Lutheran/Calvinist/Arminian

[bach90]

So I'm not looking for a debate, but an honest answer without the polemics.

I hang out at the local Christian club on my campus, and we all get along pretty well. There's members of the AoG, Methodist, Lutherans, and a few Presbyterian Christians.

One thing I can't understand, what exactly is the main difference between Lutherans, Calvinists, and Arminians. I think I understand how Arminians differ from the other two, but what are the main differences that divide Lutheran Christians and Calvinist Christians?

Thanks!

 

[kenrapoza]

Hi there, no polemics = no problem!

There are several main differences between Lutherans and Calvinists. The easiest way to do this is to use the familiar (though imperfect) Calvinist acronym of TULIP to get you started.

Total Depravity: This is where Lutherans and Calvinists are united. We both agree that the Fall has corrupted man in all of his parts and there does not remain in him an "island of righteousness". Man is dead in his trespasses and sins and only the grace of God can change that.

Unconditional Election: Here there is partial agreement between the two camps. Both sides agree that God has elected some people to everlasting life and that ultimately God will save His elect. Where we part ways is in regard to the "negative" side of election. Reformed theology teaches that for God to effectually choose some to salvation and ensure that end, the flip side, from logical necessity, is that God must not have chosen others for salvation. Those people are called the reprobate, they are non-elect. The Lutheran position considers this to be a negative predestination and does not agree. This is where Lutheran theology affirms what it agrees is a paradox: God elects some to salvation, but we cannot say anything about the others. (To be honest - I've been involved in this discussion before, and I believe that we are actually both saying essentially the same thing and should acknowledge that. We are saying that God ensures the salvation of others and leaves the rest to their own merits, He does not work evil in their hearts.)

Limited Atonement: This is where the break between the two theologies becomes more significant. Reformed theology teaches that Christ laid down his life for the sheep, not the goats. Calvinists believe that Christ's death secures the salvation for his people, it doesn't just make it "possible" but makes it an effectual reality. So in this sense, Christ did not die with the intention of redeeming people who will be ultimately lost. The Lutheran position is that Christ's death was for every person who ever lived. The main Lutheran objection to this point is that it tends to point people back to themselves to ask "Am I elect? Did Christ die for me?" and try to look for an answer within themselves. Most Lutherans I've heard consider this to be the most difficult point of contention between the two systems.

Irresistible Grace: Calvinist theology teaches that because man is dead in his sinful state and cannot make a righteous move towards God, he is not able to defeat the grace of God which renews him to repentance. In other words, it is another way of saying that God acts alone in the salvation of a sinner. Lutheran theology teaches that grace is indeed resistible. They would also consider this to be a paradox, because even though logically total depravity should lead to irresistible grace (as in the Calvinist system), Lutherans believe that it is not taught in Scripture and therefore should not be affirmed. Lutherans generally believe that Calvinists are "rationalists" in that we try to work everything into a neat theological system when what the Bible reveals is significantly more paradoxical and cannot be easily fit into a system. It may seem contradictory on the surface, but that is only because God has not revealed all knowledge to us.

Perseverance of the Saints: This is another area where Calvinists and Lutherans disagree. Calvinists believe that when God saves a sinner, regenerates him/her by the power of the Holy Spirit, imputes the righteousness of Christ to him/her and adopts them as a child, that He will not later on take that away - but He will keep that person and preserve them in faith, by His grace, until He calls them home. (You can start to understand the Calvinist mindset here, that all of these 5 points hang together and they are all kind of saying the same thing.) Lutherans disagree and believe that the Bible clearly teaches that true believers can later on apostatize. Lutherans would take the warning passages in Scripture to teach that a Christian can lose their salvation.

Some other major differences:

- Baptism (it's efficacy)
- The Lord's Supper (what is it's nature)
- Redemptive-History (Calvinists in the historical vein of Reformed theology hold to a Covenant Theology, whereas Lutherans shy away from that)

If you would like more details on some of those, just ask for clarification.

Hope some of that helps!

 

[bach90]

Thanks! That helps greatly, I think your right that the second point seems to be two different ways of saying the same thing, I think the clearest difference would be in the third point.

