accepting Jesus

[RandyPNW]

I was raised with the Lutheran truth that we can be saved, as Christians, through grace, and not have to perform in any way to qualify for this salvation. There is no law we have to meet, and no endurance record, not litmus test, to qualify us for getting through the pearly gates.

And I do think Luther was a prince of this concept of grace, just as Paul was. We can never satisfy the requirements of the Law of Moses to get into heaven. We are all flawed people.

But many raised in the Protestant churches today have missed what being born again means. I believe in his doctrine of grace Luther taught the need to be reborn. I believe he himself experienced a profound personal transformation, the same time that he learned about grace.

Today, many just think "accepting Jesus as Messiah" fulfills the requirement of accepting grace. But it doesn't. True grace comes when we accept Jesus' righteousness into our lives.
We can't earn that righteousness, but we can certainly abandon our old ways for a new way of life in Jesus' righteousness. This is the transformation required to get into heaven.

Accept grace by accepting Jesus' righteousness, and learn to put it into action. We need not be perfect, but we need to know what Jesus' love is, and to practice it, as evidence that we have truly received it.

 

[d taylor]

Abandoning ways would be an action outside of faith in the Messiah for God's free gift of Eternal Life.

A person is faced with only one condition for them to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life. That condition is do they believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah from the prophecies of The Tanakh and trusting in The Messiah for God's free gift of Eternal Life.

It is a simple black and white issue, either a person has or they have not trusted in The Messiah. There is no untrue faith, Judas did not have false faith. He never trusted in The Messiah in the first place to receive Eternal Life.

If there is a person masquerading as a believer, they are not displaying false faith, because they have never believed. But they are simply acting as a believer, and more than likely ones doing this may have some monetary goal, or a deceiver to keep people from trusting in The Messiah for Eternal Life (satanic influenced).

 

[ViaCrucis]

The righteous are not righteous because of their righteousness. The righteous are righteous because they have been given righteousness.

The problem with the works contract in all of its forms is that it wants to turn salvation into a transaction.

Salvation is not a transaction. God is not a banker.

See how the father rushes out, reckless, to grab up the prodigal son in his arms.
See how the shepherd rushes out, reckless, over every obstacle to find the lost little lamb.
See how the Samaritan picks up the wounded man, and brings him to the inn.

See how the Word became flesh, dwelt among us, see how He has loved us, and with love He has loved us. Hanging upon the cross.

Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And to those in the tombs,
Bestowing life.

Hear the word, believe the word, It is Gospel to you, O weary sinner. Your sins are forgiven, and you have Shalom with God, no more condemnation and guilt. In your conscience be free, go and love your neighbor, feed him, give her drink, clothe them. Don't just be human, be very human. Be human even as God is human ✝.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Isn't imputation and penal substitution a transaction?

The righteous are not righteous because of their righteousness. The righteous are righteous because they have been given righteousness.

The problem with the works contract in all of its forms is that it wants to turn salvation into a transaction.

Salvation is not a transaction. God is not a banker.

See how the father rushes out, reckless, to grab up the prodigal son in his arms.
See how the shepherd rushes out, reckless, over every obstacle to find the lost little lamb.
See how the Samaritan picks up the wounded man, and brings him to the inn.

See how the Word became flesh, dwelt among us, see how He has loved us, and with love He has loved us. Hanging upon the cross.

Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And to those in the tombs,
Bestowing life.

Hear the word, believe the word, It is Gospel to you, O weary sinner. Your sins are forgiven, and you have Shalom with God, no more condemnation and guilt. In your conscience be free, go and love your neighbor, feed him, give her drink, clothe them. Don't just be human, be very human. Be human even as God is human ✝.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Isn't imputation and penal substitution a transaction?

God imputing the righteousness of His Son is about grace rather than transaction. A transaction is a tit-for-tat exchange. When we receive Christ's righteousness it is a purely unidirectional giving from God: Gift.

When parents cook dinner, buy clothes, house, and give gifts to their children, no transaction has occurred.

I tend to view an over-emphasis on the Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement as a Reformed thing. I do not reject, per se, the Penal Substitution Theory, but I think that it needs to be heavily tempered with the other Theories of the Atonement which I think do better jobs at discussing the Mystery of the Atonement itself. And further, Penal Substitution Theory, left on its own, can be destructive and harmful to the preaching of the Gospel, hence the Reformed emphasis on Penal Substitution and its particular coloring by the harmful teachings of Reformed theology ends up being a teaching about an angry blood-thirsty God who needs to be appeased by death, cruelty, and violence.

