Difference between Lutheran and Calvinist.

[Catholic Dude]

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

 

[5solas]

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

There are no key teachings affected, just minor points....

 

[Jon_]

A big one was the Eucharist. Luther sided with the Catholics in that he asserted when we eat of the bread and drink of the wine that we really, metaphysically partake of Christ's flesh and blood. At the other end of the spectrum was Carl Zwingli, who thought of the importance of the Eucharist as entirely symbolic, with the parts of the communion being significant only in their imagery, there being no metaphysical transformation. Calvin occupied a middle ground, what he called "dynamic presence." He believe that Christ was really present spiritually, but that the bread and wine were still generally temporal things, not actual portions of our Lord. That is, when we partake of the bread and wine there is some spiritual partaking of our Lord as he is really present spiritually, but that the bread and wine maintain their earthly forms.

On other doctrinal issues, I cannot think of any. Perhaps our friend, James Swan, will enlighten us, him being the excellent Lutheran scholar that he is.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[5solas]

A big one was the Eucharist. Luther sided with the Catholics in that he asserted when we eat of the bread and drink of the wine that we really, metaphysically partake of Christ's flesh and blood.

There is a difference between Luther's view and the catholic view:

The practical difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation is that, while in transubstantiation the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ through the consecration of the priest, but according to consubstantiation, the change occurs only upon receipt of the communion by the believer.

 

[Catholic Dude]

There are no key teachings affected, just minor points....

So why are there two groups? Why not join into one group if they are that close? If I went in and asked a Lutheran what I had to do to be saved he would give me the same list of things? When I ask what basic teachings he held would he hand me a card that said TULIP on it?

 

[Tertiumquid]

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

Hi Dude,

The subject line, "Difference between Lutheran and Calvinist" is a somewhat different question than, "What are some key teachings that Luther and Calvin did not agree on?"


The reason these are different questions is because neither Lutherans nor Calvinists consider Luther or Calvin infallible interpreters of Scripture- so, one will find that subsequent Lutheranism and Calvinism, while giving due respect to Luther and Calvin, base their conclusions on the exegesis of Scripture, not on the sole opinions of either of the great Reformers. Thus the differences/similarities for Lutherans and Calvinists would not be based on what either Calvin or Luther held, but rather by what Scripture teaches.


I am an advocate of doing one's own research. My admonition to you would be to search out on-line copies of both the Book of Concord and the Westminster Confession of Faith. Simply read both of them. Both would give a general idea of what most conservative Lutherans and Calvinists believe. I think by and large, there is agreement on the essentials: the solas of the Reformation. Enjoy your research, and let me know what you find.

Now, just last month the whole Luther/Calvin thing was discussed here. Allow me to rehash a little bit of my perspective. I am a Calvinist with a special interest in Luther. Especially interesting is when I enter into discussions comparing Luther and Calvin. Modern-day cyber-Lutherans I have spoken with get really heated up. Most cyber-Lutherans I've encountered (not all though) think very little of Calvin and Calvinism in general. Some will even get quite animated when they find out I'm not a Lutheran. One guy in the Lutheran Forum here said to me that Calvinists have a “different gospel” (his perspective though, does not represent Lutheranism in general). One Lutheran said to me once,

”Your theology is reformed, not Lutheran. I believe you cannot view Luther through the same lens as Lutherans because of this. Your theology and Luther's are different. So, there is a automatic mistrust of what you have to say on the basis of where you are coming from...If you truly loved Luther's theology, you would embrace the Sacraments as Luther did...you could not help yourself.”


