# Lutheran view of Reformed churches



## Me Died Blue (Oct 6, 2006)

Here is the LCMS's official answer online to the question of what they understand the main differences to be between them and Reformed churches:



> Q. What are the major differences between the Missouri Synod and Reformed churches?
> 
> A. The major differences between the LCMS and most Reformed churches include the following:
> 
> ...



I have my own more specific thoughts on all the particular points, but first I'd like to hear others'.

For now I'll just say that I would have expected a number of _laypeople_ within the LCMS to have relative ignorance on the historic Reformed confessions and practice (just as a number of Reformed laypeople are ignorant of historic Lutheran doctrine, and even their own doctrine), but that I'm truly surprised to see that type of ignorance and misunderstanding from the official LCMS site (with regard to the first and fourth points to a certain extent, but especially the fifth).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 6, 2006)

Chris,
Apparently, the author has confused the _reformed_ w/ the present day evangelical or charismatic.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Oct 6, 2006)

This universal Salvation I don't get?!!!

2) The nature of Christ's atonement. Lutherans believe that when Jesus died on the cross He atoned for the sins of all people of all time--even those who have not or will not come to faith in Christ.

I had a professor say this in class the other day. It doesn't matter if you believe or not; Jesus died for that sin of unbelief, so it doesn't matter if you believe in Him, your covered dude, His blood has covered you. 

The trouble with this is this;

Jesus died for sin, but not for unbelief. Unbelief is the sin for which there is no cure, because without faith in Jesus, one cannot profit from his atoning death. John 3:18.

duh


Scott:bigsmile:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Shahan_
> This universal Salvation I don't get?!!!
> 
> 2) The nature of Christ's atonement. Lutherans believe that when Jesus died on the cross He atoned for the sins of all people of all time--even those who have not or will not come to faith in Christ.
> ...



I didn't even see that, Scott.  It's hard to believe that Lutherans are totally man centered. Based upon this premise, Heaven could be empty.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2006)

> It's hard to believe that Lutherans are totally man centered



Be careful, I once cautiously suggested that Lutherans might be different from Reformed folk and I was sternly told otherwise.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 6, 2006)

Regarding their rejection of Limited Atonement - _of course_ they're going to disagree on that, as they have historically done ever since the generation after Luther. The same is true with regard to the double predestination and the Real Presence in the Supper. Basically, it's no surprise that we already know they still disagree with us on those points, and I'm at least glad that they understand us on them.

So rather than simply having another reiteration of why we believe our view on those issues is the correct one, I started this thread specifically to focus on the aspects of our beliefs that they seem to (the LCMS) _misunderstand_, at least as evidenced by the above statement from their site. What misunderstandings of historic Reformed theology do people here see in parts of those five points (no pun intended) of disagreement they listed? Also, what do you think may have caused those misunderstandings of _historic_ Reformed theology to come about in _today_'s circles? Is it all them or partially us? Either way, what could be done to try and clarify them?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > It's hard to believe that Lutherans are totally man centered
> ...



In fairness, the context of that discussion was in regard to a very specific issue, and the belief that we (Reformed and Lutherans) are united on that issue does not automatically imply the belief that we are united on every issue; indeed, I have not heard anyone claim anything even remotely resembling the latter belief.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2006)

You're right. That was a long time ago although I do maintain there was some stubstance in my claim.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2006)

Basically, I was told I had a "decrepid" knowledge of Reformed theology for suggesting that Calvin and Luther didn't ahve the same view on Law-Gospel. Note, however, I was not denying that Calvin had a view on Law-Gospel. More importantly, I was quoting Peter Lillback, President of a major Reformed seminary. If I had a decrepid understanding of Reformed history (which I might have), then by strictest logic so must he.

Btw, I actually have come closer to a Law-Gospel hermeneutic, but I still see some tensions that force me to stumble in belief and thus remain outside the camp.


----------



## beej6 (Oct 6, 2006)

I've reviewed the LCMS site in the past. I find it interesting that right on the first point, they place the words "glory" and "sovereignty" in quotation marks. I pray that doesn't mean they don't believe in God's glory and sovereignty... or maybe the other four points show that.

