Lutheran Presbyterian comparison needed

Jacque_Pierre22

Active Member
Aug 13, 2014
218
39
nyc
✟47,465.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
So I've been trying to understand the differences between the Lutheran Law gospel paradigm and the Reformed variety of views but the Lutherans tend to be excluded from this discussions and all books on the topic. For example, there are "covenant theology", "new covenant theology", "progressive dispensationalism", "Klinean republication" after Meredith Kline etc. None of these books interact with the Lutheran hermeneutic. There is apparently also disagreement with Reformed baptists. I'm interested to know how this fits in with all of the Lutheran theologians like Iwand, Elert, Schlink, Forde, Paulson, Jordan Cooper etc. Jack Kilcrease probably the most capable to making it understandable. I was reading the "Modern Russian Theology" book and I thought it was interesting that this is similar to understanding the book of Revelation. Aleksandr Bukharev, I think, tried to understand it and write on it but many people saw it as something that would only be revealed after death or that it was impossible to understand what it meant, but he replied with a verse from Revelation, that we should try anyway even if we will never understand. The question is at what point does it become too much studying...........
 
Last edited:

Jacque_Pierre22

Active Member
Aug 13, 2014
218
39
nyc
✟47,465.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
from what I gathered NCT = Progressive covenantalism while the Lutheran Law/Gospel hermeneutic slightly closer to the continuity scale, but less continuous with the OT compared to a Presbyterian CT (covenant theology).
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟748,024.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
I’ll take a swing at it.

Most of what I’ve found comparing the Lutheran view with the Reformed view has been highly critical but Herman Bavinck and Gerrhardus Vos both discuss Law, Gospel and covenantalism within the two bodies of theology. Kline is similar to Reformed Baptists federalism, and I’ve posted a bunch on CF if you search federalism and my name. I would say Lutherans use a face value hermeneutic when it comes to covenants, they or rather we, take what we see at face value without developing a system to order the elements we find in scripture. We recognize what we see with Law or Gospel rather than hammer into covenants or biblical epochs what we see.

Issues, Etc. podcast recently did a multipart series on Law and Gospel with Pastor Weedon that you might find useful.


Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟748,024.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
from Wiki:

"The distinction between law and gospel is a standard formulation in Reformed theology, though in recent years some have characterized it as distinctively Lutheran."

Horton, Michael (2010). "The Distinction between Law and Gospel in Reformed Faith and Practice". Modern Reformation. 19 (5): 12–14. Retrieved 19 November 2012.

Lutheran and Reformed differences
Scholastic Lutheran and Reformed theologians differed primarily on the way in which the third use of the law functions for believers. The Reformed emphasized the third use (tertius usus legis) because the redeemed are expected to bear good works. Some Lutherans saw here the danger of works-righteousness, and argued that the third use should always return believers to the second use and again to Christ rather than being the ultimate norm.[15]

Additionally, some have suggested that the third use of the law is not found at all in Luther but comes from Philip Melanchthon. Although some Lutherans have rejected that view,[17] it has caused others to dispute the validity of the "third use" of the Law entirely. Paul Althaus, for instance, writes in his treatise on Law and Gospel: "This [ethical] guidance by the Holy Spirit implies that God's concrete commanding cannot be read off from a written document, an inherited scheme of law. I must learn afresh every day what God wants of me. For God's commanding has a special character for each individual: it is always contemporary, always new. God commands me (and each person) in a particular way, in a different way than He commands others... . The living and spiritual character of the knowledge of what God requires of men in the present moment must not be destroyed by rules and regulations."[18] Such theologians believe the third use leads to or encourages a form of legalism and is possibly an implicit denial of sola fide. Conversely, Reformed Christians have sometimes seen this two-use scheme of some modern Lutherans as leading to a form of antinomianism.[citation needed]

Some believe that "for Luther the pedagogic use of the Law was primary, while for Calvin this third or didactic use was the principal one; yet [historically] both the Lutheran and the Reformed traditions maintain the threefold conceptualization."[17]

end quote
 
Upvote 0

Jacque_Pierre22

Active Member
Aug 13, 2014
218
39
nyc
✟47,465.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
from Wiki:

"The distinction between law and gospel is a standard formulation in Reformed theology, though in recent years some have characterized it as distinctively Lutheran."

