Crypto-Calvinists

[JM]

Any Calvinistic Lutherans on the forum?

[DaRev]

That's a contradiction of terms.

[LilLamb219]

I think there are some members here who have some Calvinistic leanings, but they're generally the more liberal types of Lutherans from what I've read.

[JM]

Crypto-Calvinism is a term for intra-Protestant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant), indeed intra-Lutheran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran), theological fights during the decades just after the death of Martin Luther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther). It denotes what was seen as a hidden ("crypto" from "kryptein", Greek for "to hide") belief in Calvinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism), i.e. the doctrines of John Calvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin), by members of the Lutheran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran) church, which - since the Marburg Colloquy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_Colloquy) of 1529--had split, still under Luther himself, from the Swiss Reformed Church then headed by Ulrich Zwingli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_Zwingli).
When Luther died in 1546, he left the legacy of Protestantism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism), and the leadership of the church, to his closest friend and ally Philipp Melanchthon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Melanchthon). Melanchthon, however, was often suspected of not being Lutheran enough, but "too soft" both toward Catholicism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism) and toward Calvinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism) (he was by training not a theologian but rather a classics scholar). This accusation came from some Lutherans who saw themselves as the defenders of the true faith and who were called "Gnesio-Lutherans." A famous Gnesio-Lutheran was Matthias Flacius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Flacius). Luther himself had distanced himself from them, but to no avail. The Gnesio-Lutherans' word for those allegedly close to Calvinism within the Lutheran-Protestant church was Crypto-Calvinist.
In the 1570s, after the death of Melanchthon in 1560 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1560), the Gnesio-Lutherans, especially those in Saxony, started several persecutions of alleged Crypto-Calvinists, although many Lutherans actually were heavily inclined toward Calvinism, some of them for doctrinal reasons, others more because they felt that a rapprochement of the main wings of Protestantism was necessary to combat the mutual enemy, Catholicism (and also the more Christian path to take). In 1574 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1574), the famous medical scholar and often Rector of the University of Wittenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Wittenberg), Caspar Peucer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspar_Peucer), not incidentally Melanchthon's son-in-law, was captured and jailed in the Königstein Fortress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6nigstein_Fortress) for Crypto-Calvinism for 12 years; the Saxon Chancellor, Nikolaus Krell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaus_Krell), was even executed for the same "crime." Other Crypto-Calvinists fled to openly Calvinist or Calvinist-friendly German states such as Hesse-Kassel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesse-Kassel).
The legacy of Crypto-Calvinism lives today on in the German Protestant church that is called "Reformed" (rather than "Lutheran"); both Reformed and Lutheran churches form German Protestantism, which is one of the State Churches.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crypto-Calvinism&action=edit&section=1)] Bibliography


Bouman, Herbert J.A. (1977). "Retrospect and Prospect." Sixteenth-Century Studies 8(4), 84-104.
Brandes, Friedrich (1873). Der Kanzler Krell, ein Opfer des Orthodoxismus.
Froner, Hans v. (1919). "Der Kryptocalvinismus Wittenbergs", in Bernhard Weißenborn, ed. Die Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Berlin: Furche.
Hasse, Hans-Peter (2004), ed. Caspar Peucer (1525-1602): Wissenschaft, Glaube und Politik im konfessionellen Zeitalter. Leipzig: EVA.
Koch, Uwe (2002), ed. Zwischen Katheder, Thron und Kerker: Leben und Werk des Humanisten Caspar Peucer. Bautzen: Domowina.
Richard, August Victor (1859). Der kurfürstlich sächsische Kanzler Dr. Nikolas Crell. 2 vols.
Roebel, Marin (2005). Humanistische Medizin und Kryptocalvinismus. Leben und Werk ... Caspar Peucers. MD/PhD thesis, University of Heidelberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Heidelberg). [1] (http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/volltexte/2005/5552/pdf/ZusammenfassungUB.pdf)
Saran, G. (1879) "Der Kryptocalvinismus in Kursachsen und Dr. Nikolaus Krell", DEBI, 596-614.
Henke, Ernst Ludwig Theodor (1865). Caspar Peuker und Nikolaus Krell, Marburg: Elwert.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crypto-Calvinism&action=edit&section=2)] See also


Sacramentarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramentarians)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crypto-Calvinism&action=edit&section=3)] External links


Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=C&word=CRYPTO-CALVINISTICCONTROVERSY) from Christian Cyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Cyclopedia)
The Saxon Visitation Articles 1592 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.viii.ix.html?bcb=0)
spiritus-temporis.com: Everything on Crypto-Calvinism (http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/crypto-calvinism/)
1911encyclopedia.org: AUGUSTUS I (http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Augustus_I)

does this help?