And they juxtapose that against justification by faith alone, as if the two are incompatible.


----------



## ADKing (Oct 6, 2006)

The first point listed above: ie resolving the main point of the scriptures to the glory of God or the gospel seems to be very important. In a fascinating article called "The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology" Geerhardus Vos deals with some of the distinctions between Lutheranism and the Reformed. He boils them down to this question. I supply a couple of quotes but would encourage anyone to read this article online at http://www.biblicaltheology.org/dcrt.pdf

"To what, then, does one attribute the fact that from the beginning this concept of the covenant appears so much in the foreground of Reformed theology? There must be something in its starting point by which it feels itself drawn to this idea. One might perhaps say: the question is superfluous. The doctrine of the covenant is taken from the Scriptures. It came with the Reformation’s return to the Scriptures, and there is no need for any but this natural explanation. However, such a reply would not at all be satisfactory. The Lutherans as well as the Reformed cast themselves on the Scriptures. Even though we now fully recognize that the latter better than the former succeeded in mastering the
rich content of Scripture, this fact in turn also calls for an explanation. Because Reformed theology took hold of the Scriptures in their deepest root idea, it was in a position to work through them more fully from this central point and to let each part of their content come to its own.

This root idea which served as the key to unlock the rich treasuries of the Scriptures was the preeminence of God’s glory in the consideration of all that has been created. All other explanations of the difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed traditions in the end again come down to
this, that the former begins with man and the latter with God. God does not exist because of man, but man because of God. This is what is written at the entrance of the temple of Reformed theology."

and

"Let us now further consider how the requirement of God’s honor is reckoned with in this doctrine of the covenant of redemption. After the fall man will never again be able to work in a manner pleasing to God except a completed work of God be performed on his behalf. Earning eternal life has forever been taken out of his hands. Everything that subjectively happens within him can only be a principle and phenomenon of eternal life itself and in no way a prerequisite for eternal life. The obtaining of eternal life thus comes to lie in God, as a work that is His alone, in which His glory shines and of which nothing, without detracting from that glory, can be attributed to the creature. On this point the entire Reformation, both Lutheran and Calvinist, took exception to Rome, which
failed to appreciate this fundamental truth. Yet the reasons which had driven both sides to this protest were different. With Luther it was the thirst for peace and stability for a restless conscience which could find no tranquility in Rome’s salvation by works. As long as the sinner himself has to do something for his acquittal, his work remains unstable. Thus the sola fide became the shibboleth
of the German Reformation, justification, its principle doctrine. One will agree that, despite all the purity with which this doctrine develops and in which, in developed form, it is given anew to the church, the highest point is still not reached, namely, that point from which the Scripture itself views the matter when, in the words of Paul, it sees the heart of Abraham’s faith in his “giving God the glory” (Rom. 4:20). Even in its doctrine of justification Lutheranism did not catch hold of this idea in its fullness. Not a purely theological, but a partly anthropological motif ran through it. It was different with the Reformed. They, too, felt the same necessity to leave the waves of Rome’s salvation by works and once again stand on solid ground. But beside and behind this necessity there lay a deeper longing: a thirst for the glory of God that did not primarily meditate on its own peace. When the Reformed takes the obtaining of salvation completely out of man’s hands, he does this so that the glory which God gets from it might be uncurtailed. What is important for him is the realization that God glorifies Himself in the salvation of sinners, whereas the Lutheran is satisfied when it merely becomes evident that man brings nothing of his own instability into the picture. For the Reformed the center of gravity does not lie in justification as such, but in the principle by which the latter is to be judged and which the Scripture everywhere applies when it teaches us to regard the
work of salvation in its totality as being exclusively a work of God. "


----------



## Peter (Oct 6, 2006)

I thought the only difference between Lutherans and Reformed on the Law is their denial or weakening of the 3rd use. These days I think you see more "Reformed" folks trying to draw closer to a Lutheran view of physical or semi-opere ex operato efficacy of the sacraments and ceremonialism and ritualism.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 6, 2006)

Those were soom good quotes by Vos.