Nevertheless, it is true that Christ bears the full weight of our sin and death, all of it was laid upon Him--the whole world laid upon Him. He is not an appeasement to an angry God, He is the peace-offering of a loving God to sinners. In the cross God becomes our servant. That's what the Lord Himself said: "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but rather to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

Christ is our propitiation, the covering, that makes peace between God and man. God is the initiator, the agent, and the completer of that peace. He makes peace, from beginning to end. It is the full, completely monergistic work of God. God's grace, working through faith, imputing to us the righteousness of Christ, and declaring us freely and fully justified. God continues to declare us just, continues to give us Christ's righteousness, He freely justifies us through faith which He works and creates in us by Word and Sacrament. So we are richly renewed day by day by God's grace, ours abundantly here in Word and Sacrament, that our faith be nourished and sustained; that we might drown the old Adam and live in the new man which is ours in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The wrath of God is that the Law has condemned us all as sinners, and thus when the natural man beholds God in the Law he "does not see God rightly, but sees a dark storm cloud covering His face" (Luther). The Law holds us in contempt for our sins, and we are wretched sinners full of death and hell, estranged from God, embittered against God, angry against Got, we were God's enemies.

Christ puts an end to that, Christ satisfies the Law in our stead not to appease an angry God, but in order to render the condemnation of the Law null by the imputation of His righteousness upon unworthy sinners whom He loves--all of us. Which is our free justification in Christ. Every debt is canceled, every guilty verdict is given pardon, our sins are forgiven and we now live in Christ who shall keep us through Judgment on the Final Day. Our sins do not stand against us in victory over us because Christ has rendered the powers of sin, death, hell, and the devil impotent against us. We stand in Him, and by Him alone do we have our life, both now and in the Age to Come.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

This is very helpful and it speaks to my heart. Thank you.

God imputing the righteousness of His Son is about grace rather than transaction. A transaction is a tit-for-tat exchange. When we receive Christ's righteousness it is a purely unidirectional giving from God: Gift.

When parents cook dinner, buy clothes, house, and give gifts to their children, no transaction has occurred.

I tend to view an over-emphasis on the Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement as a Reformed thing. I do not reject, per se, the Penal Substitution Theory, but I think that it needs to be heavily tempered with the other Theories of the Atonement which I think do better jobs at discussing the Mystery of the Atonement itself. And further, Penal Substitution Theory, left on its own, can be destructive and harmful to the preaching of the Gospel, hence the Reformed emphasis on Penal Substitution and its particular coloring by the harmful teachings of Reformed theology ends up being a teaching about an angry blood-thirsty God who needs to be appeased by death, cruelty, and violence.

Nevertheless, it is true that Christ bears the full weight of our sin and death, all of it was laid upon Him--the whole world laid upon Him. He is not an appeasement to an angry God, He is the peace-offering of a loving God to sinners. In the cross God becomes our servant. That's what the Lord Himself said: "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but rather to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

Christ is our propitiation, the covering, that makes peace between God and man. God is the initiator, the agent, and the completer of that peace. He makes peace, from beginning to end. It is the full, completely monergistic work of God. God's grace, working through faith, imputing to us the righteousness of Christ, and declaring us freely and fully justified. God continues to declare us just, continues to give us Christ's righteousness, He freely justifies us through faith which He works and creates in us by Word and Sacrament. So we are richly renewed day by day by God's grace, ours abundantly here in Word and Sacrament, that our faith be nourished and sustained; that we might drown the old Adam and live in the new man which is ours in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The wrath of God is that the Law has condemned us all as sinners, and thus when the natural man beholds God in the Law he "does not see God rightly, but sees a dark storm cloud covering His face" (Luther). The Law holds us in contempt for our sins, and we are wretched sinners full of death and hell, estranged from God, embittered against God, angry against Got, we were God's enemies.