And another Lutheran a few years ago on the subject of Calvin/Predestination/Luther said to me:



"The Tertium Qid "said" he wanted to discuss Luther, but when confronted with Luther quotes that exposed his slander of Luther, he asked for references to the American Edition of Luther's Works...Now he has fled away into the darkness of cyberspace leaving us nothing but his latin moniker of anonymity. Having deleted all the evidence of slander with no apology or acknowledgment of error---he awaits a more opportune time. I shudder to think of what his teeth would have done to our little flock had not Gnesio-Lutheran and my wife Kathrine held their ground against his attacks on Lutheranism during my absence....Ironically, during my absence, I killed a coyote that was preying upon our deer herd's younger fawns. Gee, if I had stayed home-- I would have had a shot at a wolf who was trying to kill some of you! Nevertheless, I pray that TQ will realize that he was wrong and repent of his belief in 'limited atonement'. All of us, without exception, were all wolves at one time, we were born that way. But by the grace of God, we are what we are now: reborn children of God and sheep of our Good Shepherd. So, TQ, if you are still listening, among Lutherans there is such a thing as forgiveness and even wolves can become sheep."


Now these opinions are representative of individuals, not Lutheranism per se. I am glad-heartened by such good Lutheran scholars like Rod Rosenblatt who has a very cordial interaction with Calvinists Mike Horton and Kim Riddlebarger, and other Lutheran theologians as well who know that both Lutherans and Calvinists are committed to the gospel. Let us not forget that Melanchthon and Calvin were good friends!


I noticed you posted this same question in the Lutheran forum here, and I look forward to their responses. Often, I have found Lutheran laymen simply do not understand Calvinism, and have never read John Calvin. Calvinism is usually mistaken for fatalism amongst non-Calvinists. Some Lutherans make this same mistake. Mostly, the Lord's Supper get's highlighted by Lutherans- perhaps on another post we could take a closer look at Luther/Zwingli/Calvin. A close look reveals some interesting facts.


On the other hand, comparing and contrasting Luther and Calvin is possible. In a recent thread I posted two snippets that gave a general idea of the sentiment between the two reformers:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16478105&postcount=29

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16478173&postcount=30

Both of these should give you a general overview of the interaction between Calvin and Luther.

I have a lot more i'd like to say, but it is Sunday, and it's time to get ready for church.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[StAnselm]

Luther sided with the Catholics in that he asserted when we eat of the bread and drink of the wine that we really, metaphysically partake of Christ's flesh and blood...

I'm sure he didn't use the word "metaphysical", did he?

At the other end of the spectrum was Carl Zwingli

You mean "Huldrych"

but that the bread and wine maintain their earthly forms.

Well, even Roman Catholics believe that!

 

[Tertiumquid]

Well, the responses are slowly coming in over on the Lutheran board. Since I am Reformed, and to not offend the Lutherans, perhaps its best to keep my comments here. Time allowing, i'll try to address their comments. Of course, they are welcome to respond here. I do this because I was exhorted privately a few months back by one of the Lutherans to keep my opinions on Luther over here (not really sure why). This person's opinion I value, so i'm going to give it a try.

So far, there aren't an overwhelming amount of replies over on Thelogia Crucis. One thing I want folks to look for is any positive similarites offered by the Lutherans in their evaluation of Calvin/Calvinism. I'm hoping to be proved wrong, but I expect only differences to be pointed out. This of course greatly saddens me.

Let's begin.

One person over on Theologia Crucis commented:

"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)."

Now, I've read Luther's Bondage of The Will a few times. I have never read Luther ever saying that "everyone else has a choice in the matter". Quite the opposite. Luther repeatedly points out that all mankind is enslaved to sin and has no power of the will to choose Him. The comment quoted above about Luther betrays a non-understanding of Luther's basic theological paradigm of the hidden/revealed God.

Luther repeatedly exhorts his readers not to probe into the secret council of the "hidden God." However, what are those things which should not be probed? Luther lets us know it’s the deep mysteries of providence, election and reprobation. On the other hand, to only look at Luther’s understanding of the "revealed God" does not give us an adequate picture of Luther’s paradox of the "hidden/revealed God." One does not understand Luther's paradox without probing both sides to see what he means.


My understanding is that Luther did indeed attribute double predestination to the "hidden God." To prove this, I'd like to quote a section In Lutheran scholar Paul Althaus' book at length:

“For Luther the assertion that God is God implicitly includes the fact that God alone works all in all together with the accompanying foreknowledge…. This determines not only man's outward but also his inner fate, his relationship to God in faith or unfaith, in obedience or disobedience. Here too man is completely in God's hands. Luther finds the biblical basis for this particularly in I Corinthians 12:6, "God works all in all." Luther expands the sense of this passage far beyond Paul's meaning in its original setting. It appears very frequently in Luther's thought."