I appreciate the explanation, Blessings to you!

 

[kenrapoza]

Glad to be of help, feel free to visit our forum any time you'd like!

 

[file13]

Yes, very helpful kenrapoza!

I have struggled to understand the Lutheran POV myself and everything you've said here echos what I've heard from Lutherans, but in a much more organized manner.

A quick question though about this one:

The main Lutheran objection to this point is that it tends to point people back to themselves to ask "Am I elect? Did Christ die for me?" and try to look for an answer within themselves. Most Lutherans I've heard consider this to be the most difficult point of contention between the two systems.

I've had the exact same experience regarding this one too, but I don't know if I understand why they think this is problematic. I've heard them say things like it leads folks to despair and engage in unhealthy "navel gazing." I don't suppose you have any insight and responses to this? I just don't see how one worrying whether one is elect is different from worrying about loosing your salvation in practical terms.

Thanks!

 

[kenrapoza]

Yes, very helpful kenrapoza!

I have struggled to understand the Lutheran POV myself and everything you've said here echos what I've heard from Lutherans, but in a much more organized manner.

A quick question though about this one:



I've had the exact same experience regarding this one too, but I don't know if I understand why they think this is problematic. I've heard them say things like it leads folks to despair and engage in unhealthy "navel gazing." I don't suppose you have any insight and responses to this? I just don't see how one worrying whether one is elect is different from worrying about loosing your salvation in practical terms.

Thanks!

I know what you're saying, because I've had the same struggle trying to understand this aspect with Lutheran theology. Actually, I should say that there are really two Lutheran objections to the Calvinist doctrine of Definite Atonement.

1.) The basic issue is that Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that Christ died for all. Scripture uses universal language in several places in reference to the work of Christ and the gospel. Lutherans take these to be clear statements of Christ's work on behalf of every human. Therefore, the Calvinist doctrine of Definite Atonement is seen to be a rationalistic trick of fitting the Scriptures into a pre-conceived system of doctrine.

2.) The second issue is the one you've mentioned above. The way I understand the issue is that Lutheran doctrine (much like classical Reformed doctrine) stresses the objectivity of the gospel and the work of Christ. To a Lutheran, saying that Christ's atonement was not on behalf of every person strips away the objectivity of the gospel. They would argue that we are left with a lack of assurance because we never really know if we are one of the elect.

Now - obviously I am Reformed, I am not a Lutheran. So I do believe that the Lutheran objections don't really stick and in some cases are a misunderstanding of Reformed doctrine and in other cases are not substantial objections at all. I would actually contend (along with you) that teaching that a Christian can lose their salvation causes many more problems and produces the exact same effect that Lutheran doctrine attributes to Reformed soteriology.

I'm trying to be careful to state the Lutheran positions in a fair and balanced manner. I'm also refraining from engaging those positions in a debate in this thread because the OP was clear that this thread is intended to be a friendly interaction for the purpose of greater mutual understanding without being polemical.

Does that help at all?

 

[file13]

1.) The basic issue is that Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that Christ died for all. Scripture uses universal language in several places in reference to the work of Christ and the gospel. Lutherans take these to be clear statements of Christ's work on behalf of every human. Therefore, the Calvinist doctrine of Definite Atonement is seen to be a rationalistic trick of fitting the Scriptures into a pre-conceived system of doctrine.

Yeah, this part seems strange to me. Although ultimately the Reformed and Lutherans both seem to recognize that they're going to have to appeal to mystery at some point. It seems to me that the Reformed do so on the mystery between God's sovereignty and human will (perhaps while embracing some form of compabatilism), where the Lutherans embrace the mystery regarding around their belief that only the elect are predestined to salvation (single predestination) and despite what simple logic says, this does not imply predestination to damnation. In other words, the Reformed put the "mystery" stake in the area of how God can be completely sovereign and yet, we're not robots, whereas the Lutherans put the mystery stake in single predestination that defies simple logic because it's a mystery (assuming I understand both correctly).