----------



## AdamM (Oct 7, 2006)

For what it's worth, at 2.5mm members the LCMS (8x the size of the PCA) has a lot of different factions within the denomination, so its hard to pin down a real position on these sorts of questions. You've got everything from mega seeker church types, to genuine liberals, to folks a whisker away from being home in Rome and everything in between. Funny, but whenever I am tempted to get worried about all the issues the PCA has to face, I listen to my LCMS friends and hear about the stuff they have on their plate right now and I realize we have it pretty good on our side of the fence.



[Edited on 10-7-2006 by AdamM]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 7, 2006)

The modern Lutheran Church is another issue, but I believe were it not for the pickiness over how one views the presence of Christ in the elements of the Lord's Supper, Lutherans and the Reformed would be one Church.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 7, 2006)

Interestingly, in my neighborhood, a Presbyterian and Lutheran joint congregation/ministry has just been formed. They have a website here.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Oct 7, 2006)

Did I read this correctly? Does it refer to a universal salvation. I thought that the LCMS was more conservative then that. Are they really saying that all are saved, regardless if one comes to faith in Christ or not. If they are saying this, this is really out to lunch. Am I reading this right? or am I out to lunch?

2) The nature of Christ's atonement. Lutherans believe that when Jesus died on the cross He atoned for the sins of all people of all time--even those who have not or will not come to faith in Christ. Reformed churches have historically taught a "limited atonement" of Christ, i.e., that Christ's death on the cross atoned only for the sins of "the elect"--those who have been predestined from eternity to believe in Christ and will spend eternity with Him in heaven.

Scott


----------



## beej6 (Oct 7, 2006)

Andrew, that joint "venture" is interesting. Looks like the ELCA church is trying to build a new building, and are attending services with the PC(USA)ers at their building.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 29, 2006)

There has been some good discussion in this thread. I’ve been somewhat busy throughout parts of the last few weeks, but I hope we can try and further flesh out some of these issues of misunderstanding (and to some extent those of actual difference as well). The main disappointing points that first made me inclined to bring this up were #1, #4 and #5. 

Regarding #1, it is a mistake to say that the Reformed do not give the Gospel a central or primary/foremost role in one sense, even though we do indeed give God’s glory that primacy in another sense (more on that below).

Also, the issue of reason’s relation to Scripture (#4) seems to be partially justified, partially a misrepresentation and partially a false dichotomy. It is partially justified in that there have unfortunately been some movements and theologians within the Reformed camp that could be said to have a tendency of over-rationalizing certain doctrines and reading explanations into some of Scripture might work philosophically, but that are simply not there. On the other hand, it is partially a misrepresentation on the part of the LCMS in that there has been an recognition of the error in that tendency, and a respect given to the existence and role of paradoxes in the faith—especially by Van Til and those who follow him on that particular issue. Thirdly, it seems to partially be a false dichotomy since _some_ reason is necessarily used in the very reading and contemplation of Scripture at all—such as the notion that we can see and understand the meaning of words by looking at them on paper or hearing them audibly. A similar example that may shed further clarifying light on that is the fact that Scripture does not _directly_ tell us that 2+2=4, though it does tell us that God created the universe and its properties in a logical and coherent manner. But the _application_ of thatbiblical truth to some situations (such as math) requires logic and reason.

Regarding #5, the LCMS’ perception of the Reformed view is simply misinformed altogether, and could not be more historically inaccurate. The view memorialist view they have described is of course that of the Zwinglians, which is completely different from the universal Reformed view of our actual spiritual communion with and partaking of Christ and His benefits through the work of the Holy Spirit in the Supper.



beej6 said:


> I've reviewed the LCMS site in the past. I find it interesting that right on the first point, they place the words "glory" and "sovereignty" in quotation marks. I pray that doesn't mean they don't believe in God's glory and sovereignty... or maybe the other four points show that.
> 
> And they juxtapose that against justification by faith alone, as if the two are incompatible.



