What is the difference between reformed/ Calvinist and Lutheran?

[pamaris]

What is the difference between reformed/ Calvinist and Lutheran?

They seem similar to me. They are both monergistic.

We are exploring the Lutheran church (LCMS)at the moment and have a lot to like about it. My background is that I grew up Baptist. DH comes from a charismatic background. We are both looking for something to sink our teeth into. Also, we both came to understand the doctrine of election as described in Ephesians 1 and Romans 9 to be true, and want to attend a church that supports Grace Alone!

Is reformed theology the same as Calvinist the same as Covenant theology the same as Lutheran?

I don't need a full doctrinal discourse, just some basic info-- thanks!

Blessings

[LilLamb219]

I don't know enough about Calvinists to answer your questions offhand, but I do want to say that Lutherans are closest to believing "by grace alone" than any other denomination. Lutherans can truthfully say that salvation comes from God 100% and none of it from us, whereas no other denomination I've encountered truthfully can say such (thinking of works and decision theology here).

[pamaris]

Good, that's exactly where we're at doctrinally. I have read all their FAQ's on the matter (of monergism vs. synergism-- "decision theology") at their website, just wanted to see that the lay people agreed.

There are a couple of things I need to learn about though-- particularly Baptism and communion... growing up Baptist I don't know much about either!

[Protoevangel]

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2242



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:

1) The centrality of the Gospel. Reformed churches tend to emphasize the "glory" or "sovereignty" of God as the central teaching of Scripture while Lutherans believe that the central teaching of Scripture--and the key to understanding and interpreting the Bible--is the Gospel: the Good News of salvation for sinners by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

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.

3) Predestination. Most Reformed churches teach a "double predestination," i.e., that some people are predestined by God from eternity to be saved and others are predestined by God from eternity to be damned. Lutherans believe that while God in His grace in Christ Jesus has indeed chosen from eternity to save those who trust in Jesus Christ, He has not predestined anyone to damnation. Those who are saved are saved by grace alone; those who are damned are damned not by God's choice but because of their own sin and stubbornness. This is a mystery that is incomprehensible to human reason (as are all true Scriptural articles of faith).

4) The authority of Scripture. A fourth difference has to do with the proper use of reason and its relationship to the authority of Scripture. Lutherans look to Scripture alone as the source of all Christian doctrine, and hold to the teachings of Scripture even when they are incomprehensible to human reason. Reformed churches tend to place human reason alongside Scripture as a source of doctrinal authority, and seek to bring seemingly paradoxical Scriptural truths into harmony with human reason in ways that (in our view) undermine the truthfulness and authority of Scripture.

5) The Sacraments. Most Reformed churches (to a greater or lesser degree) view the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper merely as "signs" or "symbols" of God's grace. Lutherans believe that Baptism and the Lord's Supper (which is the true body and blood of Christ in, with, and under bread and wine) are actual means of God's grace through which the Holy Spirit works to convey and/or strengthen faith.

For more information about the Reformed Church as well as other denominations in the United States, you may contact Concordia Publishing House in St. Louis (1-800-325-3040) and ask for "Churches in America," by Thomas Manteufel, stock no. 22-2522.

[LilLamb219]

There are a couple of things I need to learn about though-- particularly Baptism and communion... growing up Baptist I don't know much about either!

Lutherans believe that God works through means to bring His gifts to us, whether it's salvation in the form of His Son, water and His Word in baptism for a connection to the cross that covers us in Christ's righteousness, to the bread (body) and wine (blood) that also saves and strengthens our faith. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are God's work and He gives us these things, not because He needs to or can't save us without them, but it's what He has chosen to do for us. Without His promises attached to the elements, they are nothing, but His Word is what makes them sacraments.

[Protoevangel]

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8037785& (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8037785&postcount=5)postcount=5 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8037785&postcount=5)

THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY BAPTISM
What is baptism?


Baptism is not merely water, but it is water used according to God's command and connected with God's Word.

What is this Word of God?

As recorded in Matthew 28:19, our Lord Christ said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

What gifts or benefits does Baptism bestow?

If effects forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and grants eternal salvation to all who believe, as the Word and promise of God declare.

What is this Word and promise of God?