Horton, Michael (2010). "The Distinction between Law and Gospel in Reformed Faith and Practice". Modern Reformation. 19 (5): 12–14. Retrieved 19 November 2012.

Lutheran and Reformed differences
Scholastic Lutheran and Reformed theologians differed primarily on the way in which the third use of the law functions for believers. The Reformed emphasized the third use (tertius usus legis) because the redeemed are expected to bear good works. Some Lutherans saw here the danger of works-righteousness, and argued that the third use should always return believers to the second use and again to Christ rather than being the ultimate norm.[15]

Additionally, some have suggested that the third use of the law is not found at all in Luther but comes from Philip Melanchthon. Although some Lutherans have rejected that view,[17] it has caused others to dispute the validity of the "third use" of the Law entirely. Paul Althaus, for instance, writes in his treatise on Law and Gospel: "This [ethical] guidance by the Holy Spirit implies that God's concrete commanding cannot be read off from a written document, an inherited scheme of law. I must learn afresh every day what God wants of me. For God's commanding has a special character for each individual: it is always contemporary, always new. God commands me (and each person) in a particular way, in a different way than He commands others... . The living and spiritual character of the knowledge of what God requires of men in the present moment must not be destroyed by rules and regulations."[18] Such theologians believe the third use leads to or encourages a form of legalism and is possibly an implicit denial of sola fide. Conversely, Reformed Christians have sometimes seen this two-use scheme of some modern Lutherans as leading to a form of antinomianism.[citation needed]

Some believe that "for Luther the pedagogic use of the Law was primary, while for Calvin this third or didactic use was the principal one; yet [historically] both the Lutheran and the Reformed traditions maintain the threefold conceptualization."[17]

end quote
that's interesting. I don't know the right answer to that. I know some famous scholars in the 1900s were anti the 3rd use. but modern ones like Cooper are pro 3rd use.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟748,024.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
that's interesting. I don't know the right answer to that. I know some famous scholars in the 1900s were anti the 3rd use. but modern ones like Cooper are pro 3rd use.
It's confessional.

 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟748,024.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others


 
Upvote 0

Jacque_Pierre22

Active Member
Aug 13, 2014
218
39
nyc
✟47,465.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
it also has to do with 2 kingdoms theology and the "pactum salutis". I got these books "Covenant Lord and Cultic Boundary: A Dialectic Inquiry Concerning Meredith Kline and the Reformed Two-Kingdom Project" by Michael Beck, "Lex Aeterna" and "Hands of Faith" by Jordan Cooper, and "the covenant of redemption" by Fesko; what I think the biggest difference is that Lutherans don't believe in the "pactum salutis" according to Fesko is the 3rd covenant besides works and grace. This interprets Zechariah 6 and Psalm 2 as intra-trinitarian pacts. In Reed Lessing's Zechariah commentary, he doesn't mention anything the Reformed extrapolate here; this makes sense because in Lutheran systematics "election" does not fall under theology proper as in Calvinism.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟748,024.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
it also has to do with 2 kingdoms theology and the "pactum salutis". I got these books "Covenant Lord and Cultic Boundary: A Dialectic Inquiry Concerning Meredith Kline and the Reformed Two-Kingdom Project" by Michael Beck, "Lex Aeterna" and "Hands of Faith" by Jordan Cooper, and "the covenant of redemption" by Fesko; what I think the biggest difference is that Lutherans don't believe in the "pactum salutis" according to Fesko is the 3rd covenant besides works and grace. This interprets Zechariah 6 and Psalm 2 as intra-trinitarian pacts. In Reed Lessing's Zechariah commentary, he doesn't mention anything the Reformed extrapolate here; this makes sense because in Lutheran systematics "election" does not fall under theology proper as in Calvinism.

Yes, and keep in mind that "covenant theology" in the Presbyterian sense was actually a minority view WHEN you consider the covenant theology of the Congregationalists (best represented by John Owen) and the Particular Baptists (best represented by Nehemiah Coxe). The Congregationalists were outnumbered and the Baptists were not invited to take part in the formulation of the Westminster.