"The Bible in addition bears witness, and experience confirms the fact, that men actually relate themselves differently to the word of God. Some are open to faith; others remain closed to it. Accordingly, the Bible expects human history to end in a twofold way. Not all will be blessed; and many will be lost. Luther can, in the context of his assertion that God works all in all, find the ultimate cause in God himself, in his intention, and in his working. This decision is not made by man's supposedly free will, but only by God's willing and working. He chooses some to be saved and he rejects the others without an apparent reason for either choice. He gives faith to one through the working of His Spirit; and he refuses to give faith to others so that they are bound in their unbelief. Salvation and destruction thus result from God's previous decision and his corresponding twofold activity. God's choice is not based on the individual's condition; it establishes this condition. This means an unconditional, eternal predestination both to salvation and to damnation."


Luther does not reach this conclusion on the basis of philosophical speculation about God, but finds it in the Scripture. He experienced it in God's relationship to him personally; and the God whom he thus personally experienced is the very same God who speaks and is proclaimed in the Scripture. Paul especially testified to Luther that God makes this twofold decision and that he hardens those who are lost: "God has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills" (Rom. 9:18). Paul illustrates this with the picture of the potter making vessels of honor as well as dishonor out of the same clay (Rom. 9: 20 ff.). In addition, Paul quotes Malachi, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom. 9:13). And Paul specifically refers to God's treatment of Pharaoh (Rom. 9:17)


"The position Scripture thus presented to Luther was also the inescapable result of his understanding of God. He even cites man's innate rational concept of God as an additional proof. It seems blasphemous even to think that God does not work man's decision to believe or not to believe, as though God could be surprised by man's choice and men might be saved or lost without God knowing it. Whoever so thinks denies that God is God and makes fun of Him as though he were a ridiculous idol." Whoever speaks seriously of God must necessarily teach his foreknowledge and his unconditional determination of all things."


"Luther thus finds a twofold will of God in the Scripture. Together with statements about God's all-inclusive grace are other statements which express another willing and working of God which stands with his willing and working of salvation. Together with grace stands wrath, a wrath which rejects and which is no longer a part of love; and this is found not only in the Old but also in the New Testament. Luther did not draw a two-sided picture of God from his own imagination, but he saw it already present in Scripture. The God of the Bible is not unequivocally the God of the gospel. The God of the Bible is not only the God of all grace but is also the God who, if he wills, hardens and rejects. This God even treats a man equivocally: he offers his grace in the word and yet refuses to give his Spirit to bring about his conversion. He can even harden a man—in all this Luther does not go in substance beyond the difficult passages of Scripture which describe God as hardening a man's heart."



"Luther, however, summarized the substance of such scriptural statements in the sharpest possible expressions. In The Bondage of the Will he teaches that God has a double will, even a double reality. The God revealed and preached in the gospel must be distinguished from the hidden God who is not preached, the God who works all things. God's word is not the same as "God himself." God, through his word, approaches man with the mercy which (according to Ezekiel 33) does not seek the death of the sinner but that he turn and live. But the hidden will of God, the will we must fear, "determines for itself which and what sort of men it chooses to enable to participate in this mercy offered through the proclamation." God "does not will the death of the sinner, that is, according to his word; he does, however, will it according to his inscrutable will." God revealed in his word mourns the sinner's death and seeks to save him from it. "God hidden in his majesty, on the other hand, does not mourn the sinner's death, or abrogate it, but works life and death in everything in all. For God has not limited himself to his word but retains his freedom over everything. . . . God does many things that he does not show us through his word. He also wills many things his word does not show us."

Source: The Theology of Martin Luther 274-276

More to follow.

Regards,

James Swan

 

[Tertiumquid]

Another Lutheran posted this difference between Lutherans and Calvinists from a web-page:

"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.... 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."