As recorded in Mark 16:16, our Lord Christ said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned."

How can water produce such great effects?

It is not the water that produces these effects, but the Word of God connected with the water, and our faith which relies on the Word of God connected with the water. For without the Word of God the water is merely water and no Baptism. But when connected with the Word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul wrote to Titus (3:5-8): "He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. This saying is sure."

What does such baptizing with water signify?

It signifies that the old Adam in us, together with all sins and evil lusts, should be drowned by daily sorrow and repentance and be put to death, and that the new man should come forth daily and rise up, cleansed and righteous, to live forever in God's presence.

Where is this written?

In Romans 6:4, St. Paul wrote: "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

[Protoevangel]

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8037865&postcount=7

THE SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR
What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

Instituted by Jesus Christ himself, it is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, given to us Christians to eat and to drink.

Where is this written?

The holy evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke, and also St. Paul, write thus: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you. This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?

We are told in the words "for you" and "for the forgiveness of sins." By these words the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation are given to us in the sacrament, for where there is forgiveness of sins, there are also life and salvation.

How can bodily eating and drinking produce such great effects?

The eating and drinking do not in themselves produce them, but the words "for you" and "for the forgiveness of sins." These words, when accompanied by the bodily eating and drinking, are the chief thing in the sacrament, and he who believes these words has what they say and declare: the forgiveness of sins.

Who, then, receives this sacrament worthily?

Fasting and bodily preparation are a good external discipline, but he is truly worthy and well prepared who believes these words: "for you" and "for the forgiveness of sins." On the other hand, he who does not believe these words, or doubts them, is unworthy and unprepared, for the words "for you" require truly believing hearts.

[pamaris]

Thank you-- this is very helpful information. We have not yet covered the sacraments in our Sunday School class but I'm looking forward to it. So far, th Lutheran church seems to be the spiritual meat and bread that I have been missing. I hope it ends up being what we are looking for.

Blessings

[BigNorsk]

Exactly how you want to compare relies a lot on the background of the person. For instance you Calvin considered baptism and the Lord's Supper Sacraments and performed infant baptisms, but you have Baptists who call themselves Calvinists who reject those.

Here is how I try to lay it out so people can understand.

Lutherans embrace that we cannot come to God without him calling us.

Lutherans also believe we do nothing that deserves or earns this for us. We can't work our way to God nor even cooperate with God.

These would in combo be very similar to the "Total depravity" and "Unconditional election" of Calvinism.

Lutherans also believe that Jesus died for the sins of the world, and that God does not wish that any should perish.

So Lutherans stand in direct opposition to Calvinism's "Limited atonement."

As for "Irrisistable Grace". I actually don't know why the it is called irresistable grace because Calvin clearly taught that people could resist God's grace except in the case of an irresistable calling. I think it would be less confusing to call it "Irresistable calling" or "Irresistable election."

Anyway Lutherans teach that resisting God's grace is indeed what people do and the only thing that they can do. They cannot accept God's grace, for to accept is something the person does and so is a work and of course Lutherans do not teach salvation by works.

Now for the Perserverance of the Saints I have to say that is kind of a derived teaching in Calvinism. If you have Irresistable Grace and Double predestination, of course the saints persevere. How could it be otherwise?

In Lutheranism you actually see kind of a continuum on the idea of perseverance or losing one's salvation. If you read the early Luther, he talked about the idea that God could not exist with sin and that since we are united with the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit would need to leave us every time we sinned due to his perfect nature. However, in later times we see the development of Lutheran theology more clearly.

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but
the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the
true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only
imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let
your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the
victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we
are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We,
however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new
heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that
through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the
sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to
kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think
such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager
sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.
I don't think you will find that much practical difference in the Perseverance between Lutherans and Baptists. What good is it to think the saints will persevere if every fallen saint is just seen as never being one of the elect in the first place? Are you now a saint with the possibility of falling so far you lose your salvation, or is it possible you aren't really a saint, just someone parading as a saint? Personally, I find it more comforting that faith alone is the path. Those who have faith will be saved, it is not those who have faith who are members of the elect. If at some point in the future I no longer believe, I no longer have faith, and so lose my salvation, that is just confirmation that faith alone is true.