[DaRev]

I think the Lutheran Church has pretty much weeded them out.

[JM]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/NoLOL.svg/463px-NoLOL.svg.png

[BabyLutheran]

huh?

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I think the Lutheran Church has pretty much weeded them out.
If only that were true.

I think if people thought long and hard about their theology, we'd find that we had far more Calvinistic influences than we'd like.

I find this especially true in churches that don't hold weekly communion. It's very difficult for me to believe that people would not hold communion on a weekly basis if they really, truly believed in the real presence- that our Lord comes to embrace us each and every time we partake of the bread and the wine.

I also think much of the laity, being inundated with a Reformed and 'post-Reformed' (Protestant reactions against Calvinism: Arminianism, Credobaptism, dispensationalism) form of Christian piety, are far more inclined to a non-liturgical setting and contemporary understandings of Christian piety.

And I must admit, I have my misgivings about the congregationalist polity found in the LCMS.

That said, no one is really going to admit to being a crypto-Calvinist.

In one issue, however, I feel solid Lutherans can borrow from Reformed theology: the biblical study of the covenants. Twentieth century Reformed scholarship, especially as found in the persons of Geerhardus Vos, Meredith G. Kline, D.A. Carson, and Michael Horton has monumentally advanced the biblical understanding of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants within the context of the ancient Near East.

Historic Lutherans have normally been loath to ground the Law-Gospel motif in a rigorous understanding of the covenants for two reasons. The first reason is that their theological enemies have typically had a strong understanding of the covenants. Before the rise of the Jesuits, the early enemies of the Lutherans were largely Franciscan; and the Franciscans had developed a strong covenant theology in the Middle Ages. Then, in the formative period of Lutheran orthodoxy, the crypto-Calvinist controversy really hindered any serious biblical study of the covenants.

Second, covenant theology as found in the Reformed traditional has typically emphasized the continuity of the covenants found in Scripture, tending to see them all (except the Adamic covenant) as extensions of grace. On the flip side, Lutherans have emphasized the diversity of the Scriptural message in the Law-Gospel principle.

Fortunately, the work of Vos, Kline, and Horton has somewhat reversed this. While still seeing a strong continuity between the covenants with Abraham and with Christ (with which I thoroughly agree), they have come to see the works-based nature of the Mosaic covenant, not merely as a secondary trapping rooted in grace (as earlier Reformed covenant theologians maintained), but rather as center to its essence as a covenant.

Combined with the fact that the controversies racking the church now lay many centuries in the past, I think the time is ripe for an appropriation of Reformed biblical scholarship to serve the needs of Lutheran theology and spirituality.

Just my thoughts.

That said, I loath the influence of Reformed dogmatics and spirituality in the contemporary Lutheran church. I think it's sad how far we have fallen into Protestantism.

[stumpjumper]

Well, I'm not one.

Practically, though, I would be more at home in a Liturgical Presbyterian Church than say a Free Will Baptist Church but I'm not a crypto-Calvinist by any means.

[RevCowboy]

I think the Lutheran Church has pretty much weeded them out.

The intentional crypto-calvinists at least.

I imagine there a few unintentional cryto-Calvinists sitting in Lutheran pews. But worse than that there are probably even a few more that hold crypto -Pelagian tendencies. Although probably far less in Lutheranism than other denominations.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I think the Lutheran Church has pretty much weeded them out.

Well... Crypto implies hidden, we all have a few! :sigh:

[DaSeminarian]

If only that were true.

I think if people thought long and hard about their theology, we'd find that we had far more Calvinistic influences than we'd like.

I find this especially true in churches that don't hold weekly communion. It's very difficult for me to believe that people would not hold communion on a weekly basis if they really, truly believed in the real presence- that our Lord comes to embrace us each and every time we partake of the bread and the wine.

I also think much of the laity, being inundated with a Reformed and 'post-Reformed' (Protestant reactions against Calvinism: Arminianism, Credobaptism, dispensationalism) form of Christian piety, are far more inclined to a non-liturgical setting and contemporary understandings of Christian piety.

And I must admit, I have my misgivings about the congregationalist polity found in the LCMS.