I would point out that at least by modern standards (and probably historical as well), the Reformed by and large have not forbid musical instruments. I would be interested in hearing if any of you "Calvinists" attend churches that forbid instrumental music, or instruments accompanying singing. Perhaps some of you only sing the Psalms, but i'm betting this is the minority position as well.

Even while Calvin was alive, work was underway for a complete Psalter with musical accompaniment (it was finished 2 years after Calvin's death in 1562). Calvin realized music was an incredible emmotional force, and could be used for both good or evil. He exhorted people to sing of their faith with emmotion: "Spiritual songs cannot be sung well except with the heart."

In my own church (which is a member of the United Reformed Churches), a large part of both the morning and Evening services are musical. We have a Psalter, but also a hymn book as well. In the evening service, members of the congregation pick the songs to be sung. Piano, Organ, and Trumpet are used, as well as other occasional instruments.

The above difference between Lutherans and Calvinists thus is really not a difference at all.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[Tertiumquid]

Here’s another difference between Lutherans and Calvinists pointed out over on Theologia Crucis:

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.

First, note that Calvinists don’t believe that Christ spoke falsely. The way the above sentence is set up, it reads in effect, “Lutherans understand the words Christ spoke to be true” therefore Calvinists don’t! This is hardly a good way for us to communicate with one another.


In my discussions with Lutherans, this is one of the major disagreements between us. Yet, how many actually understand exactly what Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin held, where they agreed, and where they disagreed? The following is primarily from my notes.


Zwingli shared similar concerns with Luther on the Lord’s Supper, in that both knew the Roman concept was in error. Luther’s position was based on a critique of the Eucharistic sacrifice, which he understood to be ultimately works righteousness. Zwingli though saw transubstantiation the key error of Rome. Thus, both saw trouble with the Roman mass. Something was not quite right with the "Sacrament Christ first gave us". Thus, it would be an error for Lutherans to side with Roman Catholics and think that Luther was "right on" with what Rome was doing. He wasn't.


In then Marburg Colloquy in 1529, Luther and Zwingli agreed on 14 articles of doctrine. They disagreed on 15: The Lord’s Supper. Not many Lutherans will tell you about the 14 they agreed on! Even in that 15th article, there was some agreement: The mass was not a sacrifice; both rejected transubstantiation; both held the bread & wine should be given to communicants; they also agreed in theory in a sacrament of the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, and that every Christian needed to partake spiritually of the body and blood of Christ. Zwingli here seems to be acquiescing to Luther. He does recognize there is something given by God in the Lord’s Supper, it is not merely a “work” (as Luther had criticized him for).

But of course there was disagreement: Is there a bodily presence of Christ? Luther tried one last time for harmony with Zwingli: “Jesus is present in his body essentially and substantively, but not qualitatively, quantitatively, or locally.” Luther in this statement is appealing back to his medieval training. He is saying, “Let’s say Christ is really present in his body in the bread, but let’s not get that presence there in such a way that it could conceivably be an object of worship.” Zwingli said no. The formulation still too close to the Roman transubstantiation.


And now we come to John Calvin. Calvin agreed with both Luther and Zwingli on certain things.

Agreed with Zwingli: the doctrine of Christ’s ascension must be very central in our understanding of the Eucharist. Therefore he disagreed with Luther’s ubiquity & communicatio iddiomatum. (Zwingli stressed the ascension of Christ: He is risen, ascended and seated at the right hand of the Father. Christ said he was going to depart, therefore transubstantiation is idolatrous and a violation of the apostles creed).


Agreed with Zwinlgi: there needed to be a central place given to faith as the reception of blessing. Some of the later Lutheran theologians were not stressing faith enough as the avenue of blessing in the reception of the Supper.


Agreed with Luther: The Lord’s Supper must primarily be seen as a gift that God gives to his people. The Supper is not primarily something we do, but is primarily something God does for us in the gift of his son.