I just don't know if I buy the Lutheran POV. Sure, it does seem to reflect the sentiment of the Council of Orange, but it seems much more likely to me (especially given Romans 9) that "double predestination" is a scriptural concept and so this isn't the proper place to put in the mystery stake.

What do you think?

2.) The second issue is the one you've mentioned above. The way I understand the issue is that Lutheran doctrine (much like classical Reformed doctrine) stresses the objectivity of the gospel and the work of Christ. To a Lutheran, saying that Christ's atonement was not on behalf of every person strips away the objectivity of the gospel. They would argue that we are left with a lack of assurance because we never really know if we are one of the elect.

I think I see what you're getting at and the thought about objectivity makes sense to a degree, (and I know since you're not a Lutheran that you can only speculate on their view), but again, I agree with you and I just don't so how this is any different from being able to lose one's salvation to begin with?

On a personal note, I haven't formally committed to a definite view of sotierology at this time, so this discussion is helpful (along with those in the sorierology forum where I've been lurking). But the primary reason I currently lean towards the Reformed view is that it seems to me that in any scheme where salvation is conditional upon us, even if that condition is simply choosing to believe and then holding onto that belief, salvation ultimately depends on you. Why? Because if God is God, then in any scheme, be it synergy or simply holding on to faith, we have every assurance that God will hold up His end of the bargain. If God's part is good to go, then in reality, we're responsible for our own salvation. How is this salvation at all if we have a God who dosen't really save, but instead makes it possible for us to save ourselves? Even if the condition for our salvation is simply that we hold on to saving faith and requires that we simply hold on to a saving faith, our being saved ultimately depends on us. I just can't seem to get around this point and even if Arminians and Lutherans can both make good scriptural arguments for their positions (and I do believe they can must good arguments), it seems to keep coming back to this point. Is Jesus Christ a savior or not? How can He be a savior if salvation depends on us?

Does that help at all?

It does and thanks!

I'm currently reading Picirilli's Grace, Faith, Free Will book, and it's so far the best Arminian defense I've read, but it's so far not quite convincing. I mean, I see how he can justify a view from Scripture that God's election and choice is that He chooses to make a conditional choice, but how does this make any real sense given that any amateur atheist can still point out that even if God looks forward in time and see's who will meet the condition of His conditional election, why would He still create people who are hell bound from the beginning? It just seems like they're trying to delay the inevitable question that lies behind "double predestination." If the primary objection to the Augustinian view is that it makes God the "author of evil," how does this view solve that?

Also, I'm not sure I buy Picirilli's assertion that faith is itself not a work. Again, I think from a Scriptural POV this view is possible, but I'm not sure who he plans on reconciling this with Christ's clear words that no one can come to Him unless the Father "drags" him/her?

Anyways, after this book, I'm wanting to read something from the Lutheran perspective so I can hopefully make an informed decision and rest from all this theological fighting, so again, this post is helpful. I'll probably end up asking over in the Lutheran forum to hear it from Lutherans, but I do appreciate hearing a Reformed perspective on the Lutheran view, which often seems to be ignored or lumped in with the Arminian view. So thanks and of course, any insight is appreciated.

 

[kenrapoza]

Yeah, this part seems strange to me. Although ultimately the Reformed and Lutherans both seem to recognize that they're going to have to appeal to mystery at some point. It seems to me that the Reformed do so on the mystery between God's sovereignty and human will (perhaps while embracing some form of compabatilism), where the Lutherans embrace the mystery regarding around their belief that only the elect are predestined to salvation (single predestination) and despite what simple logic says, this does not imply predestination to damnation. In other words, the Reformed put the "mystery" stake in the area of how God can be completely sovereign and yet, we're not robots, whereas the Lutherans put the mystery stake in single predestination that defies simple logic because it's a mystery (assuming I understand both correctly).

I just don't know if I buy the Lutheran POV. Sure, it does seem to reflect the sentiment of the Council of Orange, but it seems much more likely to me (especially given Romans 9) that "double predestination" is a scriptural concept and so this isn't the proper place to put in the mystery stake.

What do you think?

