Calvinism and Lutheranism

[J. Dean]

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

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

 

[torstar]

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

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

 

[torstar]

We can agree to disagree safely here...

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

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

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

 

[Philip]

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

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

We can agree to disagree safely here...

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

 

[J. Dean]

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

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

 

[Grillsy]

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

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

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

 

[Philip]

Now see, that doesn't make sense to me

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

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

Good to know.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I always hear that said.

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

 

[Grillsy]

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

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

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

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

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

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

 

[J. Dean]

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

Did Luther and Melancthon not agree on this?

 

[Grillsy]

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

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

 

[Grillsy]

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

Very true.

 

[NB3K]

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

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Did Luther and Melancthon not agree on this?

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

 

[Philip]

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

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

 

[JM]

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



jm

 

[NB3K]

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

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

 

[discipulo]

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

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

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

 

[mvdm]

Kuyper saw large differences between Calvinism and Lutheranism:

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

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

 

[Heidelberg1]

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

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

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

Kim Riddlebarger on Calvinism & Lutheranism: A Comparison

 

[jwithnell]

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

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

 

[dudley]

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

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

 

[James Swan]

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

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

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

 

[Sola Fide]

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

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

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

 

[J. Dean]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sola Fide]

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

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