Agreed with Luther: a stress of the vital importance and centrality of the body of Christ in our redemption. Our salvation is accomplished by the sacrifice of Christ’s body. We are united to Christ, including his body and blood by the work of the Holy Spirit.


“Calvin held that Christ is the only food for our souls. We are nourished spiritually by Christ just as our bodies are nourished by the visible signs of the bread and wine. While we cannot truly grasp the mystical, unseen yet real union of Christ with believers, God demonstrates it in the visible terms of the believer's participation in the Lord's Supper. Clearly Calvin believed that the Lord's Supper was more than just a memorial or an empty sign, but would not agree with Luther regarding the physical presence of Christ around the elements.”

Calvin’s position is closer to Luther’s, but incorporates the concerns of both. Calvin sees the Lord’s Supper as “a visible word.”(an Augustinian phrase). What God says in the preached word, he shows in the visible word of the sacrament.


The visible word assures us that Christ is ever with us, forgiving us, and encouraging us in growth. The elements (bread and wine) speak of our spiritual nurture in Christ…our spiritual development in him. It is a nourishing sacrament….it nourishes us with Christ. The nourishment is Christ himself. Bread and wine represent the invisible food that we receive from the flesh and blood of Christ. Christ is the only food of our soul.


We need to use the sacrament to be strengthened. Just as we receive the bread and the wine, so, by faith we receive the body and blood of Christ to the nourishment and strengthening of our body.

Calvin holds that when we receive the bread and wine by faith, we receive the body and blood “with” the bread and the wine. Calvin not going as far to say that the body is always “in” the bread and the wine (this is where Calvin is not going with Luther). Where he does go along with Luther: he says what we need is Christ and his flesh and blood which are for our salvation. God has promised Christ to us in the visible word, just as he has promised Christ to us in the spoken word. Just as the spoken word offers Christ to us (if we receive him by faith), so the visible word offers Christ to us (if we receive him by faith). Luther would say God does more than just offer Christ in the Lord’s Supper, he actually gives Christ in it. Calvin, in effect, is willing to get very close to Luther’s point.


A question arises: If Calvin says that Christ is truly offered and given in the supper, but that Christ is not “in with and under” the bread, how is Christ given? If Calvin wants to stress the importance of the ascension, how is it possible that Christ who is in heaven at the right hand of God can be the Christ that we will meet actually in the sacrament?


Calvin answers: There is a great mystery here. This mystery of Christ’s secret union with the devout is by nature incomprehensible. But we can say, Christ descends to us both by the outward symbol and by his spirit that he may truly quicken our souls by the substance of his flesh and his blood; he who does not perceive that many miracles are subsumed in these few words is more than stupid.

But what is the miracle?


Somehow in the mystery of the Lord’s Supper by the power of the Spirit, Christ does not come down from Heaven but we are taken up to heaven, and there we commune with our ascended Lord himself.


Regards,
James Swan

 

[Jon_]

I'm sure he didn't use the word "metaphysical", did he?

Of course not. Metaphysical is an English word--Luther was German.

You mean "Huldrych"

No, I mean Zwingli.

Well, even Roman Catholics believe that!

Roman Catholics believe the wine and bread really are the flesh and blood of Jesus. Ask Catholic Dude.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[StAnselm]

The differences between Luther and Calvin do not necessarily bear much relation to the differences between Luterans and Calvinists!

Of course not. Metaphysical is an English word--Luther was German.

OK, smart guy - can you give me any evidence at all to back up your statement that Luther asserted we metaphysically partake of Jesus' flesh and blood.

No, I mean Zwingli.

And you got his name wrong. Why don't you check your facts before posting, hmm?

Roman Catholics believe the wine and bread really are the flesh and blood of Jesus.

Yes, but the accidents ("earthly forms") do not change!

I fear your language is a bit fuzzy, Jon - that can be dangerous in a theological debate.

 

[Jon_]

The differences between Luther and Calvin do not necessarily bear much relation to the differences between Luterans and Calvinists!

Agreed.

OK, smart guy - can you give me any evidence at all to back up your statement that Luther asserted we metaphysically partake of Jesus' flesh and blood.