One of the things that I appreciate about Lutheran theology is its reticence to go beyond Scripture and its aversion to adding to what Scripture says, even if it seems to make sense. However, I essentially agree with you. We can't just talk about Jacob, we must also consider Esau. I think that passages like the one you quoted do teach that we must embrace the basic logic that if God is sovereign, and He has predestined a chosen race for Himself since before the foundation of the world, then there are people whom He did not choose for that specific purpose. It is not because of anything inherent in the people, but it is for the purpose of His own will and His own ends. One thing we must keep in mind is that the term "double predestination" can be misleading. Sometimes, when people hear it, they almost get the idea that it teaches "equal ultimacy" - which orthodox Calvinism vehemently denies. It is simply that all of us have earned the wrath of God because of our sin, some of us God has chosen unto Himself and sent His Son to redeem them through his own blood, and the rest of us will stand before God's holy Law with only our own merits. However, Scripture is clear about the verdict of the ones who have been justified through Christ and also the verdict of the ones whom Jesus "never knew" (in a saving sense - see Matt. 7:23 and Rom. 8:29). They are the sheep and the goats. This "reprobation" is God's withholding of saving grace, not His creation of unbelief.

I think I see what you're getting at and the thought about objectivity makes sense to a degree, (and I know since you're not a Lutheran that you can only speculate on their view), but again, I agree with you and I just don't so how this is any different from being able to lose one's salvation to begin with?

On a personal note, I haven't formally committed to a definite view of sotierology at this time, so this discussion is helpful (along with those in the sorierology forum where I've been lurking). But the primary reason I currently lean towards the Reformed view is that it seems to me that in any scheme where salvation is conditional upon us, even if that condition is simply choosing to believe and then holding onto that belief, salvation ultimately depends on you. Why? Because if God is God, then in any scheme, be it synergy or simply holding on to faith, we have every assurance that God will hold up His end of the bargain. If God's part is good to go, then in reality, we're responsible for our own salvation. How is this salvation at all if we have a God who dosen't really save, but instead makes it possible for us to save ourselves? Even if the condition for our salvation is simply that we hold on to saving faith and requires that we simply hold on to a saving faith, our being saved ultimately depends on us. I just can't seem to get around this point and even if Arminians and Lutherans can both make good scriptural arguments for their positions (and I do believe they can must good arguments), it seems to keep coming back to this point. Is Jesus Christ a savior or not? How can He be a savior if salvation depends on us?

Very well said, and it's one of the reasons that I'm not a Lutheran. However, to be fair, Lutherans are very clear that they do not attribute any of the saving power (even the keeping of faith) to the human will. Like Calvinists, they say that it is only the grace of God that grants us faith and sustains our faith - and this is accomplished through Word and Sacrament ministry. Now, how then can grace be resisted and how can we lose our salvation? Wouldn't that negate the monergism and sneak synergism through the back door? I think that it does and it's one of my main concerns with Lutheran teaching. It's taking away with the right hand what it gives with the left. Any saving faith must be the gift of God through Christ! The Lutheran response is that this paradox has not been revealed to us, and Calvinist attempts at resolving it do violence to the Scriptural text. I disagree, but everybody already knows that Calvinists and Lutherans disagree on that!

In the end, both our positions claim that it is Christ that saves us from first to last. Both positions strongly affirm Divine monergism. However, it is my contention that consistent monergism is Calvinism.

It does and thanks!

I'm currently reading Picirilli's Grace, Faith, Free Will book, and it's so far the best Arminian defense I've read, but it's so far not quite convincing. I mean, I see how he can justify a view from Scripture that God's election and choice is that He chooses to make a conditional choice, but how does this make any real sense given that any amateur atheist can still point out that even if God looks forward in time and see's who will meet the condition of His conditional election, why would He still create people who are hell bound from the beginning? It just seems like they're trying to delay the inevitable question that lies behind "double predestination." If the primary objection to the Augustinian view is that it makes God the "author of evil," how does this view solve that?

