Reformed vs. Lutheran

[PuritanCovenanter]

The German Reformed Church and the Heidelberg Catechism are the closest among the Reformed tradition to Luther"s thought(as opposed to Lutheran).Luther read Calvin's Institutes with great pleasure.It is the followers of Luther and Calvin that have become hostile to each other.Calvinistic and Lutheran "Orthodoxy" both departed from the theology of Calvin and Luther.The Synod of Dort and Westminster both departed from Calvin on several points,as did the Lutheran Confessions from Luther.

This is very interesting as a Charge somewhat. I agree with your assessment but you have supplied no reference and just inference. Either way. Theology and Biblical systematics where working themselves out in their times. I agree that modern day Calvinists (MRT) don't know Calvin and modern day Lutheran's (Melancthians) don't know Luther. Where do they depart from the Scriptures or Redemptive History? Can you show where these two traditions have missed the point historically (and each other) and biblically? Were have they lost their moorings.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

My confusion comes from the fact that you said that you did not want to drag other issues into this thread, but you did this exact thing earlier. Two kingdoms was not the topic of the thread.

I am finished on this thread unless a new avenue of discussion opens up. Feel free to reply.

I dragged this issue of R2K in Scott. I also believe that this is part of the problem. It is only symptomatic of another issue and misinterpretation... "Dichotomy of Law and Grace." The problem with the views of Two Kingdom's is... which view we are going to hold to? So it is the same on law and grace. There are different views of Republication {law and grace} as there are of Two Kingdom's. No I am not speaking of Domion stuff when it comes to the two Kingdoms views. Just to ease your mind if you know the differences. I am not a Theonomist. As an example read the link below on Republication. The old views are not the same as the new in my estimation. Yes, the law was rewritten but not not as a Covenant of Works.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/wcf-republication-769/

 

[arapahoepark]

Wow! By starting this thread I really opened a can of worms....(I still don't quite understand the debate)

 

[moral necessity]

Calvin’s problem with
Osiander was that his understanding of justification destroyed the foundation
for the believer’s assurance of salvation. Calvin’s concern with Osiander is not that he has inseparably bound together
justification and sanctification;...
...
38
Calvin’s concern is that Osiander has included sanctification within justification
and thus destroyed the foundation
on which a believer’s assurance rests. The assurance of one’s reconciliation
with God, the peace that quiets the soul, is grounded in justification, not in
one’s inherent holiness (sanctification)...
...
39
Thus, Calvin’s point is not thatsanctification must be grounded in justification,
but that the assurance of salvation must be grounded in justification.
As Calvin stated repeatedly, justification and sanctification are benefits
that are to be distinguished but never separated (distinctio sed non separatio).

Good quotes from Marcus Johnson, Randy!

I can fellowship with less of a dichotomy, as long as it's maintained with Calvin, as said above, that "assurance is grounded in justification."
It's when they remove its ground over to sanctification that I cringe at.

Blessings!

 

[jwright82]

Are you saying that you agree with this quote? Doesn't Calvin begin Book 3 of his Institutes with union with Christ? I'm confused with where you stand. Thanks.

As to the Wenger article, I agree with it entirely! He wrote that material originally as part of an MA thesis he wrote for me at WSC!

Did you read the article? I admit... I don't read every link here. This is Dr. Clark's view. It is not mine. I agree with things in the article but disagree with Dr. R. Scott Clark and Wenger. A lot!!!!!

Modern Reformed Thought is not Reformational nor is it what Reformed people think. That is why they make a new attributions and call it 'The New Perspective on Calvin'. It is a modern media techniche. I took Communications in College. Say it loud enough.... Long Enough....
Modern Reformed Thought is not necessarily Reformed.

I disagree with Wenger here. Clark's disciple..... But it is what the Modern Reformed Thought does in my estimation.

iii. exegetical criticism
I said earlier that in addition to problematic historiography, the NPC
utilizes erratic readings of Calvin to establish its case. As all too frequently
happens in debates of this sort, each side can seemingly “out-prooftext” the
other, often leading to futile stalemates. So my goal is not merely to provide
contrary quotations, but rather to show that the way in which the NPC selects
its evidence from Calvin is just as flawed as its historiography and that it
proceeds to a large degree from it. Rather than a proper exegesis of Calvin,
the NPC frequently culls quotations from various and sundry locations in his
work and then arranges them without proper concern for their original proximity.
In addition, its proponents often give less than objective interpretations to his
words which do not do justice to his actual position.

