Reformed Christology vs. Luther's Christology

[CalledOutOne]

What's the difference between Reformed Christology and Luther's?
I've been studying a lot on Christology and I can't seem to find the difference in the two anywhere on the net.

Can anyone help me out? Thanks.

 

[AngCath]

Here's a link that summarizes the scholastic Lutheran understanding of Christology. The differences between this and the Reformed position largely have to do with the communcatio idiomatum, specifically with the genus majestaticum.

 

[JM]

“Perhaps most striking is the difference in emphasis on justification between Luther and Lutheranism on the hand and Reformed theology on the other. For the former, justification is central to the whole of theology. It is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. It functions as a kind of critical methodological tool by which any aspect of theology, or theology as a whole is to be judged….However, there is hardly an instance in Reformed theology placing justification in the center. Not that Reformed theology opposed justification by faith alone, or salvation by pure grace. On the contrary, they saw salvation in its entirety as a display of the sovereign and free mercy of God. The explanation lay in the fact that, for Reformed theology, everything took place to advance the glory of God. Thus the chief purpose of theology and of the whole of life was not the rescue of humanity but the glory of God. The focus was theocentric rather than soteriological. Even in the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), where soteriological concerns are more prominent (one of its authors, Zacharias Ursinus [1533-1587] was formerly a Lutheran) the famous first question ‘What is your only comfort in life and death?’ is answered w/ reference to the action of the Trinity, beginning, ‘I am not my own but belong… to my faithful savior Jesus Christ.

Following from this was an attempt by Reformed theology to grasp the unity of creation and redemption. The whole of life was seen in the embrace of God’s revelatory purpose. With the covenant at its heart, the whole of life was to display God’s glory. Naturally, that included at its heart the restoration of sinners to fellowship w/ God. It also entailed, however the reconstitution of both civil and ecclesiastical affairs. Lutheranism, in contrast, showed less developed interest in the application of the gospel to political life and focused more narrowly on soteriology. Possibly this stemmed from Luther enjoying the patronage of his Elector, which freed him from having to safeguard the Reformation in a political sense in quite the same way as his Reformed counterparts. The net result was that while for Lutheranism justification by faith was the heart of theology, for the Reformed theologians it was subordinate to an overarching sense of the centrality of God and his covenant. Yet, for both, the underlying concern for the gratuitous nature of salvation, its objective reality extra nos, was the same.

Robert Letham
The Work of Christ – pg. 189-190​

 

[JM]

law and gospel:

"Wee have confuted the false differences, and now come to lay downe the true, between the law and the Gospel taken in a larger sense.

And, first, you must know that the difference is not essential, or substantiall, but accidentall: so that the division of the Testament, or Covenant into the Old, and New, is not a division of the Genus into its opposite Species; but of the subject, according to its severall accidentall administrations, both on Gods part, and on mans. It is true, the Lutheran Divines, they doe expresly oppose the Calvinists herein, maintaining the Covenant given by Moses, to be a Covenant of workes, and so directly contrary to the Covenant of grace. Inded, they acknowledge that the Fathers were justified by Christ, and had the same way of salvation with us; onely they make that Covenant of Moses to be a superadded thing to the Promise, holding forth a condition of perfect righteousness unto the Jewes, that they might be convinced of their owne folly in their self-righteousnesse." (Vindication of the Morall Law, 241)

 

[CalledOutOne]

I should have been more specific. I'm looking for the differences in the Person of Christ not the work of Christ.

Sorry about that.

 

[hedrick]

Calvin tended to emphasize the Jesus' distinct humanness more than Luther did. The best-known distinction is that Calvin believed that even the resurrected Jesus has a body and is limited to being in one location at a time. Hence in communion we commune on Christ's body, but through the agency of the Holy Spirit. But I don't think this is just about communion. For Luther, the divine Logos is present to all Christians in and through the complete, bodily Jesus.

Calvin also has his mystical side. I maintain for for Calvin the key to Christianity is not the 5 points, but the mystical union with Christ. Yet I get the impression that for him the mystical union is a bit more spiritual, and not quite so much based on the immediate bodily presence of the Logos. The usual theoretical explanation is that Luther pushed the communication of attributes further than Calvin.

Perhaps others can give you more details. My problem is that I know Calvin fairly well, but not Luther.

I also have the sense that Christology was more of a focus for Luther than Calvin. Not that Calvin's theology wasn't just as focused on Christ. But Luther's personal insights were more tied to his specific Christology. As far as I can tell, Calvin's Christology was basically an attempt to restate a solid traditional Christian view.

My feeling is that Lutheran and Calvinist theology ought to be able to co-exist. One often gets the impression that the disagreement on communion was exaggerated by the next generation, in part to justify the existence of their own brand of Reformation church. Calvin would have liked to see Lutheran and Reformed churches in communion, and I think was willing to make some compromises to do that.

 

[twin1954]

One thing needs to be kept in mind, modern Lutheranism is more a product of Melancthon than of Luther.

 

[Shane R]

Modern Lutheranism is more a product of Chemnitz and his generation than Melancthon or Luther, and perhaps a dash of Bonhoeffer. There is a distinct difference in tone and expression among the writings of the Book of Concord such that an observant student can isolate what was written by each of the three great theologians of early Lutheranism.

 

[AmericanSamurai]

I'll take Reformed Theology over Lutheranism.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I like Lutherans. They are monergistic.

 

[CalledOutOne]

I found the difference.

Lutheran Christology can be basically summarized as the idea that in the hypostatic union the divine attributes are are communicated to Christ's human nature. The Lutherans still maintained a distinction between the two natures of Christ, but they claimed that many of the divine attributes are immediately and directly possessed by the human nature at the incarnation. So, for example, omnipotence is communicated to Christ's human nature. Reformed theologians found this not only unacceptable, but nonsensical.
Omnipotence belongs to the essence of God. In other words, to be omnipotent is to be God. And God's essence cannot be divided. Theologians call this the 'simplicity of God', that is, he is not made up of different parts; and so his wisdom is his power, his power is his goodness, and so forth. Since God's essence cannot be divided, if omnipotence were communicated to Christ's human nature so would be every other attribute, including eternity and self-existence. The human nature would have become God, even though God cannot change or become anything. This would mean, of course, that Christ simply had no human nature.

...Reformed theologians rejected both views [Catholic and Lutheran] on the relation of the two natures. They did this because of an important logical and theological maxim, namely that the finite is not capable of the infinite, or the finite cannot comprehend the infinite. This maxim was not only true of Christ's two natures in his state of humiliation, but even in his state of exaltation. This meant, therefore, that Christ's human nature had limitations; it meant that Christ actually developed from infancy into manhood. It also meant that there was an actual—not pretended—movement from humiliation to exaltation at his resurrection. This is why Christ could say at one point in his ministry: 'But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only' (Matt. 24:36; cf. Luke 2:52).

Mark Jones, A Christian's Pocket Guide to Jesus Christ: An Introduction to Christology, Pages 17-18, 19.

 

[AngCath]

I like Lutherans. They are monergistic.

It's why we like the Reformed.