Also, I'm not sure I buy Picirilli's assertion that faith is itself not a work. Again, I think from a Scriptural POV this view is possible, but I'm not sure who he plans on reconciling this with Christ's clear words that no one can come to Him unless the Father "drags" him/her?

Anyways, after this book, I'm wanting to read something from the Lutheran perspective so I can hopefully make an informed decision and rest from all this theological fighting, so again, this post is helpful. I'll probably end up asking over in the Lutheran forum to hear it from Lutherans, but I do appreciate hearing a Reformed perspective on the Lutheran view, which often seems to be ignored or lumped in with the Arminian view. So thanks and of course, any insight is appreciated.

Interesting book, I have not read it myself. I agree that such a "conditional election" does not solve the problem of evil and downplays the gravity of Original Sin. Why do some of us believe and not others? Is it because some of us are smarter? Obviously not. Is it because some of us are more righteous? No. It is only because of the grace of God. If election is conditional, then we are left to look at something in the person themselves that qualifies them, makes them more likely to trust Christ. But Scripture says that the natural man is at enmity with God. It is a veiled form of meritorious salvation.

It should also be noted that Lutherans also reject Arminianism. Like Calvinists, they believe that Arminian or semi-Pelagian synergism is unscriptural and underestimates man's depravity. Neither Calvinists nor Lutherans believe in the Arminian/Wesleyan idea of "prevenient grace".

 

[file13]

One of the things that I appreciate about Lutheran theology is its reticence to go beyond Scripture and its aversion to adding to what Scripture says, even if it seems to make sense. However, I essentially agree with you. We can't just talk about Jacob, we must also consider Esau. I think that passages like the one you quoted do teach that we must embrace the basic logic that if God is sovereign, and He has predestined a chosen race for Himself since before the foundation of the world, then there are people whom He did not choose for that specific purpose. It is not because of anything inherent in the people, but it is for the purpose of His own will and His own ends. One thing we must keep in mind is that the term "double predestination" can be misleading. Sometimes, when people hear it, they almost get the idea that it teaches "equal ultimacy" - which orthodox Calvinism vehemently denies.

Yup and amen. I admire a lot about Lutheran's myself, but it's things like this which just don't sit well. Anyways, thank God for Sproul and making these free. He does such a good job of making that last point explicit and simple.

Now, how then can grace be resisted and how can we lose our salvation? Wouldn't that negate the monergism and sneak synergism through the back door? I think that it does and it's one of my main concerns with Lutheran teaching. It's taking away with the right hand what it gives with the left. Any saving faith must be the gift of God through Christ! The Lutheran response is that this paradox has not been revealed to us, and Calvinist attempts at resolving it do violence to the Scriptural text. I disagree, but everybody already knows that Calvinists and Lutherans disagree on that!

Again, amen and great job of zeroing in on the root cause; consistent monergism. That does seem to be the key difference. I can understand how our sanctification is synergistic and maybe since they also disagree with the preservation of the saints, this is how they reconcile the two. What do you think?

In the end, both our positions claim that it is Christ that saves us from first to last. Both positions strongly affirm Divine monergism. However, it is my contention that consistent monergism is Calvinism.

Yeah, Lutherans and Reformed seem to me to be brothers in arms or at least on the same side of the Reformation, despite their minor differences. They both seem clearly Augustinian to me.

Interesting book, I have not read it myself. I agree that such a "conditional election" does not solve the problem of evil and downplays the gravity of Original Sin. Why do some of us believe and not others? Is it because some of us are smarter? Obviously not. Is it because some of us are more righteous? No. It is only because of the grace of God. If election is conditional, then we are left to look at something in the person themselves that qualifies them, makes them more likely to trust Christ. But Scripture says that the natural man is at enmity with God. It is a veiled form of meritorious salvation.

My thoughts exactly! But I'm still trying to keep an open mind (I'm not done with the book) because I do want be lead by the Spirit to the truth and not simply go where my hunch leads me.

It should also be noted that Lutherans also reject Arminianism. Like Calvinists, they believe that Arminian or semi-Pelagian synergism is unscriptural and underestimates man's depravity. Neither Calvinists nor Lutherans believe in the Arminian/Wesleyan idea of "prevenient grace".