Read Marcus Johnson.
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-3/JETS 51-3 543-558 Johnson.pdf

I really liked Marcus Johnson's response to Wenger who is a Moody Professor I believe. LOL. Wow, a Dispensationsalionalist School Prof. gets it over a Modern Reformed Prof. It is quite puzzling.

NEW OR NUANCED PERSPECTIVE ON CALVIN?
A REPLY TO THOMAS WENGER
marcus johnson*

...The primary evidence Wenger presents for these claims is Calvin’s refutation
of Osiander in Book 3 of the Institutes. Having already warned his
readers of the problem of “erratic readings” and “proof-texting,” I am a bit
surprised that Wenger chose the dispute with Osiander to prove his point.
As the texts that Wenger selected show quite clearly, Calvin’s problem with
Osiander was that his understanding of justification destroyed the foundation
for the believer’s assurance of salvation. By asserting that Christ is our
righteousness according to his divine nature—in a “mixing of essences—
Osiander construes justification as both forgiveness and renewal unto holiness.
36
Osiander’s understanding of union with Christ resulted in a commingling of
justification and sanctification which Calvin flatly rejected.
37
Calvin’s concern with Osiander is not that he has inseparably bound together
justification and sanctification;
38
Calvin’s concern is that Osiander has included sanctification within justification
and thus destroyed the foundation
on which a believer’s assurance rests. The assurance of one’s reconciliation
with God, the peace that quiets the soul, is grounded in justification, not in
one’s inherent holiness (sanctification).
39
Thus, Calvin’s point is not thatsanctification must be grounded in justification,
but that the assurance of salvation must be grounded in justification.
As Calvin stated repeatedly, justification and sanctification are benefits
that are to be distinguished but never separated (distinctio sed non separatio).
In this respect, the importance of 1 Cor 1:30 for Calvin could hardly be over-
stressed as a paradigm for understanding the relationship between the two
benefits.
40
From this also, we infer, that we cannot be justified freely through faith alone
without at the same time living holily. For these fruits of grace are connected
together, as it were, by an indissoluble tie, so that he who attempts to sever
them does in a manner tear Christ in pieces. Let therefore the man who seeks
to be justified through Christ, by God’s unmerited goodness, consider that this
cannot be attained without his taking him at the same time for sanctification
or, in other words, being renewed to innocence and purity of life.
41
The “indissoluble bond” by which justification and sanctification are connected
is Christ himself. To sever these benefits is to “tear Christ in pieces.”
Sanctification, as much as justification, proceeds from the person of Christ
who is grasped in faith. Justification no more “grounds” sanctification than
sanctification grounds justification: both are grounded in, and proceed from,
the believer’s union with Christ:
Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we grasp Christ’s righteousness,
by which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not grasp
this without at the same time grasping sanctification also. For he ‘is given
unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption’ (I Cor.1:30).
Therefore Christ justifies no one whom he does not sanctify. These benefits are
joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he
illumines by his wisdom, he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justifies; those
whom he justifies, he sanctifies. . . . Although we may distinguish them, Christ
contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain
righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him
without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided
into pieces (I Cor.1:13). Since, therefore, it is solely by expending himself that
the Lord gives us these benefits to enjoy. He bestows both of them at the same
time, the one never without the other.
42

Wenger was a Student or what of Clark? Evidently he got it wrong maybe.

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-3/JETS 51-3 543-558 Johnson.pdf

We have big differences Houston ( in reference to the Space Program having Problems).... Union in Christ is a major one. It has confused a lot of people because of nuances and language. I don't believe Modern Reformed Thought has it nailed down.

Well I read it and I thought it was wrong, as far as I understood it. I am no expert but the people he had in mind to criticize made more sense to me. But this thread isn't about union with Christ so I'll leave it at that.