This is a noteworthy issue to discuss. There is indeed a certain sort of difference in the two camps regarding the issue of _centrality_ to the faith with respect to the Gospel and the glory of God. Indeed, it is noteworthy that in the Lutheran church, “Soli Deo Gloria” is not one of the primarily-emphasized “Solas” of the Reformation, but rather it received that official recognition and status from the Reformed branches. As Vos noted in the quotations cited above, much of that did indeed start with the differently-emphasized reasons for both camps’ shared abandonment of Rome’s doctrine. And that difference can indeed still be seen to this day.

But it also seems to predominantly (or even solely) be a difference of _emphasis_, and _not_ one of substance or content, on which the Reformed and Lutherans are united; for both churches confess the vital importance both of the glory of God and of the Gospel. Furthermore, both churches agree that the two doctrines (God’s glory and the Gospel) both do work together for the carrying out and furthering of each other. Also, it would be a misunderstanding to speak as though God’s glory and the Gospel could ever in any sense be _opposed_ to each other in terms of content, or making a false dichotomy of choosing to believe and embrace “one or the other.” Hopefully that is not what the LCMS site has in mind, and I am definitely inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on that one.

That’s not to say, however, that there is no difference in the _primacy_ given to each in the grand scheme of God’s plan—for the Reformed view God’s glory as the ultimate and supreme end, purpose and driving force behind all of His creation and workings, the redemption of His people being one of those many workings. At the same time, the Reformed view is balanced because it gives a certain type of primacy to the Gospel (and what it gives us) as well, namely that it is the _main_ or _central_ particular act of God by which He has chosen to bring glory to Himself, and is of a much higher realm in the grand scheme of God’s glory than are His ordinary providences, or even His judgment on the wicked.

The Lutheran emphasis, on the other hand, doesn’t really seem to have a balance as such, but seems to view man’s own joy and relief as being the central result of the Gospel, and though they of course confess God’s glory as also having vital importance, it does not seem to have a _primary_ or _foremost_ standing in any particular category—whereas we view God’s glory being as the primary and central result and purpose of the Gospel, while at the same time balancing that out by saying that the joy and relief it brings to God’s people is in fact the _primary_ means by which God derives glory from the Gospel.



Peter said:


> I thought the only difference between Lutherans and Reformed on the Law is their denial or weakening of the 3rd use. These days I think you see more "Reformed" folks trying to draw closer to a Lutheran view of physical or semi-opere ex operato efficacy of the sacraments and ceremonialism and ritualism.



There are of course two senses in which the difference between Lutherans and Reformed may be spoken of: The _historic, confessional_ (official) views of each, and the _contemporary_ views and practices of each. With regard to the Law in the former sense (historic), I would lean towards saying that there is essentially no difference between the two—for the Lutheran confessions explicitly uphold the third use of the Law; likewise, there has been a great deal of affirmation and application of the Law/Gospel distinction among the great historic Reformed theologians (even given that that same understanding was not _universal_ in the Reformed camp, it was definitely _there_).

In the latter sense (contemporary), it certainly seems that there are indeed notable differences on the Law between the two camps, but it cuts both ways. With respect to the Lutherans, it is very true that a lot of their churches and members seem to have unfortunately either weakened or all but forgotten the significance of the third use of the Law. But likewise, with respect to the Reformed, it is undeniable that the Law/Gospel distinction is not as widely talked about or even accepted by as significant a portion of the Church and her theologians as it has often been in the past.



WrittenFromUtopia said:


> The modern Lutheran Church is another issue, but I believe were it not for the pickiness over how one views the presence of Christ in the elements of the Lord's Supper, Lutherans and the Reformed would be one Church.



Do you mean they would have already united in earlier centuries, or that they at least would today? Either way, I have to say this seems like a significant stretch and oversimplification.

There is the significant difference over much of the TULIP beliefs on the cause of saving faith, namely over Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. 

Somewhat related to that particular difference is also the significant difference on baptism, and whether or not it confers actual regeneration, and thus whether those born-again can fall.