Marv

[FreezBee]

Baptism is not merely water, but it is water used according to God's command and connected with God's Word.


Excuse me for intering, but it may be worth here considering the story about the wedding in Cana, where Jesus turned water into wine, in John 2:1-11. By "wine" here is of course understood "spirit".

Also the story about the Samaritan woman, in John 4:1-26, may be of relevance. Jesus tells the woman who has come to the well of Jacob to fetch water, that the one who drinks of the water of the well will thirst again, but the one who drinks of the water Jesus has to give will never thirst again.

Just thought that this might be of interest :)


- FreezBee

[KEPLER]

Excuse me for intering, but it may be worth here considering the story about the wedding in Cana, where Jesus turned water into wine, in John 2:1-11. By "wine" here is of course understood "spirit".

Also the story about the Samaritan woman, in John 4:1-26, may be of relevance. Jesus tells the woman who has come to the well of Jacob to fetch water, that the one who drinks of the water of the well will thirst again, but the one who drinks of the water Jesus has to give will never thirst again.

Just thought that this might be of interest :)


- FreezBee

The wine at Cana was Spirit? Please explain...

[FreezBee]

The wine at Cana was Spirit? Please explain...

Right away, sir :)

Compare carefully with the story about the Samaritan woman, John 4:1-26. Especially

John 4
10 Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

11 "Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?"

13 Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

15 The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water."

Note the parallels; the old wine is parallel to the water from the well of Jacob, and the new wine is parallel to the water Jesus has to give. What is the water Jesus has to give? Plain tap water? No, it is the spirit, isn't it?

Compare with this:

John 14
15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

So, should we not interpret the wine to be the Spirit? After all, what interest do we have today in a miracle performed nearly 2,000 years ago? A magician could have done that "miracle". Should we not interprete with the Spirit, let the Spirit recognize itself?

And after all, wine as all alcoholic beverages does have a "spirit", don't they? :P


You may want to check out this:

http://www.razormouth.com/shop/items/000016.html

It's a book titled "Drinkingwith Calvin and Luther"!

http://www.razormouth.com/images/shop/drinkingwithcalvin.jpg


cheers

- FreezBee

[KEPLER]

Right away, sir :)

Compare carefully with the story about the Samaritan woman, John 4:1-26. Especially

John 4
10 Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

11 "Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?"

13 Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

15 The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water."

Note the parallels; the old wine is parallel to the water from the well of Jacob, and the new wine is parallel to the water Jesus has to give. What is the water Jesus has to give? Plain tap water? No, it is the spirit, isn't it?

Compare with this:

John 14
15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

So, should we not interpret the wine to be the Spirit? After all, what interest do we have today in a miracle performed nearly 2,000 years ago? A magician could have done that "miracle". Should we not interprete with the Spirit, let the Spirit recognize itself?

And after all, wine as all alcoholic beverages does have a "spirit", don't they? :P


You may want to check out this:

http://www.razormouth.com/shop/items/000016.html

It's a book titled "Drinkingwith Calvin and Luther"!

http://www.razormouth.com/images/shop/drinkingwithcalvin.jpg


cheers

- FreezBee

Well, FB, that's a ...um...er...(how do I say this nicely?)...novel interpretation of John 2. :scratch: (I have no essential problems with your treatment of 4 and 14).

...

I think you need to drink a little more. Or perhaps a little less.

IMHO, the difficulty with interpreting the wine at Cana as the Spirit is that there is no record of the wine having had any spiritual effect. Sometimes a rose is just a rose. And sometimes wine is just wine.

Cheers!

Eric

[SPALATIN]

Right away, sir :)

Compare carefully with the story about the Samaritan woman, John 4:1-26. Especially

John 4
10 Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

11 "Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?"

13 Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

15 The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water."

Note the parallels; the old wine is parallel to the water from the well of Jacob, and the new wine is parallel to the water Jesus has to give. What is the water Jesus has to give? Plain tap water? No, it is the spirit, isn't it?

Compare with this:

John 14
15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

So, should we not interpret the wine to be the Spirit? After all, what interest do we have today in a miracle performed nearly 2,000 years ago? A magician could have done that "miracle". Should we not interprete with the Spirit, let the Spirit recognize itself?