Does the Encyclopædia Britannica count as evidence? How about this summation, written by Rev. Ernest Gordon Rupp (2002) from said source?

Doctrinal differences about the Eucharist broke the common evangelical front. Though all the Reformers repudiated the sacrifice of the mass, they were deeply divided about the nature of the divine Presence. Luther, with simple biblicism, insisted that Christ's words “This is my body” must be literally interpreted, because allegory is not to be used in interpreting Scripture unless the context plainly requires it. Karlstadt's fanciful argument (that the word this referred not to bread and wine but the Lord's physical body) was soon dropped. Zwingli won many to his view that “is” must be taken as “means,” and his learned friend, the Humanist John Oecolampadius, brought support from the early Church Fathers for a spiritual Presence and stressed the idea of the 2nd-century Tertullian that “body” meant “sign of the body.” Thus, the initial debate was about interpretive principles, about the words of institution, though the scriptural argument moved to the relevance or irrelevance of the Gospel According to John (e.g., “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” [John 6:54]). (¶ 43)
​

And you got his name wrong. Why don't you check your facts before posting, hmm?

Yep, a mere slip of the tongue. I was just being irascible with you since you were clearly being contentious.

I am talking about the Zwingli who clearly taught the doctrine of memorialism.

That is, I am speaking of this Zwingli:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwingli

Who taught memorialism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorialism

Are these factual enough for you?

Yes, but the accidents ("earthly forms") do not change!

According to the J. Pohle (1909), contributing author in the Catholc Encyclopædia, they do change, we are simply incapable of sensing this change.

For we have the two extremes of conversion, namely, bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and the Body and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quem. Furthermore, the intimate connection between the cessation of one extreme and the appearance of the other seems to be preserved by the fact, that both events are the results, not of two independent processes, as, e.g. annihilation and creation, but of one single act, since, according to the purpose of the Almighty, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ. Lastly, we have the commune tertium in the unchanged appearances of bread and wine, under which appearances the pre-existent Christ assumes a new, sacramental mode of being, and without which His Body and Blood could not be partaken of by men. That the consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the transition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, is the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii). (III. Transubstantiation, ¶ 3, emphasis mine).
​

Here is another example, this time from the Anglican website, Pontifications (2004):

The change that transubstantiation effects is completely imperceptible because it does not occur at any natural level of our world. It can only be described as supernatural, transcendent, metaphysical, eschatological. (¶ 28)
​

Perhaps you are referring to the assertion of St. Thomas, who wrote that while the accidents are indeed bread and wine, they are also the Body and Blood. He said that they do not change because change implies an alteration of substance. There is no alteration because the bread and wine are already the Body and Blood. Either way you cut it, this consumption of the Body and Blood through the accidents is still a metaphysical partaking of our Lord, whether or not the elements actually undergo a temporal transformation or not. It is really splitting hairs to argue on this point when the clear teaching of the Catholic church is the doctrine of transubstantiation, which is where the bread and wine are a metaphysical representation of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Luther agreed with this in that he believed the Scripture must be interpreted literally, i.e. that the bread and wine really are the Body and Blood of our Lord.

I fear your language is a bit fuzzy, Jon - that can be dangerous in a theological debate.

Yes, it can. That is why I always make sure my terminology and sources are correct.

(Apart from typos, of course.)

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

References​

​

Martin Luther (1483 - 1546) (n.d.). Retrieved July 17, 2005, from http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gbrown/philosophers/leibniz/BritannicaPages/Luther/Luther.html.

Pohle, J. (1909). The Catholic Encyclopædia, vol. 5. [Electronic version.] Retrieved July 17, 2005, from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#3.

Pontifications >> Transubstantiation (2004, June 18). Retrieved July 17, 2005, from http://pontifications.classicalanglican.net/?page_id=863.

 

[StAnselm]

Well, I'm glad I made you go ad fontes! Except these are really the sources, per se.

Does the Encyclopædia Britannica count as evidence?

