christ? And then will one raise one´s self above God violating the Law by the Law, making an instrument of good evil. Or perhaps you obey the Law and love your neighbor so as to please God about yourself (glorifying yourself) - again violating the very heart of the Law (not altruistically loving your neighbor but so to make yourself better in God"˜s eyes) & again taking good & committing evil with it twice. How much sin is there by those who take the holy Law (= selfless love) & use it to gain in the end for themselves eternity (or so they think) & glorify themselves. It matters not whether you superficially label it justification or sanctification for "œapart from faith (Christ alone) ALL is sin".

Christ came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, you and I cannot, rather will not willfully, fulfill it before or after conversion. If you think so go & sell, right now, all that you have & give it to the poor, then come to follow God. But you have not, nor will not & neither will I. That´s the Law staring you point blank in the face & it reduces not one micron under post conversion sanctification, hence you & I must always have Christ alone or you have nothing. 

This is what Luther means by his use of the term, in his context, "œabolish"œ. Christ does not abolish THE Law by inserting new Law, that´s what the sermon on the mound is clarifying, the issues of the heart not "œmotions of the Law" externally. Rather He & He alone fulfills it. In the fulfillment of the Holy Law the believer (truster of Christ alone) freely receives all from Christ for Christ has fulfilled all things & literally nothing is left to do. In Christ´s fulfillment the Law is abolished. Not its force that convicts us & drives us to Christ but its sting of death. To have faith, trust in Christ alone is to trust Him utterly for this very thing. Otherwise you have a false Christ & an idol of your own crafting. This IS the very heart and essence of the Gospel & consequently the stumbling block to the religious & foolishness to the irreligious.

The gnashing of teeth piety reaction to this IS the proof positive that the old man Adam is still working his way to God without Christ alone though he uses Christ´s name as a label for his filthy rags, & when the sons of Law hear this from the son´s of grace they rise up in their hearts, & sometimes in action, to slay Abel the son of faith. Trying to fulfill the Law the pick up stones (in their hearts or reality for in God´s sight it is the same) & murder violating the Law they seek to fulfill. This is the godless arrogance of the fallen nature wielding the doctrine meant for life as an instrument of death & murder.

Ldh


----------



## Saiph

Larry,

Quite the sermon ther brother.
I agree. And I must be missing something. Did I say something different ?

Gal 2:19-21
For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. 


And my understanding of sanctification comes chiefly from A. A. Hodge:



> 1. All of those in whom God has by regeneration created a new spiritual nature continue under his gracious influence, his Word and Spirit dwelling in them, and thus have the grace implanted in them developed more and more.
> 
> 2. This work of sanctification involves both the gradual destruction of the old body of sin, and the quickening and strengthening of all the graces of the new man, and the inward purification of the heart and mind, as well as all those holy actions which proceed from them.
> 
> 3. This work of sanctification involves the entire man -- intellect, affections and will, soul and body.
> 
> 4. It is never perfect in this life, but in every case, as in that of Paul, there remains more or less of the old "law in our members," warring against the law of our mind.
> 
> 5. That nevertheless, from a constant supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the gracious element in the believer's nature prevails, and he gradually advances in holiness until he is made perfect at death.
> 
> 1. God, having implanted in regeneration a new spiritual nature in the subject of his grace, always continues to foster and develop that principle, by the indwelling of his word and Spirit, until it attains full perfection.




WCF XIII



> I. They who are once effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ´s death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are
> more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no
> man shall see the Lord.
> 
> II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part: whence ariseth a continual
> and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
> 
> III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ,
> the regenerate part doth overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace,m perfecting holiness in the fear of God.n



Which book by Luther shoud I read where he explains Sanctification ?


[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph

> Christ came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, you and I cannot, rather will not willfully, fulfill it before or after conversion. If you think so go & sell, right now, all that you have & give it to the poor, then come to follow God. But you have not, nor will not & neither will I. That´s the Law staring you point blank in the face & it reduces not one micron under post conversion sanctification, hence you & I must always have Christ alone or you have nothing.



Larry, I think your frustration is valid. My choice of words is sloppy sometimes.

If I mentioned fulfilling the law after regeneration I should have qualified it by saying "in Christ".

Gal 6:2 
Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 

The contrast being the very next verse.

Gal 6:3 
For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 

I would like for someone to direct me to the writings where Luther explains his ideas on the third use of the law.

I was not referring to his ideas as antinomian in that sense, I already clarified that with my comments on theonomy. 

The Spirit does not replace the Law, or oppose the Law. He writes it on our hearts. The Spirit enlivens us and enables us to observe the law. 

2Co 3:5,6 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 

The possibility of doing what the law requires is in that believers are in the Spirit and live through the Spirit. 

Gal 5:25 
If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 

The fact remains though, that the work of the Spirit consists in working out the Law of God in the life of the believer.