Christ puts an end to that, Christ satisfies the Law in our stead not to appease an angry God, but in order to render the condemnation of the Law null by the imputation of His righteousness upon unworthy sinners whom He loves--all of us. Which is our free justification in Christ. Every debt is canceled, every guilty verdict is given pardon, our sins are forgiven and we now live in Christ who shall keep us through Judgment on the Final Day. Our sins do not stand against us in victory over us because Christ has rendered the powers of sin, death, hell, and the devil impotent against us. We stand in Him, and by Him alone do we have our life, both now and in the Age to Come.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fhansen]

I was raised with the Lutheran truth that we can be saved, as Christians, through grace, and not have to perform in any way to qualify for this salvation. There is no law we have to meet, and no endurance record, not litmus test, to qualify us for getting through the pearly gates.

And I do think Luther was a prince of this concept of grace, just as Paul was. We can never satisfy the requirements of the Law of Moses to get into heaven. We are all flawed people.

But many raised in the Protestant churches today have missed what being born again means. I believe in his doctrine of grace Luther taught the need to be reborn. I believe he himself experienced a profound personal transformation, the same time that he learned about grace.

Today, many just think "accepting Jesus as Messiah" fulfills the requirement of accepting grace. But it doesn't. True grace comes when we accept Jesus' righteousness into our lives.
We can't earn that righteousness, but we can certainly abandon our old ways for a new way of life in Jesus' righteousness. This is the transformation required to get into heaven.

Accept grace by accepting Jesus' righteousness, and learn to put it into action. We need not be perfect, but we need to know what Jesus' love is, and to practice it, as evidence that we have truly received it.

This is true, and consistent with the ancient church, as long as we understand that said righteousness is only possible because, with justification, we’re changed -in some manner we’re made just- due to union with God who puts His law in our minds and writes it on our hearts. Otherwise we’re no different than we were before conversion, and so there’d be no reason, no motivation, for us to abandon our old ways and be and behave more righteously.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is true, and consistent with the ancient church, as long as we understand that said righteousness is only possible because, with justification, we’re changed -in some manner we’re made just- due to union with God who puts His law in our minds and writes it on our hearts. Otherwise we’re no different than we were before conversion, and so there’d be no reason, no motivation, for us to abandon our old ways and be and behave more righteously.

Righteousness Coram Deo justifies us passively--God's grace rendering us just on Christ's account, for we have "put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27). This is the passive, received, gifted--imputed--righteousness of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is righteous, Jesus Christ is just. What is His becomes ours purely by God's kindness and generosity toward us sinners--accomplishing that work in and for us.

Righteousness Coram Mundus justifies us actively, not in relation to God, but in relation to our neighbor. Our conversion, our being rendered just before God, is the gift of new human life in Christ by the power and work of the Holy Spirit--in this we are being sanctified. We are being sanctified, and working out our salvation "with fear and trembling". Not to earn God's favor either in this life or the next, but because we are a baptized people who partake of Christ's own body and blood, and live before God in the light and hope of the Gospel by faith.

The "abandon our old ways and be and behave more righteously" is not a matter of our cooperating with God to attain a reward; but rather a cooperating with God in loving our neighbor. The Law, for the baptized, becomes the opportunity to share God's love with others; the terror of the Law no longer hanging over our heads, we are opened up to the world of God's mercy, and to therefore to be merciful even as God is merciful. To forgive, even as we are forgiven. To love, even as we are loved.

We offer our bodies as "living sacrifices" by taking up our cross and following Jesus as His disciples, being the agents of God's love to the world. It is sacrifice not to God, there is no satisfaction rendered to God through our sacrifices; the sacrifices we make, in love to others, are rendered pleasing to God by faith, not by the work itself; the works are not for God's benefit, but for our neighbor's benefit.

If I live 80 years, pray 12 hours a day, fasting at least twice a week, and dutifully living a pious, chaste, celibate life--but do not love my neighbor, I have accomplished nothing good.

It is not God who needs my good works. It is my neighbor who needs my good works.

For this reason Jesus could say that the prostitutes were entering the kingdom of God ahead of the Pharisees. The righteousness of the prostitute was not greater than that of the Pharisee.

There are far more saints in heaven who lived their lives tilling the field, serving in the tavern, and who frequented brothels than all the monasteries and all the convents in all the earth. That isn't a slight against monastics, but a point that the "religious" life is no more spiritual than the "secular" life. Christ came to save the unrighteous and call them to repentance; Christ called the publican--not the Pharisee--just.

The widow who gives her last mite has done a thousand good works more than any who devoted years of their lives to prayer, fasting, and religious obligation.

One act of kindness to a stranger is worth more in heaven than all the hymns sung in all the earth put together.