Can amens get too redundant? Coming from Eastern Orthodoxy, I must admit, this is my biggest hang up with the Arminian POV. I know that intellectually, since the Arminian still believes in sola gratia/sola fide, that they (at least in theory) claim to be different from the semi-Pelagian. But it seems to me that if you mix synergy with the ability to lose your salvation than in practice, there's really no difference. As you said it so well above, if someone can lose their salvation, it must be through willingly violating some condition. How can this not be some volitional action, aka works? Again, I know the Arminian will insist that they just have to hold on to faith to be saved, which would make them different from the semi-Pelagian, but it still just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This is why I think as you clearly mentioned, the Lutherans and Reformed are more on the right track from what I see in Scripture. My wife and I left Orthodoxy because we came to believe in the sola fide/sola gratia and did not want to raise our son to try to work his way to heaven through asceticism. But once you get into the "little details" of sotierology, it does seem that the Lutherans and Reformed are more consistent with the doctrines of grace as (I would say) are clearly revealed in Scripture.

Anyways, thanks again brother for your thoughts and listening!

 

[kenrapoza]

It's interesting that you bring up the question of sanctification. The Lutheran view of sanctification is actually much more monergistic than common evangelical views which are influenced by pietism and Arminian holiness theology. This is one of the areas where I think that Lutherans are actually more consistent - you can really see how their view of the means of grace comes in to play. BTW - because in recent history the term "Reformed" has been abused so much, it's tough for most Christians to know what, if anything, Reformed theology actually has to say on sanctification. Many confessional Reformed view sanctification in a way very similar to confessional Lutherans.

There is actually a good paper published online from the Lutheran perspective. If you're interested I can give you a link to it. Anyways - the Lutheran view of sanctification relies heavily on Rom. 7. They (like many confessional Reformed) believe that Paul is speaking of his experience as a Christian in that chapter and that he is describing the struggle of indwelling sin. That there is the old man within us who is corrupt and unbelieving, and there is the new man, who is a new creation in Christ. The only way of growing in grace and sanctification is by putting the old man to death, not by training him. That is accomplished by God and His grace alone, and He primarily uses the means of the ministry of Word and Sacrament. The Law is used to kill the old man and the Gospel continually renews our new nature and drives our sanctification by revealing Christ to us. So you can see how the Lutheran view of the proper distinction between law and gospel, along with their sacramental views, play directly and consistently into their view of sanctification. This is why you will sometimes hear Lutherans speak of daily drowning their old nature in the waters of baptism. Our corruption continually resurfaces because our old Adam is a good swimmer.

At least on some levels, there is quite a bit of agreement between confessional Lutherans and confessional Reformed in this area.

EDIT: Regarding your comments about the areas of contact between Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism, I agree with you. Another way of putting it is that Arminians reject the Reformed idea of effectual grace (i.e., irresistible grace). Arminians believe in a prevenient grace given to all people that enables them to believe in the gospel. However, if it doesn't work for every person (or most people) then it isn't really effectual. If it isn't the grace that's effectual in the person's salvation, then something else is. In other words, it is the person themself who effects their salvation through the exercise of their volition. One can see how this is thinly-veiled semi-Pelagianism. Thank God that many Arminians are inconsistent!

 

[file13]

How strange, my response apparently didn't go through yesterday. I guess I'll start over....

It's interesting that you bring up the question of sanctification. The Lutheran view of sanctification is actually much more monergistic than common evangelical views which are influenced by pietism and Arminian holiness theology. This is one of the areas where I think that Lutherans are actually more consistent - you can really see how their view of the means of grace comes in to play. BTW - because in recent history the term "Reformed" has been abused so much, it's tough for most Christians to know what, if anything, Reformed theology actually has to say on sanctification. Many confessional Reformed view sanctification in a way very similar to confessional Lutherans.