Furthermore, the historic Lutheran confessions (not just the contemporary churches) do not even _have_ a system of understanding regarding the covenants and their role throughout Scripture.

They also deny the Regulative Principle of Worship.

Ecclesiology and church government are also notably different in the two camps.

So while it is true that the Reformed have _much_ more in common with confessional Lutherans than we do with mainstream evangelicals and the vast majority of contemporary Protestantism, there have still always been very significant issues separating us.



Scott Shahan said:


> Did I read this correctly? Does it refer to a universal salvation. I thought that the LCMS was more conservative then that. Are they really saying that all are saved, regardless if one comes to faith in Christ or not. If they are saying this, this is really out to lunch. Am I reading this right? or am I out to lunch?
> 
> 2) The nature of Christ's atonement. Lutherans believe that when Jesus died on the cross He atoned for the sins of all people of all time--even those who have not or will not come to faith in Christ. Reformed churches have historically taught a "limited atonement" of Christ, i.e., that Christ's death on the cross atoned only for the sins of "the elect"--those who have been predestined from eternity to believe in Christ and will spend eternity with Him in heaven.
> 
> Scott



No, it absolutely does _not_ refer to universal salvation. It is simply the belief in a universal atonement that _all_ non-Calvinists hold, historically and to this day: the belief that the atonement made it _possible_ for everyone to be saved, being a _potential_ salvation for all, but not an _actual_ salvation _in and of itself_ for any, only being an actual salvation to those who freely accept it by faith (rather than viewing faith as one of the gifts purchased by it).

Confessional Lutherans of our day (and all ages) would not be caught dead affirming universal salvation. The view expressed on the LCMS site really is no different from the view of the atonement that dominates evangelical circles today—and it comes as no surprise either, since the Lutherans have _never_ confessed Particular Redemption ever since right after the Reformation.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 29, 2006)

I agree that the Van Tillian issues such as paradox are indeed "inner" disagreements within the Reformed community. But with regard to the Supper, Calvin, the Puritans and, most importantly, the confessional standards of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches (most notably the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity) have decidedly viewed the sacraments as means of grace along with the Word; and the wording on the LCMS site suggests that Reformed theology does not confess that they are even means of grace as such.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 29, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> The LCMS say they are "actual means of God's grace through which the Holy Spirit works to convey and/or strengthen faith." The word "actual" to them means that the thing signified is always present with the sign; and that these "convey" faith as well as "strengthen" it. The reformed do not teach that the sacraments are bare signs where the thing signified is present, but are a seal of the thing signified in the case of the elect on the presumption that faith has been wrought by the Holy Spirit.



 We (you and I) certainly seem to agree on the nature of the Reformed understanding of the sacraments. We (and the historic Reformed churches at large) certainly do not mean "actual" in the same _way_ the Lutherans do when referring to the means of grace and what we spiritually receive through them (i.e. our distinction between the sign and the thing signified). But neither do the Reformed view them "_merely_ as 'signs' or 'symbols' of God's grace" (emphasis mine) in the _way_ Zwinglians do - namely without any seal or spiritual grace (beyond a visual reminder) being given to those with true faith. So the problem with the LCMS comments is that they are not acknowledging the view of Calvin, the Puritans and the confessions as an alternative to the two choices of the Lutheran view and the Zwinglian view.

For the sake of general reference and clarity in this thread overall, particularly in light of the fact that one of the initially-cited Lutheran misunderstandings of Reformed theology was in regard to the sacraments as means of grace, I'll post the relevant sections of the Larger Catechism and the Heidelberg Catechism, respectively (not every question on the sacraments, but simply those that deal with their nature as means of grace:

Westminster Larger Catechism:



> Q. 161. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
> 
> A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted[1047].
> 
> ...





> Q. 165. What is baptism?
> 
> A. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[1058] to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself,[1059] of remission of sins by his blood,[1060] and regeneration by his Spirit;[1061] of adoption,[1062] and resurrection unto everlasting life;[1063] and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[1064] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s.[1065]
> 
> ...