These hermeneutical grids, grids that lay on top of scripture but not drawn from scripture, were developed in a distinctly English religious context and outside of Lutheranism. Sure, kernels of covenantal thinking were found in Calvin's work but it wasn't until Herman Witsius work his monuments work that it was fleshed out.

Dr. Copper is right, the Presbyterians have an empty sign in Baptism meaning it doesn't regenerate or convey grace, therefore they need a hermeneutical grid that gives them a reason to baptize infants. This is why I rejected infant baptism for 20 years, I was only exposed to Reformed covenant theology and didn't agree with the reasoning.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 
Upvote 0

Jacque_Pierre22

Active Member
Aug 13, 2014
218
39
nyc
✟47,465.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Yes, and keep in mind that "covenant theology" in the Presbyterian sense was actually a minority view WHEN you consider the covenant theology of the Congregationalists (best represented by John Owen) and the Particular Baptists (best represented by Nehemiah Coxe). The Congregationalists were outnumbered and the Baptists were not invited to take part in the formulation of the Westminster.

These hermeneutical grids, grids that lay on top of scripture but not drawn from scripture, were developed in a distinctly English religious context and outside of Lutheranism. Sure, kernels of covenantal thinking were found in Calvin's work but it wasn't until Herman Witsius work his monuments work that it was fleshed out.

Dr. Copper is right, the Presbyterians have an empty sign in Baptism meaning it doesn't regenerate or convey grace, therefore they need a hermeneutical grid that gives them a reason to baptize infants. This is why I rejected infant baptism for 20 years, I was only exposed to Reformed covenant theology and didn't agree with the reasoning.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
thanks
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jacque_Pierre22

Active Member
Aug 13, 2014
218
39
nyc
✟47,465.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
according to Reformed baptists' covenant theology, Presbyterian CT is an elaborate "confection" that is ultimately just plain wrong because children become both part of the cov of grace and cov of works at the same time according to the Westminster Confession of Faith.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟748,024.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
From old posts:

Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF and 1689 LBCF


Online Resources:

Baptism and Covenant Theology by Chantry

Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology by Renihan

Books:

Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ by Coxe and Owen

The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Denault

“By rejecting the notion of a Covenant of Grace under two administrations, the Baptists were in fact rejecting only half of this concept: they accepted, as we have previously seen, the notion of one single Covenant of Grace in both testaments, but the refused the idea of two administrations. For the Baptists, there was only one Covenant of Grace which was revealed from the Fall in a progressive way until its full revelation and conclusion in the New Covenant… If the Westminster federalism can be summarized in “one covenant under two administrations,” that of the 1689 would be “one covenant revealed progressively and concluded formally under the New Covenant.”

The Baptists believed that no covenant preceding the New Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. Before the arrival of the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace was at the stage of promise. According to Benjamin Keach, the expression “the covenant of promise” that can be found in Ephesians 2.12refers back to the Covenant of Grace. If we are talking about a promise, this implies that it was not yet accomplished and was not yet in the form of a testament or a covenant. The Baptists believed the the New Covenant was the accomplishment of the promise, or in other words, the accomplishment of the Covenant of Grace. This doctrine is expressed in the following way in the 1689: “This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam […] and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament.” The New Testament brings the full revelation of the Covenant of Grace since the New Covenant is its accomplishment. The Baptists considered that the New Covenant and it alone was the Covenant of Grace.

…This distinction: [revealed/concluded] summarized the difference between the Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament and the Covenant of Grace in the New Testament. In the Old, it was revealed, in the New, it was concluded (fully revealed according to the expression of the 1689). John Owen comes to exactly the same understanding in his exegesis of Hebrews 8.6 where we read: “But in fact the ministry Jesus received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is the mediator is superior to the old one, since the New Covenant is established on better promises.” *


*Pascal Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2013), pp. 61, 63, 64. (cited on Reformed For His Glory)

It’s probably fair to say that most Calvinistic, Particular or “Reformed” Baptists feel peer pressure to pursue the study of paedobaptist covenantalism. I have been personally told on numerous occasions that I should move toward a “full” covenant theology and embrace the baptism of infants “into the covenant.” In an effort to deal with my Reformed brothers and sisters honestly I have taken the the time to understand the reasons for paedobaptism and still cannot agree with the practice. Over the years I have been blessed by more than a few titles that helped me move toward and define my Baptist covenant theology. In an effort to help others along I decided to create a list of books I consider essential reading on the subject, titles that I own, have read and will continue to re-read for years to come. This is not a definitive list of titles but a list to get you going in the right direction. Some of them I have mentioned before.

divinecovenants.jpg



1) Most Particular Baptists have heard of A. W. Pink but not all Particular Baptists have heard or read his work on the covenants. The Divine Covenants can be read online for free which I how is read it the first time. I ordered a physical copy (so I could mark up and underline) from Pietan Publications via email for under $15 bucks. Solid deal.