If we have ears, let us hear.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RandyPNW]

This is true, and consistent with the ancient church, as long as we understand that said righteousness is only possible because, with justification, we’re changed -in some manner we’re made just- due to union with God who puts His law in our minds and writes it on our hearts. Otherwise we’re no different than we were before conversion, and so there’d be no reason, no motivation, for us to abandon our old ways and be and behave more righteously.

I couldn't agree more. We cannot earn Salvation, but we can accept it. To be truly saved, we must accept it. And accepting it means that we give up our own independent way of living for a life that is deposited in us from Christ and continues to be led by Christ. All of our decisions should be informed by the Spirit that Christ has given to us. We are free, but whatever we do should be done in Christ's Spirit.

This is Salvation, and we could never earn it. From the time Adam sinned, Man generically became disqualified from eternal life, which is what Salvation is. And yet, we can still receive Salvation from Christ if we accept it, which is, as I said, giving up our own autonomy for a life of dependence upon Christ for his spiritual guidance.

Without Christ dominating our lives we cannot produce the fruits of Salvation. And unless we produce the fruits of Salvation, we haven't really accepted Salvation.

 

[hedrick]

This is true, and consistent with the ancient church, as long as we understand that said righteousness is only possible because, with justification, we’re changed -in some manner we’re made just- due to union with God who puts His law in our minds and writes it on our hearts. Otherwise we’re no different than we were before conversion, and so there’d be no reason, no motivation, for us to abandon our old ways and be and behave more righteously.

Calvin understands the atonement as being based on a “mystical union” with Christ, which establishes a “community of righteousness” between Christ and us. I think this is consistent with Rom 6. Neither bases our justification on any particular accomplishments, but it is associated with a relationship with Christ through which we are renewed. While he does speak of substitution, a
I think this aspect of his treatment of the atonement is often lost.

 

[fhansen]

Calvin understands the atonement as being based on a “mystical union” with Christ, which establishes a “community of righteousness” between Christ and us. I think this is consistent with Rom 6. Neither bases our justification on any particular accomplishments, but it is associated with a relationship with Christ through which we are renewed. While he does speak of substitution, a I think this aspect of his treatment of the atonement is often lost.

And I appreciate anything that understands personal righteousness to be a result of becoming a new creation in Christ. The doctrine of Sola Fide is understood in more that one way, but when righteousness is said to be strictlty imputed rather than also received in some manner, I think we run the risk of misunderstanding the full meaning of the gospel and its purpose.

 

[fhansen]

Righteousness Coram Deo justifies us passively--God's grace rendering us just on Christ's account, for we have "put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27). This is the passive, received, gifted--imputed--righteousness of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is righteous, Jesus Christ is just. What is His becomes ours purely by God's kindness and generosity toward us sinners--accomplishing that work in and for us.

Righteousness Coram Mundus justifies us actively, not in relation to God, but in relation to our neighbor. Our conversion, our being rendered just before God, is the gift of new human life in Christ by the power and work of the Holy Spirit--in this we are being sanctified. We are being sanctified, and working out our salvation "with fear and trembling". Not to earn God's favor either in this life or the next, but because we are a baptized people who partake of Christ's own body and blood, and live before God in the light and hope of the Gospel by faith.

The "abandon our old ways and be and behave more righteously" is not a matter of our cooperating with God to attain a reward; but rather a cooperating with God in loving our neighbor. The Law, for the baptized, becomes the opportunity to share God's love with others; the terror of the Law no longer hanging over our heads, we are opened up to the world of God's mercy, and to therefore to be merciful even as God is merciful. To forgive, even as we are forgiven. To love, even as we are loved.

We offer our bodies as "living sacrifices" by taking up our cross and following Jesus as His disciples, being the agents of God's love to the world. It is sacrifice not to God, there is no satisfaction rendered to God through our sacrifices; the sacrifices we make, in love to others, are rendered pleasing to God by faith, not by the work itself; the works are not for God's benefit, but for our neighbor's benefit.

If I live 80 years, pray 12 hours a day, fasting at least twice a week, and dutifully living a pious, chaste, celibate life--but do not love my neighbor, I have accomplished nothing good.

It is not God who needs my good works. It is my neighbor who needs my good works.

For this reason Jesus could say that the prostitutes were entering the kingdom of God ahead of the Pharisees. The righteousness of the prostitute was not greater than that of the Pharisee.