That said, no one is really going to admit to being a crypto-Calvinist.

In one issue, however, I feel solid Lutherans can borrow from Reformed theology: the biblical study of the covenants. Twentieth century Reformed scholarship, especially as found in the persons of Geerhardus Vos, Meredith G. Kline, D.A. Carson, and Michael Horton has monumentally advanced the biblical understanding of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants within the context of the ancient Near East.

Historic Lutherans have normally been loath to ground the Law-Gospel motif in a rigorous understanding of the covenants for two reasons. The first reason is that their theological enemies have typically had a strong understanding of the covenants. Before the rise of the Jesuits, the early enemies of the Lutherans were largely Franciscan; and the Franciscans had developed a strong covenant theology in the Middle Ages. Then, in the formative period of Lutheran orthodoxy, the crypto-Calvinist controversy really hindered any serious biblical study of the covenants.

Second, covenant theology as found in the Reformed traditional has typically emphasized the continuity of the covenants found in Scripture, tending to see them all (except the Adamic covenant) as extensions of grace. On the flip side, Lutherans have emphasized the diversity of the Scriptural message in the Law-Gospel principle.

Fortunately, the work of Vos, Kline, and Horton has somewhat reversed this. While still seeing a strong continuity between the covenants with Abraham and with Christ (with which I thoroughly agree), they have come to see the works-based nature of the Mosaic covenant, not merely as a secondary trapping rooted in grace (as earlier Reformed covenant theologians maintained), but rather as center to its essence as a covenant.

Combined with the fact that the controversies racking the church now lay many centuries in the past, I think the time is ripe for an appropriation of Reformed biblical scholarship to serve the needs of Lutheran theology and spirituality.

Just my thoughts.

That said, I loath the influence of Reformed dogmatics and spirituality in the contemporary Lutheran church. I think it's sad how far we have fallen into Protestantism.

Whenever I find myself leaning that way I curse at the devil.

While I don't think that Melanchthon was a bad guy, I do think he was easily swayed by certain arguments. He must have been the middle child in his family known as the "peacemaker"

[BigNorsk]

Concering the original Crypto Calvinst controversies, such as the real presence. I don't think a Calvinistic understanding is too common. It's just very difficult to take this is my body and this is my blood and say that means no real presence but a spiritual presence. Because Jesus could very well have claimed a spiritual presence but he didn't. It's just such a complete leap of ignoring scripture that I doubt that many make it.

More common would be a Anabaptist or maybe today we would say Evangelical thought that it's nothing but a memorial.

In any case, there are still Calvinistic influences in Lutheran churches. It seems to me the most common is probably in the area of sanctification.

Marv

[Till]

In any case, there are still Calvinistic influences in Lutheran churches. It seems to me the most common is probably in the area of sanctification.


What are the differences in the understanding of sanctification?

[DaSeminarian]

Are there any Crypto-Lutherans in the Reformed or Presbyterian churches?

[MagnusEmboden]

Any Calvinistic Lutherans on the forum?
Most people think I am one.

[MagnusEmboden]

Are there any Crypto-Lutherans in the Reformed or Presbyterian churches?

Quite a few actually...they're called Westminster Seminary West...

[MagnusEmboden]

There is a grain of truth to the idea that Luther himself (and Chemnitz and some others after him, including Daddy Walther) were more consistently monergistic in their soteriology than most Lutherans are today.

Reading them, one could come away with the idea that they were, on the issue of election and predestination, more in line with Calvin than with their latter day theological children.

But it cannot really be said that any of these men were "crypto-calvinists" although Walther was called one quite frequently.

I think what is really happening is that even though you may get a good Lutheran foundation on the subject at the Concordia's, it remains a pretty abstruse issue and rare is the cross-theologian willing to continue to toe the line after ordination (present company excepted).

[MagnusEmboden]

Here's the thing...

(And yes, I know I should have condensed all this into one post...but that's what I get for not reading the whole thread before answering)

I think the OP is probably referring to "Crypto-Calvinism" as it relates specifically to soteriology.

I doubt he meant anything having to do with polity, fudging on the sacraments ar any of that...

At least that is how I understood him and how I answered him.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Here's the thing...

(And yes, I know I should have condensed all this into one post...but that's what I get for not reading the whole thread before answering)

I think the OP is probably referring to "Crypto-Calvinism" as it relates specifically to soteriology.

