What are the major theological differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism?

[ubicaritas]

That is also not true: "We believe, that our gracious God, on account of our weakness and infirmities hath ordained the sacraments for us, thereby to seal unto us his promises, and to be pledges of the good will and grace of God toward us, and also to nourish and strengthen our faith."

Though Lutherans don't believe the sacraments are due to our infirmities, as Calvin preached. Matter is not inherently unspiritual or unworthy of the divine. Like Catholics or Orthodox, we believe there is something glorious and mysterious about the sacraments. They are not mere pledges of grace.

 

[Radagast]

Matter is not inherently unspiritual or unworthy of the divine.

You're misreading the passage I quoted. Reformed theology would completely agree with the (Lutheran) Augsburg Confession:

Article XIII: Of the Use of the Sacraments.

Of the Use of the Sacraments they teach that the Sacraments were ordained, not only to be marks of profession among men, but rather to be signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us, instituted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them. Wherefore we must so use the Sacraments that faith be added to believe the promises which are offered and set forth through the Sacraments.

They therefore condemn those who teach that the Sacraments justify by the outward act, and who do not teach that, in the use of the Sacraments, faith which believes that sins are forgiven, is required. ​

 

[FireDragon76]

You're misreading the passage I quoted. Reformed theology would completely agree with the (Lutheran) Augsburg Confession:

Article XIII: Of the Use of the Sacraments.

Of the Use of the Sacraments they teach that the Sacraments were ordained, not only to be marks of profession among men, but rather to be signs and testimonies of the will of God toward us, instituted to awaken and confirm faith in those who use them. Wherefore we must so use the Sacraments that faith be added to believe the promises which are offered and set forth through the Sacraments.

They therefore condemn those who teach that the Sacraments justify by the outward act, and who do not teach that, in the use of the Sacraments, faith which believes that sins are forgiven, is required. ​

I think the point is that we do not consider sacraments merely God's "second best". Some Reformed have the attitude that the sacraments are secondary to preaching.

 

[Radagast]

I think the point is that we do not consider sacraments merely God's "second best". Some Reformed have the attitude that the sacraments are secondary to preaching.

You have evidence for that statement?

Bear in mind that traditions (both Catholic and Protestant) with infrequent communion generally have a very high view of the sacrament.

 

[ubicaritas]

You have evidence for that statement?

Bear in mind that traditions (both Catholic and Protestant) with infrequent communion generally have a very high view of the sacrament.

It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the historic Reformed stance summed up in the saying "the finite is not capable of the infinite". There's a suspicion of materiality as a vehicle for grace, going all the way back to Calvin. The Calvinist view of God seems to be more that God transcends matter, whereas I think the Lutheran perspective is more than God is revealed in matter (which makes sense, since for us we start first with Christ as the revelation of God).

 

[Radagast]

It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with the historic Reformed stance

You obviously know very little about the "historic Reformed stance." The idea that the sacraments were means of grace was one of the doctrines held by Calvinists, and denied by the Arminians.

Calvinists denied that the sacraments were the efficient cause of the effects which they produced, and held that faith was necessary to receive these effects, but here they agreed entirely with the Augsburg Confession.

 

[ubicaritas]

You obviously know very little about the "historic Reformed stance." The idea that the sacraments were means of grace was one of the doctrines held by Calvinists, and denied by the Arminians.

My contention is that the Reformed do not necessarily mean the same thing that we do when we call the sacraments a means of grace.

It's like the whole debate about the Real Presence. Some will try to argue (especially Baptists or non-denominationalists), with a straight face, that they believe in the "real presence", when clearly they believe the bread and grape juice are only bread and grape juice.

 

[Radagast]

My contention is that the Reformed do not necessarily mean the same thing that we do when we call the sacraments a means of grace.

You keep making these confident, and wrong, assertions.

Some will try to argue (especially Baptists or non-denominationalists)

... who are generally not Reformed.

 

[dms1972]

In addition to what has been posted, Lutherans believe in the real presence of Christ's actual body and blood in the Lord's Supper. Calvinists believe in the real spiritual presence of Christ's body and blood, but Christ's actual body remains in heaven.