> Q. 167. How is our baptism to be improved by us?
> 
> A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others;[1068] by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein;[1069] by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements;[1070] by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament;[1071] by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace;[1072] and by endeavoring to live by faith,[1073] to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness,[1074] as those that have therein given up their names to Christ;[1075] and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.[1076]
> 
> ...





> Q. 168. What is the Lord’s supper?
> 
> A. The Lord’s supper is a sacrament of the New Testament,[1077] wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine according to the appointment of Jesus Christ, his death is showed forth; and they that worthily communicate feed upon his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace;[1078] have their union and communion with him confirmed;[1079] testify and renew their thankfulness,[1080] and engagement to God,[1081] and their mutual love and fellowship each with the other, as members of the same mystical body.[1082]
> 
> ...



Heidelberg Catechism:



> Question 66. What are the sacraments?
> 
> Answer: The sacraments are holy visible signs and seals, appointed of God for this end, that by the use thereof, he may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the gospel, viz., that he grants us freely the remission of sin, and life eternal, for the sake of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross. (a)
> 
> ...





> Question 75. How art thou admonished and assured in the Lord's Supper, that thou art a partaker of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross, and of all his benefits?
> 
> Answer: Thus: That Christ has commanded me and all believers, to eat of this broken bread, and to drink of this cup, in remembrance of him, adding these promises: (a) first, that his body was offered and broken on the cross for me, and his blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes, the bread of the Lord broken for me, and the cup communicated to me; and further, that he feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, with his crucified body and shed blood, as assuredly as I receive from the hands of the minister, and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, as certain signs of the body and blood of Christ.
> 
> ...


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 3, 2006)

Any other thoughts in general? I'm particularly interested in hearing more people's thoughts on the issue of primacy regarding the Gospel and God's glory, in addition to the issue of Scriptural supremacy and reason, and possibly even more on the sacraments if one is so inclined.


----------



## Ambrose (Nov 16, 2006)

Me Died Blue said:


> Any other thoughts in general? I'm particularly interested in hearing more people's thoughts on the issue of primacy regarding the Gospel and God's glory, in addition to the issue of Scriptural supremacy and reason, and possibly even more on the sacraments if one is so inclined.



On the Gospel and God's glory, a local LCMS pastor mentioned that when I told him that I was coming from a Presbyterian perspective, saying that he saw Calvin's main driving force being the sovereignty of God in all things. (He also asked if that was a fair overview) He said that the LCMS doesn't deny God's sovereignty of course, but instead find in the Scriptures that God's grace in the forgiveness of Christ Jesus is the real comfort for us sinners. It is the chief article through which they see all other theology. 

Of course, I really don't see a dilemma between sovereignty and GOd's grace, and really feel that they go together. Maybe its a matter of "perceived" emphasis, and though I don't really feel that the LCMS' view of "Reformed" thought and practice describes either me or many of the churches I've been a part of, you have to admit that its not a stretch to perceive Reformed folk (especially on the internet) as being 99% focused on sovereignty and predestination. In fact some Reformed folks would distinguish themselves in the same way from other Reformed folk! 

On scriptural supremacy and reason, the Lutheran pastor spoke on this last night when discussing the Roman Catholic church. His main critique was not the use of reason per se, but the elevation of reason (along with tradition and papal decrees) as co-equal in authority with the scripture. To me you needn't look much further than the Scholastics to see this in action. 

On the other hand, one of my questions concerning the LCMS is whether they actually believe in the primacy of scripture, or would it be fair suggest that the Confessions, writings of Luther, and Synodical decisions are, at least in practice, as authoritative (if not more) as Scripture itself? How authoritative is scripture, if scripture can only be accepted when filtered through the Confessions? And some of the recent Synodical decisions (e.g. women in positions of authority) definitely don't seem to be grounded in Scripture, as not a few protesting LCMS churches assert. Some of these same arguments could just as easily be asked of some Presbyterian sects also. And, I should add that these are questions, not arguments.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 16, 2006)

Most LCMS and WELS Lutheran sem students seem to be taught that Calvinists are rationalists and sneaky (the Book of Concord calls us crafty sacramentarians). They believe that, no matter what we say, we place reason above revelation. They see our view of predestination as _prima facie_ evidence for their prejudice. 