I doubt he meant anything having to do with polity, fudging on the sacraments ar any of that...

At least that is how I understood him and how I answered him.
But the sacraments are what the crypto-Calvinist controversy was actually about...

[JM]

I think the OP is probably referring to "Crypto-Calvinism" as it relates specifically to soteriology.


That's correct.

[MagnusEmboden]

Historically, it's true that the "Crypto-Calvinist" controversy of the 16th century was about the Sacraments but when pastors called C. F. W. Walther a Crypto-Calvinist, they weren't referring to his sacramentology but to his ideas on predestination (http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/walther/letters/predestination.asc).

And a sermon (http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/walther/predest2.asc)

Of course Walther wasn;t being a Crypto-Calvinist at all, soteriologically or sacramentology. In fact, in my limited knowledge I can't see that he was anything other than an orthodox Lutheran teacher on the point.

But it does seem to me that, out of date language notwithstanding, one wouldn't hear much like this from most Lutheran pulpits today.


(http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/baier/cpt-3-12.txt)

[RadMan]

Historically, it's true that the "Crypto-Calvinist" controversy of the 16th century was about the Sacraments but when pastors called C. F. W. Walther a Crypto-Calvinist, they weren't referring to his sacramentology but to his ideas on predestination (http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/walther/letters/predestination.asc).

And a sermon (http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/walther/predest2.asc)

Of course Walther wasn;t being a Crypto-Calvinist at all, soteriologically or sacramentology. In fact, in my limited knowledge I can't see that he was anything other than an orthodox Lutheran teacher on the point.

But it does seem to me that, out of date language notwithstanding, one wouldn't hear much like this from most Lutheran pulpits today.


(http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/baier/cpt-3-12.txt):thumbsup::thumbsup:

[BabyLutheran]

Aren't Crypto Lutherans those people who are looking for Bigfoot in the Lutheran church? lol

[filosofer]

Historically, it's true that the "Crypto-Calvinist" controversy of the 16th century was about the Sacraments but when pastors called C. F. W. Walther a Crypto-Calvinist, they weren't referring to his sacramentology but to his ideas on predestination (http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/walther/letters/predestination.asc).

And a sermon (http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/walther/predest2.asc)

Of course Walther wasn;t being a Crypto-Calvinist at all, soteriologically or sacramentology. In fact, in my limited knowledge I can't see that he was anything other than an orthodox Lutheran teacher on the point.

But it does seem to me that, out of date language notwithstanding, one wouldn't hear much like this from most Lutheran pulpits today.


(http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/baier/cpt-3-12.txt)

As a matter of fact, I began filling a vacancy 3 weeks ago, and I started teaching on Ephesians. The text of Walther's sermon was the text we examined specifically related to predestination. It was timely - we had an LCMS couple (he was leader of the congregation) attending. he commented that never in his 60+ years had he been in a Bible study that was so profound - he commented that most adult Bible studies are at the 1st through 3rd grade level. He finally encountered a Bible study that caused him to wrestle with the text.

Class members were overall influenced by Arminianism, but now they finally understood the Biblical doctrine of election. And it was freeing for them, and a great comfort!

[BigNorsk]

What are the differences in the understanding of sanctification?

Most Calvinists are completely monergistic on justification but the moment one is justified immediately the person should start to work for their sanctification. The synergism is, in my opinion, too strong.

Lutheran sanctification is different, the new creation cooperates but it must be understood that the cooperation is totally subordinate to the Holy Spirit. Lutheran sanctification is still dependant on God.

It seems to me that the Calvinists, and indeed pietistic Lutherans loose that distinction. They may complain that it is not the case, but that how they come across to me when they speak or write.

Mueller gives a very good explanation.



2. THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF SANCTIFICATION.
(Causa Efficiens Sanctificationis.)
As God by His almighty power engenders faith in man, Eph. 1:19; John 6:29, so also He works in the believer sanctification as the fruit of faith, 1 Thess. 5:23, 24; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; Eph. 2:10. Nevertheless there is this distinction between conversion and sanctification, that in the former man is purely passive (pure passive se habet), while in the latter he cooperates with the Holy Ghost (active se habet sive cooperatur).
However, this cooperation must be rightly understood. It is not coordinate with the operation of the Holy Ghost, but subordinate to it. In other words, man cooperates in sanctification dependenter a Deo; that is to say, he works because and inasmuch as the Holy Ghost works in him, Rom. 8:14: ὅσοι πνεύματι θεου̂ ἄγονται; Gal. 5:16–18: εἰ δὲ πνεύματι ἄγεσθε. Hence every new spiritual impulse which the believer has, and every new good work which he does, is prompted and executed in him through the gracious power of the Holy Spirit, Phil. 1:6; 2:13.
The Formula of Concord writes of this very correctly (Thor. Decl., II, 65): “As soon as the Holy Ghost, … through the Word and the holy Sacraments, has begun in us this His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should cooperate, although still in great weakness. But this … does not occur from our carnal, natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Ghost has begun in us in conversion, as St. Paul expressly exhorts that as workers together with Him we receive not the grace of God in vain, 2 Cor. 6:1. But this is to be understood in no other way than that the converted man does good to such an extent and as long as God by His Holy Spirit rules, grades, and leads him and that, as soon as God would withdraw His gracious hand from him, he could not for a moment persevere in obedience to God. But if this were understood thus, … that the converted man cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses together draw a wagon, this could in no way be conceded without prejudice to the divine truth.”
Hence not only conversion, but also sanctification depends entirely upon God’s grace, 2 Cor. 5:17, 18; 3:5: ἡ ἱκανότης ἐκ του̂ θεου̂. This great truth, so clearly revealed in Scripture, should prompt the believer continually to perfect sanctification, Rom. 6:14; 2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 12:1, 2.
[/URL]
[URL="http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=42576418#_ftnref1"] (http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=42576418#_ftn1)Mueller, John Theodore: Christian Dogmatics. electronic ed. St. Louis : Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1934, S. 386

[JM]

Historically, it's true that the "Crypto-Calvinist" controversy of the 16th century was about the Sacraments but when pastors called C. F. W. Walther a Crypto-Calvinist, they weren't referring to his sacramentology but to his ideas on predestination (http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/walther/letters/predestination.asc).

And a sermon (http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/walther/predest2.asc)

Of course Walther wasn;t being a Crypto-Calvinist at all, soteriologically or sacramentology. In fact, in my limited knowledge I can't see that he was anything other than an orthodox Lutheran teacher on the point.

But it does seem to me that, out of date language notwithstanding, one wouldn't hear much like this from most Lutheran pulpits today.


(http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/baier/cpt-3-12.txt)

I like this Walther chap already. :thumbsup:

[MagnusEmboden]

As a matter of fact, I began filling a vacancy 3 weeks ago, and I started teaching on Ephesians. The text of Walther's sermon was the text we examined specifically related to predestination. It was timely - we had an LCMS couple (he was leader of the congregation) attending. he commented that never in his 60+ years had he been in a Bible study that was so profound - he commented that most adult Bible studies are at the 1st through 3rd grade level. He finally encountered a Bible study that caused him to wrestle with the text.

Class members were overall influenced by Arminianism, but now they finally understood the Biblical doctrine of election. And it was freeing for them, and a great comfort!



May your tribe increase, Pastor.

[Till]

Most Calvinists are completely monergistic on justification but the moment one is justified immediately the person should start to work for their sanctification. The synergism is, in my opinion, too strong.

Lutheran sanctification is different, the new creation cooperates but it must be understood that the cooperation is totally subordinate to the Holy Spirit. Lutheran sanctification is still dependant on God.

It seems to me that the Calvinists, and indeed pietistic Lutherans loose that distinction. They may complain that it is not the case, but that how they come across to me when they speak or write.

Mueller gives a very good explanation.
Quote:

2. THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF SANCTIFICATION.
(Causa Efficiens Sanctificationis.)
As God by His almighty power engenders faith in man, Eph. 1:19; John 6:29, so also He works in the believer sanctification as the fruit of faith, 1 Thess. 5:23, 24; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; Eph. 2:10. Nevertheless there is this distinction between conversion and sanctification, that in the former man is purely passive (pure passive se habet), while in the latter he cooperates with the Holy Ghost (active se habet sive cooperatur).
However, this cooperation must be rightly understood. It is not coordinate with the operation of the Holy Ghost, but subordinate to it. In other words, man cooperates in sanctification dependenter a Deo; that is to say, he works because and inasmuch as the Holy Ghost works in him, Rom. 8:14: ὅσοι πνεύματι θεου̂ ἄγονται; Gal. 5:16–18: εἰ δὲ πνεύματι ἄγεσθε. Hence every new spiritual impulse which the believer has, and every new good work which he does, is prompted and executed in him through the gracious power of the Holy Spirit, Phil. 1:6; 2:13.
The Formula of Concord writes of this very correctly (Thor. Decl., II, 65): “As soon as the Holy Ghost, … through the Word and the holy Sacraments, has begun in us this His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should cooperate, although still in great weakness. But this … does not occur from our carnal, natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Ghost has begun in us in conversion, as St. Paul expressly exhorts that as workers together with Him we receive not the grace of God in vain, 2 Cor. 6:1. But this is to be understood in no other way than that the converted man does good to such an extent and as long as God by His Holy Spirit rules, grades, and leads him and that, as soon as God would withdraw His gracious hand from him, he could not for a moment persevere in obedience to God. But if this were understood thus, … that the converted man cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses together draw a wagon, this could in no way be conceded without prejudice to the divine truth.”
Hence not only conversion, but also sanctification depends entirely upon God’s grace, 2 Cor. 5:17, 18; 3:5: ἡ ἱκανότης ἐκ του̂ θεου̂. This great truth, so clearly revealed in Scripture, should prompt the believer continually to perfect sanctification, Rom. 6:14; 2 Cor. 7:1; Heb. 12:1, 2.

Mueller, John Theodore: Christian Dogmatics. electronic ed. St. Louis : Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1934, S. 386




Thank you Marv,

You are probably correct in saying that Reformed writers writing about sanctification do no stress the point


Hence every new spiritual impulse which the believer has, and every new good work which he does, is prompted and executed in him through the gracious power of the Holy Spirit


that Mueller made that much.

However I fail to see where there is a difference in practice. Obviously you Lutherans would - more so than Reformed christians - stress the role of the sacraments as a means of grace through which the Holy Spirit will do the prompting and executing of obedience in the believer. This is the only pratical difference I see.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

However I fail to see where there is a difference in practice. Obviously you Lutherans would - more so than Reformed christians - stress the role of the sacraments as a means of grace through which the Holy Spirit will do the prompting and executing of obedience in the believer. This is the only pratical difference I see.

But it's a major difference. The difference between the Lutheran and Reformed understandings of the sacraments is like a hinge

On the Reformed side, sanctification becomes an outworking of love toward one's neighbor, with all that implies (and a good thing this is, to be sure). The belief on the path of sanctification can be found living an ethical life.

In the Lutheran understanding, sanctification is rooted in our liturgical spirituality. The believer treading the pilgrimage of sanctification is to be found kneeling before the Lord's body and blood.

It might be a small difference on paper, but it profoundly colors how a Lutheran and how a Reformed person works out their respective lives.

Personally I prefer a combination of both, as I'm sure we all do. But I see Lutheranism as bearing a fuller and more rigorous combination, that can take on all the good things the Reformed understanding has to offer while grounding the Christian experience in sacramental worship.

[BigNorsk]

Thank you Marv,

You are probably correct in saying that Reformed writers writing about sanctification do no stress the point



that Mueller made that much.

However I fail to see where there is a difference in practice. Obviously you Lutherans would - more so than Reformed christians - stress the role of the sacraments as a means of grace through which the Holy Spirit will do the prompting and executing of obedience in the believer. This is the only pratical difference I see.

Well the reformed as such a wide group but where you can really see the difference is say you get to the Calvinistic Bapitsts, they remove faith entirely from the sacraments. Indeed they are not gifts from God, but ordinances that are done from obedience to the law. Not a source of grace at all. It's the basis for their believers baptism that baptism is not something that they receive, but something they do and so must be qualified to do even though in the end it's really nothing.

And there seems to me to be a difference even with the more traditional Calvinists.

I'm not able to remember a Calvinist would talk as Luther did that there was no such a thing as good works without the person being saved and following the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Luther called such works sin.

Such things really do affect people's lives. For in Lutheran theology if you are called by God to be a garbageman, there is no greater thing for you to do than be a garbageman. People don't have to live in false guilt because they aren't a minister or something that people would think was a better thing for them to be.

I think you see a lot of the diffence come down to how evidently quiet Lutherans tend to be in society. You don't see Lutherans as much making a big deal about their giving to charity, it's just what you do. It's not about you, you don't have to have a foundation with your name on, and build buildings with your name on, and so on. It's not about you. Lutherans don't tend to beat their own drum because it's God not them.

It's one of those deep things that is often just sort of absorbed into Lutherans without ever necessarily being overtly taught.

Marv