May I ask what happens to the elements if they are not all consumed? Does the real presence remain in any bread and wine left over after the service?

 

[Resha Caner]

May I ask what happens to the elements if they are not all given out? Does the real presence remain in any bread and wine left over after the service?

My experience in the LCMS is that it is left to the pastor to respectfully dispose of anything that is left over. When I was doing my altar service as a young boy, the pastor had an area outside the church just behind the altar where leftovers were discarded.

I am aware of a difference in that regard between Lutherans and Catholics. Some of my Catholic friends have mentioned how the host is placed in a separate room (before and/or after the service) and parishoners are allowed to venerate it there. Then there is the humorous story from Angela's Ashes where Frank McCourt got sick after his first communion, and his grandmother berated him for spreading God all around the backyard as he vomited.

I don't know the full details of such things, but I mention it to highlight something Lutherans don't believe. We don't believe the Sacraments in some way give man power over God. In other words, we don't believe Christ is trapped in the blood & wine (or the water of Baptism) such that we can parade God around and use him for our own mystical purposes. Paul clearly speaks against such abuses in 1 Corinthians 11. So, the bottom line is one need not ponder all the various "what if" questions surrounding the real presence. In general, assume the answer is no, whatever weirdness people may imagine doesn't happen.

 

[tampasteve]

May I ask what happens to the elements if they are not all consumed? Does the real presence remain in any bread and wine left over after the service?

It will vary by church and synod...but:
From the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations’ 1983:
Post Communion Reverence
The consecrated elements which remain after all have communed should be treated with
reverence. This reverence has been expressed by Lutherans in various ways. Some have
followed the ancient practice of burning the bread and pouring the wine upon the earth.
Others have established a basin and drain-piscina-specifically for disposal for the wine. The
elders or altar guild may also return the consecrated bread and wine to specific containers
for future sacramental use, or the elders and pastor can consume the remaining elements.
All of these practices should be understood properly. The church is not, thereby, conferring
upon the elements some abiding status apart from their use in the Lord’s Supper itself.

Some churches have tabernacles much as might be seen in a Catholic Church, the ELCA church I attend does this with left over consecrated bread.

 

[FireDragon76]

I do not wish to argue the merits of the state of Geneva during Calvin's time as I am completely in the dark on that and would be ill equipped to do so. I only wish to point out that a democratically elected governing body can still preside over a police state. The two things are not mutually exclusive. If the majority of the electorate favors a police state model of governance then a police state would be the result of the democratic process. In addition, if religious zealotry were the norm in a population then democratically imposed religious orthodoxy would be expected. I'm not saying this was the case in Geneva as I am not informed on the subject but that it could be the case that a democratically elected governing body could result in a police state.

Geneva's government was somewhat independent of Calvin, even going so far at times to contradict his wishes.

Calvinists definitely had a sense of religious utopianism and totalitarianism off and on in its history, but at the same time there were also theologians that were more realistic.

 

[FireDragon76]

Actually, Reformed (Calvinist) confessions never speak of "double predestination."



That is also not true: "We believe, that our gracious God, on account of our weakness and infirmities hath ordained the sacraments for us, thereby to seal unto us his promises, and to be pledges of the good will and grace of God toward us, and also to nourish and strengthen our faith."

That's a key difference. Lutherans would never agree that the Sacrament is merely ordained on account of our weakness and infirmities. We see the sacrament as part of a more holistic perspective on creation.

 

[FireDragon76]

May I ask what happens to the elements if they are not all consumed? Does the real presence remain in any bread and wine left over after the service?

Lutherans have no dogmatic teaching on this topic, though most have historically been Consecrationists, believing it is the most obvious meaning of "This is my body". However, some, particularly in the 18th century, were Receptionists. The Neo-Lutheran movement in the 19th century (similar to the Oxford Movement) lead to the resurgence of Consecrationism.

Receptionists would tend to view the bread and wine as just bread and wine outside the reception of the sacrament, whereas a Consecrationist believes it is still the body and blood of Christ. Some Lutherans do reserve the sacraments, as a result, but receptionism seems very common, at least in the ELCA.

At our congregation, typically unused wafers are stored in the sacristy.