They remain (as do many Reformed) influenced by the old idea that there are "central dogmas" and that the Lutherans derive their whole system from justification and we deduce our whole system from an _a priori_ and unbiblical doctrine of predestination. Richard Muller's whole career has been devoted to debunking this idea, but it's very difficult to get Lutherans to actually read Reformed writers since they've often decided ahead of time that we're sneaky and not to be trusted. Part of this suspicion is grounded in their rejection and fear of the forced union in Germany with the Reformed. In the case of the LCMS, part of their reason for existence is not to unite with the Reformed and not to be Reformed. 

rsc



Chad Degenhart said:


> On the Gospel and God's glory, a local LCMS pastor mentioned that when I told him that I was coming from a Presbyterian perspective, saying that he saw Calvin's main driving force being the sovereignty of God in all things. (He also asked if that was a fair overview) He said that the LCMS doesn't deny God's sovereignty of course, but instead find in the Scriptures that God's grace in the forgiveness of Christ Jesus is the real comfort for us sinners. It is the chief article through which they see all other theology.
> 
> Of course, I really don't see a dilemma between sovereignty and GOd's grace, and really feel that they go together. Maybe its a matter of "perceived" emphasis, and though I don't really feel that the LCMS' view of "Reformed" thought and practice describes either me or many of the churches I've been a part of, you have to admit that its not a stretch to perceive Reformed folk (especially on the internet) as being 99% focused on sovereignty and predestination. In fact some Reformed folks would distinguish themselves in the same way from other Reformed folk!
> 
> ...


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 16, 2006)

> >Whoa, you kinda snuck up on me there...
> 
> >I am, very very sneaky Sr.






> I fear you are underestimating the sneakiness sir.



I had to insert irrelevant movie quotes.

Carry on.  

(I have one  for someone)




R. Scott Clark said:


> Most LCMS and WELS Lutheran sem students seem taught that 1) Calvinists are rationalists and sneaky (the Book of Concord calls us crafty sacramentarians). They believe that, no matter what we say, we place reason above revelation. They see our view of predestination as _prima facie_ evidence for their prejudice.
> 
> They remain (as do many Reformed) influenced by the old idea that there are "central dogmas" and that the Lutherans derive their whole system from justification and we deduce our whole system from a priori doctrine of predestination. Richard Muller's whole career has been devoted to debunking this idea, but it's very difficult to get Lutherans to actually read Reformed writers since they've often decided ahead of time that we're sneaky and not to be trusted. Part of this suspicion is grounded in their rejection and fear of the forced union in Germany with the Reformed. In the case of the LCMS, part of their reason for existence is not to unite with the Reformed and not to be Reformed.
> 
> rsc


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 16, 2006)

ChristopherPaul said:


> I had to insert irrelevant movie quotes.
> 
> Carry on.
> 
> (I have one  for someone)



_Mr. Deeds_


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 16, 2006)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> _Mr. Deeds_




 

You are not going to know what to do with all of these, but here ya go:


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 16, 2006)

ChristopherPaul said:


> You are not going to know what to do with all of these, but here ya go:


----------



## yeutter (Nov 16, 2006)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Interestingly, in my neighborhood, a Presbyterian and Lutheran joint congregation/ministry has just been formed. They have a website here.




The ELCA is Lutheran in name only.
The PCUSA is Presbyterian in name only.
Isn't nice that two nonconfessional groups of liberals can get along.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 16, 2006)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Most LCMS and WELS Lutheran sem students seem to be taught that Calvinists are rationalists and sneaky (the Book of Concord calls us crafty sacramentarians). They believe that, no matter what we say, we place reason above revelation. They see our view of predestination as _prima facie_ evidence for their prejudice.
> 
> rsc


WELS & CLC types hold Anglicans under the same suspicion.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 16, 2006)

To confessionalist Lutherans, Anglicans are just Schwärmerei with robes and a prayerbook!

rsc


----------

