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...

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.

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]