Rom 8:4 
in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Without the Spirit the law is powerless. Romans 7:13-25

*The fruits of the Spirit are the good works the law requires.*

Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. 

[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Would Galatians not be read much more consistently if we saw the 'law' as being the ceremonial law?



No, not according to Luther and Calvin. That Paul was only referring to the ceremonial law was the Roman position in the 16th century! They read the bible as containing "old" and "new" law (not law and gospel). Moses was the "old law" and Christ the new. The difference between Moses and Christ, says Rome, is that there is more grace under Christ to keep the law toward eventual justification. 

The reason, Rome said, that Paul spoke as he did, is that he was addressing the "old law" not justification by grace and cooperation with grace by law-keeping (as Rome taught).

When Paul quoted Deut that "cursed is everyone..." he was not speaking only of the ceremonial law!

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Perhaps I read too much through the lens of theonomy. Luther was also up against a Goliath of monolithic works based Rome. Of course he is going to take the focus off of law a bit more than today, where easy believism abounds.



Mark,

Theonomy, from an historic perspective is a novelty. Our older theologians were theocrats (they believed the civil magistrate was obligated to enforce the first table) but they were not theonomists. The expression, "abiding validity of the law of God..." is a novelty. It is anachronistic to call Calvin and "theonomist" though it has been tried. It works right up to the point folk actually read Calvin (e.g., Inst. 4.20) where he repudiates the assumptions of the movement.

As to easy-believism, the proper response is not to abuse the third use and to obliterate the three-fold distinction between civil, ceremonial, and moral (as theonomy does; one can't hold it well and affirm the abiding validity of the civil law) is to go back to the Heidelberg Catechism and teach Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. 

The fundamental problem with much of the Reformed reaction to easy-believism is that it has become moralism. In that case, the cure is as bad as the disease. The answer to antinomianism is not moralism. The answer is the 1st use of the law in all it's fearsome power (not as ten-steps to a prosperous life! -- why is theonomy so attractive to the health and wealth crowd?), followed by the gospel of pure grace, followed by sound Christian instruction in living in union with Christ according to his revealed will. Full stop. Anything more or less than that is not biblical Christianity, it is not Protestant, it is not confessional and it is certainly not Reformed.

One of the biggest problems theonomy has from a Reformed pov is that it tends to weaken the 1st use of the law. The law is no longer really threatening. It can be kept, they suggest. Really? Ask the Israelites. Well, I'm told, we have more grace. Really? Why on earth did the Reformation happen if we're back to the "old law/new law" or "less grace/more grace" hermeneutic? 

They must imply or say that or else their program for the enforcement of the civil laws collapses. If they can be kept, then the law isn't really very threatening is it? If those laws can be kept (either by pulling one's self up by the bootstraps or by cooperating with grace, take your pick) and if they're not categorically distinct from the moral law, then by and by it turns out that the moral law can be kept. Poof, there goes the historic law/gospel distinction and the Protestant doctrine of justification. 

How many theonomists (beside Joe Morecraft) are speaking out in defense of the confessional doctrine of justification and what proportion are among those associated with the so-called, self-described, Federal Vision? 

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> But the law/gospel (I don't think it's law/grace) dichotomy is, as far as I understand it, a hermeneutic. It was Luther's understanding that a true theologian is one who has the incredibly difficult task of discerning where law and gospel are found throughout the Bible, and how to apply each.



Pastor,

I suppose it depends upon how one defines "hermeneutic." It is often described that way in the secondary literature and rightly so, in my view. If a hermeneutic simply means "a programmatic way of reading Scripture" or 
"a set of questions regularly asked of the text of Scripture" then it seems that it can be called a hermeneutic. 

What Protestants want to know is, is this text before me "law" (i.e., does it say "do and live" or is it "gospel" i.e., does it say, "Christ shall do" or "Christ has done"? 

These seem to me to be hermeneutical questions. Theology is hermeneutics and hermeneutics is theology. This is why Luther, in his preface to the '35 lectures on Galatians said that a theologian distinguishes law and gospel. 

It is a hermeneutic in the way the distinction between the theology of the cross and the theology of glory is a hermeneutic.

rsc


----------



## Saiph

RSC,

First, I very much appreciate your comments. I have many things to consider and research now.



> How many theonomists (beside Joe Morecraft) are speaking out in defense of the confessional doctrine of justification and what proportion are among those associated with the so-called, self-described, Federal Vision?



Fred and others have have said this many times. If you would not mind laying out the argument as to why theonomy leads to FV in email, u2u, I would appreciate it. No one has explained this to me.

If those who say this cannot demonstrate it ideologically then it is mere _post hoc ergo proptor hoc_.

Bahnsen defends justification by faith alone.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> Fred and others have have said this many times. If you would not mind laying out the argument as to why theonomy leads to FV in email, u2u, I would appreciate it. No one has explained this to me.