There are far more saints in heaven who lived their lives tilling the field, serving in the tavern, and who frequented brothels than all the monasteries and all the convents in all the earth. That isn't a slight against monastics, but a point that the "religious" life is no more spiritual than the "secular" life. Christ came to save the unrighteous and call them to repentance; Christ called the publican--not the Pharisee--just.

The widow who gives her last mite has done a thousand good works more than any who devoted years of their lives to prayer, fasting, and religious obligation.

One act of kindness to a stranger is worth more in heaven than all the hymns sung in all the earth put together.

If we have ears, let us hear.

-CryptoLutheran

For myself, works are works, fruit is fruit, righteousness is righteousness. And if its done or realized out of the love that fellowship with God produces, then it pleases Him whether or not it may impress men.

 

[ViaCrucis]

For myself, works are works, fruit is fruit, righteousness is righteousness. And if its done or realized out of the love that fellowship with God produces, then it pleases Him whether or not it may impress men.

It's not about impressing men.
Neither is it about impressing God.
It's not about impressing anyone.
It's about loving our neighbor.

Good works, truly good works, bear no reward.

The fact that we insist on a reward only points toward the old man cleaving to us, trying to drag us back down into sin and death.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fhansen]

It's not about impressing men.
Neither is it about impressing God.
It's not about impressing anyone.
It's about loving our neighbor.

Good works, truly good works, bear no reward.

The fact that we insist on a reward only points toward the old man cleaving to us, trying to drag us back down into sin and death.

-CryptoLutheran

I dont think so. Its a recogntion of our absolute need for God-and of His expectations of us. It's ok for man to have obligation, to be morally acountable-with his salvation connected to it -its very good, in fact. It has to do with God's plan for man, of deification/theosis, it has to do with love being both a gift and a human choice, it has to do with the church's teaching,
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

That makes sense, and aligns with the rest of the Bible IMO. Not judged solely on what we believe, but on what we become by virtue of communion with God.

"‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’" Mark 12:29-31

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:9

Man is obligated to love. Obedience then flows freely and of its own accord and sin is overcome. To the extent that we draw near to God, loving Him because He first loved us, our purpose and perfection-and salvation-are being realized.

To know of this obligation is good, even as the actual fulfillment of it only comes to the extent that we willingly embrace it, still impossible without the help of grace. To do otherwise is much like a flower that, having the choice, thwarts it’s own blossoming. If faith becomes a license to be free of the consequences of future sin, or as some sort of replacement for man’s obligation to be personally righteous even as we acknowledge that authentic righteousness only comes from God, then we’re confusing and even opposing the gospel and it’s purpose.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I do believe that our works are an expression of our love toward God and not just our neighbor. But I always wondered how we can be judged by them or expect a reward. I know for myself that if I expect judgement and reward, then that becomes the focus and I am no longer actually loving, even if I give the appearance of good works. I am instead working out of obligation to a moral law and reward becomes my due.

I dont think so. Its a recogntion of our absolute need for God-and of His expectations of us. It's ok for man to have obligation, to be morally acountable-with his salvation connected to it -its very good, in fact. It has to do with God's plan for man, of deification/theosis, it has to do with love being both a gift and a human choice, it has to do with the church's teaching,
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

That makes sense, and aligns with the rest of the Bible IMO. Not judged solely on what we believe, but on what we become by virtue of communion with God.

"‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’" Mark 12:29-31

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:9

Man is obligated to love. Obedience then flows freely and of its own accord and sin is overcome. To the extent that we draw near to God, loving Him because He first loved us, our purpose and perfection-and salvation-are being realized.

To know of this obligation is good, even as the actual fulfillment of it only comes to the extent that we willingly embrace it, still impossible without the help of grace. To do otherwise is much like a flower that, having the choice, thwarts it’s own blossoming. If faith becomes a license to be free of the consequences of future sin, or as some sort of replacement for man’s obligation to be personally righteous even as we acknowledge that authentic righteousness only comes from God, then we’re confusing and even opposing the gospel and it’s purpose.

 

[fhansen]

I do believe that our works are an expression of our love toward God and not just our neighbor. But I always wondered how we can be judged by them or expect a reward. I know for myself that if I expect judgement and reward, then that becomes the focus and I am no longer actually loving, even if I give the appearance of good works. I am instead working out of obligation to a moral law and reward becomes my due.