And after all, wine as all alcoholic beverages does have a "spirit", don't they? :P


You may want to check out this:

http://www.razormouth.com/shop/items/000016.html

It's a book titled "Drinkingwith Calvin and Luther"!

http://www.razormouth.com/images/shop/drinkingwithcalvin.jpg


cheers

- FreezBee

I think the comparisons are a bit too ambiguous to put a full agreement on here.

On the book you recommend, would Calvin be drinking Wine or Beer? Luther would for sure be drinking good German Ale or Lager. :D

[SPALATIN]

Well, FB, that's a ...um...er...(how do I say this nicely?)...novel interpretation of John 2. (I have no essential problems with your treatment of 4 and 14).

...

I think you need to drink a little more. Or perhaps a little less.

IMHO, the difficulty with interpreting the wine at Cana as the Spirit is that there is no record of the wine having had any spiritual effect. Sometimes a rose is just a rose. And sometimes wine is just wine.

Cheers!

Eric

Except in the case of the Baptist when it is Grape Juice. ;)

[pamaris]

Exactly how you want to compare relies a lot on the background of the person. For instance you Calvin considered baptism and the Lord's Supper Sacraments and performed infant baptisms, but you have Baptists who call themselves Calvinists who reject those.

Here is how I try to lay it out so people can understand.

Lutherans embrace that we cannot come to God without him calling us.

Lutherans also believe we do nothing that deserves or earns this for us. We can't work our way to God nor even cooperate with God.

These would in combo be very similar to the "Total depravity" and "Unconditional election" of Calvinism.

Lutherans also believe that Jesus died for the sins of the world, and that God does not wish that any should perish.

So Lutherans stand in direct opposition to Calvinism's "Limited atonement."

As for "Irrisistable Grace". I actually don't know why the it is called irresistable grace because Calvin clearly taught that people could resist God's grace except in the case of an irresistable calling. I think it would be less confusing to call it "Irresistable calling" or "Irresistable election."

Anyway Lutherans teach that resisting God's grace is indeed what people do and the only thing that they can do. They cannot accept God's grace, for to accept is something the person does and so is a work and of course Lutherans do not teach salvation by works.

Now for the Perserverance of the Saints I have to say that is kind of a derived teaching in Calvinism. If you have Irresistable Grace and Double predestination, of course the saints persevere. How could it be otherwise?

In Lutheranism you actually see kind of a continuum on the idea of perseverance or losing one's salvation. If you read the early Luther, he talked about the idea that God could not exist with sin and that since we are united with the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit would need to leave us every time we sinned due to his perfect nature. However, in later times we see the development of Lutheran theology more clearly.

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but
the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the
true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only
imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let
your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the
victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we
are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We,
however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new
heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that
through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the
sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to
kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think
such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager
sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.
I don't think you will find that much practical difference in the Perseverance between Lutherans and Baptists. What good is it to think the saints will persevere if every fallen saint is just seen as never being one of the elect in the first place? Are you now a saint with the possibility of falling so far you lose your salvation, or is it possible you aren't really a saint, just someone parading as a saint? Personally, I find it more comforting that faith alone is the path. Those who have faith will be saved, it is not those who have faith who are members of the elect. If at some point in the future I no longer believe, I no longer have faith, and so lose my salvation, that is just confirmation that faith alone is true.

Marv


I just wanted to take a moment to thank everyone who replied; as I have found it very helpful and thought provoking. I just happen to be a mommy of 2 (1 & 4) so even if I do get time my brain is not always eqipped to process the type of information above (mommy mode).

Anyway, up to now, I have basically agreed with TULIP, and I still do for the most part, however I agree with how you explained it above, and I do see that the I should stand for "irresistable election"...which is totally redundant in light of "unconditional election". And you are right... "Perseverence of the saints" becomes redundant as well because since our election is sure and unconditional (and "irresistable") then God has also predestined that we WILL persevere. In election, he elected us for justification, salvation, sanctification and glorification.

Limited atonement is sort of a gray area for me... maybe Jesus did die for the sins of the whole world, yet it really only does good for his elect (believers). So it doesn't really make much difference who He died for as long as those He came to save are included (of course they are).