Mark,

I'm not arguing that theonomy leads _necessarily_ to FV or moralism. I am saying, however, that having rejected historic and confessional distinctions and boundaries it opens the door. There are lots of non-theonomic moralists too. They share theonomy's dissatisfaction with the traditional guilt, grace, gratitude structure of the Reformed faith. I am saying that it is this very dissatisfaction that leads to moralism. In theonomy it manifests itself in the rejection of the Reformed view of the two kingdoms. 



> If those who say this cannot demonstrate it ideologically then it is mere _post hoc ergo proptor hoc_.



My argument would be guilty of PHPH only if I am arguing that theonomy leads _necessarily_ to moralism. I am only observing what _is_.

As to Bahnsen's view of justification, he seems to have tried to have it both ways: to affirm some orthodox sounding doctrine of justification and Norman Shepherd's reconstruction (no pun intended) of the doctrine of justification. 

Both Shepherd's earlier and most recent writings (the book, the _Reformation and Revival_ articles) have made it pretty clear that tightrope has snapped. 

Interpreters of GB are split on what his doctrine of justification was, whether it was _sola fide, sola gratia_ as understood by the Reformation or Shepherd's redefinition of faith in the act of justification as faithfulness. 

NS' rejection of the imputation of active obedience and his redefinition of faith in the act of justification as trusting AND obeying makes clear that the previous claim (from c. 1981-1982) that NS was merely defending the "old" Reformed faith against "easy believism" is no longer tenable.

rsc


----------



## ChristopherPaul

What type of government does the Lutheran church have?


----------



## yeutter

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has a Presbyterian form of Church Government. Missouri is similar. Some smaller bodies are congregational in polity. the Liberal mainstream Evangelical Lutheran Church is episcopal in polity and is now in communicate fellowship with the apostate Episcopal Church.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Thanks.

What is the confession that the confessional Lutherans abide by?

Is it the Augsburg (sp?)?


----------



## yeutter

It has been a souple of decades since I read through the Lutheran Doctrinal standards. The Book of Concord includes the Augsburg confession of 1530, the Apology for the Augsburg, Luther's Larger and Smaller Catechisms, The Smallclad Articles, The Saxon Visitation Articles, and a couple of smaller documents that bear the name Concord if I remember correctly.


----------



## cupotea

> _Originally posted by yeutter_
> Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has a Presbyterian form of Church Government. Missouri is similar. Some smaller bodies are congregational in polity. the Liberal mainstream Evangelical Lutheran Church is episcopal in polity and is now in communicate fellowship with the apostate Episcopal Church.



As regards the ELCA, very accurate. 

But I'm not sure what is meant by a "Presbyterian form of Church Government." So I can't really say if that's accurate or not. I know the LCMS has "presidents" (not bishops) of districts whose position is temporary. The president must also be an ordained pastor. They have no "deacons" that I know of (other than deaconesses). Not sure if they have elders or not. 

My ignorance re WELS is the same.

As regards confessional Lutheranism, the entire Book of Concord is held to - rather firmly. The words "quia" and "quaetnus" are often used to distinguish between what is confessional and what is not. "Quaetnus" (insofar as) indicates the confessions are authoritative only "insofar as" they are in harmony with the Scriptures. "Quia" (because) holds that the the confessions are authoritative "because" they are in harmony with Scripture. 

Thus one can see that the confessionalists are always on the "quia" side. 

This is in opposition to the ELCA that officially recognizes only the Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism to begin with. (All other works in the Book of Concord are good and worthwhile, but hold no authority for the ELCA.) Consequently one cannot hold the ELCA to be "Lutheran" in any genuine sense. (Whether they are Christian is another question altogether.)


----------



## cupotea

American Lutheran polity has been described as "episcopopresbygational" at least in the case of the LCMS. 

District Presidents in the LCMS correspond to Bishops of the ELCA, they have some regional oversight but no real governing authority beyond what they can rig together out of consitutional workings. Local congregations are governed (in theory) by a board of elders and the voting assembly. The elders are, as often as not, proposed and then voted on by the assembly. Property is owned by the local congregation. The actual nuts and bolts governance of a local congregation is divided obscurely between boards, committees, the voters assembly and the Pastor and Board of Elders, each, generally, having their own agenda. in this they are very much like most Congregationally composed churches.

This has the effect of making LCMS Congregation voters assemblies rather lively and interesting to one who knows the politics involved.

The denomination is divided into districts, each with, as I've said a Bishop/President but programs and direction are taken at the district level out of a rather presbyterian looking conference of pastors with the Bishop/President, lay elders may or may not attend. This varies, I think. This corresponds roughly to a Presbytery meeting.

The denomination itself is governed by a board of executives Vice Presidents and one President elected for a term of two years (I think) at the Synodical Conference which is held at various locations throughout the country. This corresponds roughly to a Presbyterian GA.

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by Steadfast]


----------