I'm not all that clear on what exactly is meant by the "means of grace." Every time I've heard Lutherans bring it up, it seems like they do so in response to the idea that Calvinism causes unhealthy naval gazing and to defend to charge that Lutheranism is no better than Calvnism since it states that one can lose their salvation. The gist I got (which could be wrong) was that one dosen't need to doubt or navel gaze, but instead throw one's self into the Word and Eucharist which will keep you grounded. But please feel free to elaborate on this from their POV along with the Reformed POV.

There is actually a good paper published online from the Lutheran perspective. If you're interested I can give you a link to it. Anyways - the Lutheran view of sanctification relies heavily on Rom. 7. They (like many confessional Reformed) believe that Paul is speaking of his experience as a Christian in that chapter and that he is describing the struggle of indwelling sin. That there is the old man within us who is corrupt and unbelieving, and there is the new man, who is a new creation in Christ. The only way of growing in grace and sanctification is by putting the old man to death, not by training him. That is accomplished by God and His grace alone, and He primarily uses the means of the ministry of Word and Sacrament. The Law is used to kill the old man and the Gospel continually renews our new nature and drives our sanctification by revealing Christ to us. So you can see how the Lutheran view of the proper distinction between law and gospel, along with their sacramental views, play directly and consistently into their view of sanctification. This is why you will sometimes hear Lutherans speak of daily drowning their old nature in the waters of baptism. Our corruption continually resurfaces because our old Adam is a good swimmer.

Yes, I'd love a link to that. While you're at it, links to good articles from the Reformed view on this would be helpful too.

That being said, what you wrote here does strike me as the same "spirit" I find in the prayers in the "Valley and Vision." I.e. the Law keeps us perpetually aware of how much we suck while the Gospel keeps us eternally grateful to what Christ has done for us which leads us to want to be good adopted sons or daughters and walk in His way out of gratitude, not fear. As always, feel free to correct any deficiencies in any of this.

One can see how this is thinly-veiled semi-Pelagianism. Thank God that many Arminians are inconsistent!

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I believe both the Lutheran and the Reformed views emphasize how sanctification is an ongoing process and how it is accomplished through the Word and Sacraments. I know there are differences, but they are minor I believe.

 

[TCat]

Not trying to but in here but... I am currently looking for another church, I have been attending a Lutheran Church for the last 7 years and have a fairly good grasp of it's teaching. I am considering attending a Reformed church in my neighborhood but the idea of predestination "seems" wrong and makes little sense in view of Scripture.
After reading this fine thread I weill have to say that I may need to take a second look, do some study and talk to the pastor before rejecting it after all.
Thank you for your carefull and balanced points of view.

TCat

 

[kenrapoza]

I found a quote here from B.B. Warfield on the similarities and differences between Lutheran thought and Calvinist thought regarding faith and justification. It is interesting to note how Warfield brings out the sense in which the Reformed way of thinking is actually more objective and "outside of the person" than is the tendency in Lutheran thought. I think it kind of gets to the heart of it.

It is unfortunate that a great body of the scientific discussion which, since Max Goebel [...] first clearly posited the problem, has been carried on somewhat vigorously with a view to determining the fundamental principle of Calvinism, has sought particularly to bring out its contrast with some other theological tendency, commonly with the sister Protestant tendency of Lutheranism. Undoubtedly somewhat different spirits inform Calvinism and Lutheranism.(1)
But it is gravely misleading to identify the formative principle of either type of Protestantism with its prominent points of difference from the others. They have vastly more in common than in distinction. And nothing could be more misleading than to trace all their differences, as to their roots, to the fundamental place given in the two systems respectively to the principles of predestination and justification by faith.
Just as little can the doctrine of justification by faith be represented as specifically Lutheran. It is as central to the Reformed as to the Lutheran system. Nay, it is only in the Reformed system that it retains the purity of its conception and resists the tendency to make it a doctrine of justification on account of; instead of by, faith. It is true that Lutheranism is prone to rest in faith as a kind of ultimate fact, while Calvinism penetrates to its causes, and places faith in its due relation to the other products of God’s activity looking to the salvation of man. And this difference may, on due consideration, conduct us back to the formative principle of each type of thought. But it, too, is rather an outgrowth of the divergent formative principles than the embodiment of them. Lutheranism, sprung from the throes of a guilt-burdened soul seeking peace with God, finds peace in faith, and stops right there. It is so absorbed in rejoicing in the blessings which flow from faith that it refuses or neglects to inquire whence faith itself flows. It thus loses itself in a sort of divine euthumia, and knows, and will know nothing beyond the peace of the justified soul. Calvinism asks with the same eagerness as Lutheranism the great question, “What shall I do to be saved?” and answers it precisely as Lutheranism answers it. But it cannot stop there. The deeper question presses upon it, “Whence this faith by which I am justified?” And the deeper response suffuses all the chambers of the soul with praise, “From the free gift of God alone, to the praise of the glory of His grace.” Thus Calvinism withdraws the eye from the soul and its destiny and fixes it on God and His glory. It has zeal, no doubt, for salvation but its highest zeal is for the honour of God, and it is this that quickens its emotions and vitalizes its efforts. It begins, it centres and it ends with the vision of God in His glory and it sets itself; before all things, to render to God His rights in every sphere of life-activity.
​