2) The second book on the Baptist shelf isn’t a slam dunk but it is important because the editor included choice articles that deal with patristics, the logic behind paedobaptism and the relationship one covenant has to another. Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ is part of the New American Commentary Studies in Bible & Theology published by B&H Academic.



3) Baptism in the Early Church by H. F. Stander & J. P. Louw is one of the most interesting I have read. Both Stander and Louw are Reformed and therefore baptize infants. They examine passages often sited as proof for infant baptism from the early church including art work. They arrive at a decidedly credobaptist position.

baptism.jpg



4) Paedobaptist covenant theology finds its fullest expression in the pronouncements of the Westminster Standards. Dr. Gary Crampton moved From Padeobaptism to Credobaptism as the title of his short work suggests offering a critique of the Westminster Standards in relation to baptism.

coxe.jpg



5) One of the most important works for Particular Baptists to have been reprinted is Covenant Theology: From Adam To Christ by Nehemiah Coxeand John Owen. Coxe explains the differences of the old and new covenant, the difference between promise and fulfillment, who receives baptism is a give in after all the theological dust settles. For years I had referred to my own understanding of covenant theology as “modified” covenantalism only to find, with great joy, Coxe and Owen expressed the same theology with an emphasis on republication of the covenant of works at Sinai. Awesome read.



6) Last title on the list will add to your understanding of how covenant theology was expressed by Baptists and some Presbyterians during the 17th century. Many of our Particular Baptist fathers agreed with other non-conformists on the republican of the covenant at Sinai which was latter rejected by the Westminster Assembly. Dr. Beeke has a chapter in A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life titled The Minority Report in which he describes the idea of republication as being held by a minority of those in attendance at Westminster. Was it truly a minority view or the minority view held by those in attendance? Pascal Denault’s work titled The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology walks you through some important documents pertaining to covenant theology and the issues the church struggled with at the time. This work is key in tying up loose ends.



Honourable Mention: A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity by John Gill. No matter where I go in my theological study I just can’t shake Dr. Voluminous. He is the only man to write a COMPLETE verse-by-verse exposition of the ENTIRE Bible. Others have come close to matching this task but do in fact skip verses, bunch them together or died leaving the work for others to complete. Dr. John Gill’s work on the covenant differs in places from the work of Nehemiah Coxe and therefore the London Baptist Confession 1689, but you will benefit from reading his works, using his commentaries and taking time to ruminate on these deep truths. At one time Valley Gospel Mission Books in Canada offered the 3 volume paperback set listed for $37.

jgill.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Jacque_Pierre22

Active Member
Aug 13, 2014
218
39
nyc
✟47,465.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I thought this was interesting at 15:40 "the future comes into the present", so using the same logic, baptismal regeneration is proven true because it can be either prospective or retrospective of when you receive faith. the event of baptism is the key just like the event of Jesus crucifixion and resurrection was the key for OT believers to receive faith. Since we are baptized with Christ (Romans 6:3), the exact timing of our baptism doesn't matter. Since most church fathers baptized infants, they understood this. They're arguing against Presbyterian CT doesn't disprove Lutheran law/gospel. My opinion, when you make it a law that one must be baptized as an infant or one must be baptized as a profession of faith then you are doing what the Presbyterians do when they say you must keep the Sabbath. But I think the church fathers did so as infants because it was more convenient, I don't think they saw it as a requirement like the Presbys do. The first and only sermon I went to at an OPC church was on the sabbath day before that church weirdly closed down. infant baptism as law is clearly seen in Robert Reymond's systematics of the "grave warning" on page 937 or location 19111
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0