I understand the conundrum. But we need to ask this question: Is it wrong to be obligated to do right, to love IOW. Is it wrong to be aware of this obligation, even if we cannot possibly fulfill it on our own? Isn't there a reason, a purpose, an end that God's been patiently working towards, in us, for all these centuries? Isn't revelation all about informing man of His expectations, of His will, so that we'll know? Is the opposite position ok, to remain as we are, sinful? Jesus's burden is light, but not non-existent.

So God works to bring us to that love, working against our own pride and selfishness that separates us from Him. To the extent that He's succeeded in us, to the extent that He's bent us towards Himself by demonstrating His own boundless love in a relatively godless world that fails to love in so many ways, causing harm and misery instead, we begin to love in return. And love only comes willingly, or it's not love at all. It's a patient work of His, a very good work that only He can do, but not without our cooperation in it, and one that we need to know about-for our own good. I'll repeat a quote from Basil of Caesara:
If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.

 

[The Liturgist]

If I live 80 years, pray 12 hours a day, fasting at least twice a week, and dutifully living a pious, chaste, celibate life--but do not love my neighbor, I have accomplished nothing good.

That being said, if you do these things and love your neighbor, this is very good, and better still if you do them because you love your neighbor. The one area where I think Renaissance and Baroque Protestant soteriology kind of tripped up in a spectacular way, outside of the extreme Evangelical Catholic parts of Lutheranism like the Archbishop of Utrecht during the early years of the Church of Sweden, and among the surviving monasteries of the Lutheran lands, was the rejection which we see explicitly defined in the Anglican 39 articles of “supererogation” which had the effect of inadvertently imposing a sort of tall poppy syndrome on expressions of piety and the more intense vocations of Christians.

One doubts that in the late 18th century, before the Oxford movement and equivalently pro-Patristic moments of inertia throughout Christendom, St. Seraphim of Sarov have persued his ascetic lifestyle and retired to a hermitage, in order to teach us the very real truth that if we acquire inner peace (in Christ) thousands around us will be saved, had he not been fortunate enough to, at the time, live in the Orthodox church (conversely, he might well have had an equally hard time getting his point across in the Russian Orthodox Church under Soviet rule, because the NKVD and later the KGB interfered with church operations to an insane extent, which is why the Moscow Patriarchate gave Rev. Billy Graham an official blessing to preach in Russia, in order to catechize the people).

 

[The Liturgist]

Calvin understands the atonement as being based on a “mystical union” with Christ, which establishes a “community of righteousness” between Christ and us. I think this is consistent with Rom 6. Neither bases our justification on any particular accomplishments, but it is associated with a relationship with Christ through which we are renewed. While he does speak of substitution, a
I think this aspect of his treatment of the atonement is often lost.

Indeed, this is the tragedy of Calvin, in that we have his beliefs, and then we have the beliefs of Calvinism. I myself think that Calvin largely failed as a liturgist, by on the one hand pushing for too many changes, like the abolition of feasts such as Christmas, and on the other hand not sticking to his guns on the really good liturgical ideas that he had, such as the weekly Eucharist. If he had been able to integrate the more beautiful aspects of his theology into liturgy, on a larger scale than what he was actually able to pull off (which to be clear, he did do some impressive liturgical work; see Liturgies of the Western Church, which has a chapter on Calvin’s liturgics, as well as chapters on the liturgics of other reformers such as Boucher), on a scale comparable to, say, Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer (which is brilliant and reflects Cranmerian theology to the fullest extent, even if he did not write as much of it as some people think - for example, the beautiful proper collects are from the Sarum Rite and the Divine Office is based on the proposed reform of the Office by Cardinal Quinones), he could have embedded these beliefs in a dynamic structure which would be more easily followed on the basis of lex orandi, lex credendi, and as a result, those of us who have had some positive experiences with Calvin would not be continually frustrated by the kind of charicature of Calvin presented by both the supporters and opponents of Arminius and his Remonstrants.

 

[hedrick]

There are also some differences in history. At least as I recall, Anglican churches came from the English church, largely through English colonies. I believe Lutheran churches came with people that came from Lutheran territories. Reformed churches, however, mostly have no direct connection with Geneva, and in fact they don't just have Geneva as an origin. Geneva trained reformers, but they operated within their own national situation and traditions. Thus the basic Reformed confessions don't have direct historical connection to Calvin. He had a confession, but it doesn't have the same role in the Reformed tradition as Luther's catechisms in the Lutheran tradition.