In the end you just need the T and the U in TULIP. And you're right, when you add those two things together... you get grace. Simple and wonderful grace.

God Bless

[FreezBee]

Well, FB, that's a ...um...er...(how do I say this nicely?)...novel interpretation of John 2. :scratch: (I have no essential problems with your treatment of 4 and 14).

...

I think you need to drink a little more. Or perhaps a little less.

IMHO, the difficulty with interpreting the wine at Cana as the Spirit is that there is no record of the wine having had any spiritual effect. Sometimes a rose is just a rose. And sometimes wine is just wine.

I think the comparisons are a bit too ambiguous to put a full agreement on here.

You may be right - still, why is the new wine better than the old wine in John 2? Is that just for the sake of enhancing the miracle? The wine had no recorded spiritual effect, but please notice the words of Jesus to Mary in John 2:4:

"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."

Does that not indicate that there is some special meaning to the story?

On the book you recommend, would Calvin be drinking Wine or Beer? Luther would for sure be drinking good German Ale or Lager. :D

Oh, as for Calvin, there is Wikipedia page for him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin

And it states that

Calvin would spend his private moments on Lake Geneva and read scripture while drinking large amounts of red wine. Towards the end Calvin said to his friends who were worried about his daily regimen of work, "What! Would you have the Lord find me idle when He comes?"

As for Luther I found this page:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ggsurplus/beersluther.html

Here's a quote from it:



Above all, Luther was a champion of moderation. In his Sermon on Soberness and Moderation, delivered on May 18, 1539, he noted:"It is possible to tolerate a little elevation, when a man takes a drink or two too much after working hard and when he is feeling low. This must be called a frolic. But to sit day and night, pouring it in and pouring it out again, is piggish... all food is a matter of freedom, even a modest drink for one's pleasure. If you do not wish to conduct yourself this way, if you are going to go beyond this and be a born pig and guzzle beer and wine, then, if this cannot be stopped by the rulers, you must know that you cannot be saved. For God will not admit such piggish drinkers into the kingdom of heaven [cf. Gal. 5:19-21]... If you are tired and downhearted, take a drink; but this does not mean being a pig and doing nothing but gorging and swilling... You should be moderate and sober; this means that we should not be drunken, though we may be exhilarated."



And so we have Martin Luther's permission to enjoy a light buzz, especially at home with family and friends, but his stern admonition to refrain from piggishness.





@pamaris: excuse me for hijacking your thread, but this subject is of some relevance though. As we can see, both Calvin and Luther drank, so that's not a point of difference :)


- FreezBee

[BigNorsk]

With your background as Baptists, we should probably cover the relatively slight difference between Calvin and Luther as compared to what Baptists believe.

Calvin and Luther both believed that Baptism and the Lord's Supper were sacraments. That is they bestow grace. Neither taught just do the sacraments and be saved, they didn't teach works salvation.

I can't tell there was much if any disagreement on baptism, both supported baptism including infant baptism. I cannot find that either used immersion as the mode.

The differed on the Lord's Supper in one major difference. Luther supported that when the Lord said the bread and wine were his body and blood that the elements were indeed joined to Jesus in a supernatural way. That in a real, not just spiritual way, Jesus' body and blood were present. Calvin believed in just a spiritual presence.

That's pretty much the difference.

They are both at great odds with the Baptists about baptism and the Lord's Supper.

I have always found Calvinistic Baptists interesting, because they effectively claim Calvin was a total genius on the TULIP beliefs and a complete idiot on the sacraments.

So between Calvinist/Reformed and Lutherans on the Sacraments I think the only difference you will find on the Sacraments boils down to the real or spiritual presence of our Lord in the elements of the Lord's Supper.

Baptists don't get their understanding of the Sacraments from either Luther or Calvin, so I don't know if it is proper to call them either Calvinist or Reformed in that matter

I thought since both Luther and Calvin saw the Sacraments as means of grace, it was important to mention them. The Word of God is also a means of grace.

I'm not sure if Baptists or Charismatics really teach much of anything on how God's grace comes to us other than they generally reject that anything is a sacrament.

Hope that fills in a bit more.
Marv