 

[heymikey80]

I believe both the Lutheran and the Reformed views emphasize how sanctification is an ongoing process and how it is accomplished through the Word and Sacraments. I know there are differences, but they are minor I believe.

A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification of his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued: the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection. Westminster Larger Catechism 77

 

[heymikey80]

Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God's eternal election-- those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. Canons of Dordt, 3.15

 

[file13]

I found a quote here from B.B. Warfield on the similarities and differences between Lutheran thought and Calvinist thought regarding faith and justification....

...Thus Calvinism withdraws the eye from the soul and its destiny and fixes it on God and His glory. It has zeal, no doubt, for salvation but its highest zeal is for the honour of God, and it is this that quickens its emotions and vitalizes its efforts. It begins, it centres and it ends with the vision of God in His glory and it sets itself; before all things, to render to God His rights in every sphere of life-activity.

Interesting. This pretty much sums up my impression of Calvinist spirituality.

I suppose at this point the difference more or less comes down to the question "how do I know if I'm saved?" It seems both Reformed or Lutheran would ask, "do you believe?" and perhaps point out the fact that if you're genuinely concerned about the question, this is probably a good indicator of regeneration. Any thoughts here? I'm familiar with Sproul's comments on this one and think they're solid. Any others, especially from the Lutheran side?

 

[kenrapoza]

I heard Rod Rosenbladt (a prominent Lutheran) answer that by saying something like "Am I trusting in Christ and his righteousness alone for salvation." That would also be my answer. He then followed up with "If our backs are really up against the wall then we run to our baptism." There you can see the Lutheran doctrine of baptismal regeneration and faith actually being delivered through the sacrament. In other words, how do I know that I am saved? Because I am a baptized Christian.

I also agree with Sproul's comments on the matter. If we love Christ at all and trust him for salvation it is only because we have been regenerated.

 

[ContraMundum]

Check out this video, it might help understand the Lutheran perspective.

 

[file13]

Check out this video, it might help understand the Lutheran perspective.

Interesting video. Thanks for sharing! I think he did a good job of explaining their POV and I think it's a good reinforcement of what's been said already. I particularly liked his take on the 'P' of tulip from the Lutheran POV. Very interesting!

However, I think his assertion that Reformed folks are basically products of the enlightenment and are thus too "rational" is patently false. Anyone who's read enough Reformed authors will see that they have no issues appealing to mystery when it comes to how God's sovereignty and human will can work together. J.I. Packer is extremely clear on this point (he prefers the term "antimony") in his famous work Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Also, his claim that Limited Atonement is not Biblical, but is simply a product of vigorous logical reasoning is simply not true as anyone who's studied the Reformed POV can attest.

Anyways, I think it's pretty clear that both Lutheran and Reformed openly and proudly embrace mystery, paradox, or antimony (if you like). It seems to me that it really boils down to where they embrace the mystery when it comes to soteriology (as we discussed above), not whether they do or not.

So I think the video is helpful for understanding the Lutheran POV, but I think his claims about what Calvinists believe are inaccurate and unfair.