Difference between Lutheran and Calvinist.

[Catholic Dude]

What are some key teachings that Luther and Calvin did not agree on?

 

[AngelusSax]

One is on the issue of predestination. Calvin believed in dual-predestination: The belief that everyone is predestined to go somewhere, whether heaven or hell, but no one can change where they're going no matter what.

Luther believed in single-predestination: The belief that some are indeed predestined for heaven, but everyone else has a choice in the matter (in as much as we have free will and such).

 

[ByzantineDixie]

"This IS my Body....this IS my Blood."

Lutherans believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist spiritually and physically. Lutherans understand the words Christ spoke to be true, as has the church since Christ first gave us this sacrament.

Calvinists believe in a spiritual presence only.

I was googling to find out what the Calvinist's thought about the Sacraments (thinking they do not hold to the Lutheran understanding of the Sacraments forgiving sin, conveying grace) and I found this...interesting.
Luther and Calvin were contemporaries and part of similar movements within the Church, but there were important differences between them. Calvinist churches differ from Lutheran ones on the mode of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper; on the nature of the Sacraments (Calvinists come closer to regarding these as teaching ceremonies, although many Calvinists would disagree with that summary), and on style of worship. Some Calvinists (not all) have a tradition that forbids instrumental music in worship (even to keep the singers on key), and the use of any hymns except the Psalms. On questions of worship, the historic Lutheran policy (not always adhered to) has been that, if two possible policies are equally consistent with Holy Scripture, one ought to use the one more like that of Rome, so as not to be disputing for disputing's sake. The rule adopted by many Calvinists is to go for the policy less like that of Rome. The result is that you see a lot more stained glass in Lutheran churches than in Calvinist ones.

 

[filosofer]

"This IS my Body....this IS my Blood."

Lutherans believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist spiritually and physically. Lutherans understand the words Christ spoke to be true, as has the church since Christ first gave us this sacrament.

Calvinists believe in a spiritual presence only.

And the confusing thing is the words are similar. For instance, the Calvinist would agree to this statement about the Lord's Supper:

"We believe in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper"

But they would not agree to the following:

"We believe in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, such that his body and blood are in, with, and under the bread and wine."

So, using "real presence" is not a differentiator of the doctrinal differences.

On questions of worship, the historic Lutheran policy (not always adhered to) has been that, if two possible policies are equally consistent with Holy Scripture, one ought to use the one more like that of Rome, so as not to be disputing for disputing's sake. The rule adopted by many Calvinists is to go for the policy less like that of Rome. The result is that you see a lot more stained glass in Lutheran churches than in Calvinist ones.[/i]

Wonder where they found that "Lutheran policy" statement?

But it certainly does show a difference regarding how worship reflects the confession of faith.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Wonder where they found that "Lutheran policy" statement?

I have no idea but being the Romanist I am...I liked it...so I quoted it!

Actually...sad to say...Lutherans are becoming more and more like Calvinists in this regard.

 

[filosofer]

Only certain Lutherans are. Others are becoming Roman clones.

We don't correct Calvinist leanings by being more RCC. Nor do we correct RCC leanings by becoming more like Calvinists. Although sadly, that has been our historic pattern. However, there is a reason we are Lutheran, and confess the faith the way we do.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Only certain Lutherans are.

Hmmm....I would say the prevailing winds are in this direction (like Calvinism, away from Rome). Now...I am not a Lutheran pastor so I only know based on impressions I have from the churches in 4 different states in which we have been members and the churches I have visited in my travels (exception being one church in Canada)...and the reading I have done in the past two years.

Others are becoming Roman clones.

*shrugs*...I don't know how you can say this. Even the most "Roman looking" congregations are distinctly Lutheran. I don't think a truly Lutheran church can really become too Roman. The Lutheran part pretty much defines the "stops".

 

[Catholic Dude]

filosofer

And the confusing thing is the words are similar. For instance, the Calvinist would agree to this statement about the Lord's Supper:

"We believe in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper"

But they would not agree to the following:

"We believe in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, such that his body and blood are in, with, and under the bread and wine."

So, using "real presence" is not a differentiator of the doctrinal differences.

I had the same problem. Before I made this thread I went to google and everywhere I went it either said they agreed on almost everything or would say stuff like they both accepted it but at the same time held different views on it, eg Lord's Supper.

 

[filosofer]

Hmmm....I would say the prevailing winds are in this direction (like Calvinism, away from Rome). Now...I am not a Lutheran pastor so I only know based on impressions I have from the churches in 4 different states in which we have been members and the churches I have visited in my travels (exception being one church in Canada)...and the reading I have done in the past two years.

*shrugs*...I don't know how you can say this. Even the most "Roman looking" congregations are distinctly Lutheran. I don't think a truly Lutheran church can really become too Roman. The Lutheran part pretty much defines the "stops". [/font]

As I ponder this more, I think I would revise my statement above. See, Rose, you keep nudging.

The tendency in Lutheran churches is to sway in one of two directions: Romanism/EO influence on one side and Arminianism/Evangelicalism on the other. Calvinism, per se, has little influence on the current theological landscape, as opposed to 100 years ago when Calvinism was dominant in non-Lutheran Protestantism. My point earlier is that often the Lutheran response to either extreme is to go to the other extreme. I think we are finding that situation today. Rather, we are to recover what it means to be Lutheran, in terms of confession, worship, and hermeneutics, etc.