Yes, but he doesn't mention the metaphysical. I'm wondering if you imported that concept into the debate, when it wasn't really present in Luther's mind. (Pun intended. )

 

[Jon_]

Well, I'm glad I made you go ad fontes!

I can always use the exercise. Seems like the only time I ever apply APA format is when I'm doing my coursework, but this gave me a real world opportunity to use it. In any case, a call back to the sources is always a valid and important tool in any discussion.

Except these are really the sources, per se.

Do you mean they are not? Oh, you mean you want words from Luther's own pen? I would oblige, but I fear it would take much longer than is warranted by a little message board thread such as this.

Yes, but he doesn't mention the metaphysical. I'm wondering if you imported that concept into the debate, when it wasn't really present in Luther's mind. (Pun intended. )

Ah, I see where the contention has arisen. Seems my use of metaphysical was taken to mean something that it did not. The use of metaphysical here means, immaterial, supernatural, incorporeal. That is, when I say that Luther taught Christ was present in the bread and wine metaphysically, he is present immaterially, supernaturally. Or in other words, he is present in a sense, even if not detectable by the senses.

That being the case, we see that John Calvin also taught the metaphysical presence of the Lord during the sacrament. In hindsight, you are right, I could have better worded my response. Especially in consideration of how I concluded my statement. It looks like I am contrasting Calvin's teaching of a dynamic presence and the assertion that the accidents remain temporal with Luther's own stance, which would be implied that the presence is a real, substantial presence and that the elements are real flesh and blood. I should have made it more clear that Calvin derived his view substantially from Luther, but Luther also emphasized that the interpretation of the Scripture was to be taken literally, thus maintaining that, in some way, the accidents really are the Body and Blood of our Lord. In this sense Calvin differed with Luther and sided with Zwingli in that the significance of the bread and wine are symbolic, and rather that the purpose of the last supper was memorial, but that there was greater substance to it than simple symbolism--i.e., Christ is really present in some way.

... now I remember why I generally steer clear of this issue.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Tetzel]

If I went in and asked a Lutheran what I had to do to be saved he would give me the same list of things?

LOL. What should I do?

 

[Tetzel]

”Your theology is reformed, not Lutheran. I believe you cannot view Luther through the same lens as Lutherans because of this. Your theology and Luther's are different. So, there is a automatic mistrust of what you have to say on the basis of where you are coming from...If you truly loved Luther's theology, you would embrace the Sacraments as Luther did...you could not help yourself.”

Just curious here, but was this said by someone who has leanings toward the Eastern Orthodox?

 

[Tetzel]

"Q. Would you explain the LCMS position on "predestined" in Romans 8 and Ephesians 1? If one is predestined to be adopted as a redeemed child of God, then does it follow that another is predestined to not be adopted and therefore damned?

A. The LCMS believes that Scripture clearly teaches (in passages such as those mentioned in your question) a predestination to salvation by God's grace in Jesus Christ alone. The LCMS does not believe that Scripture teaches a predestination to damnation: God desires all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:3). Like so many teachings of Scripture (e.g., the Trinity, eternity, the two natures of Christ, the love of a holy God for rebellious sinners), this teaching seems contradictory and is incomprehensible to human reason. We believe it not because it "makes sense" to human reason, but because this is what we find taught in the pages of God's holy Word.

For a helpful summary of the LCMS position on predestination, see the section on "Of the Election of Grace" in the Synod's "Brief Statement" (adopted in 1932)."


http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2650


Also the www.wels.org page has a very extensive forum where people can ask what differentiates Lutherans from various other Christian groups.

 

[Tertiumquid]

Just curious here, but was this said by someone who has leanings toward the Eastern Orthodox?

Hi- I'm not really sure. Do some Lutherans here lean toward E.O. (I have yet to see Jaraslov Pelikan posting here)? If so why do the Lutherans lean toward EO?

Take Care,
James Swan

 

[Rolf Ernst]

I have read in Hodge's systematic theology that there is a critical difference between the Reformed and Lutheran Christologies. We believe Christ is the God-man, having two natures without admixture--His deity never less than the fulness of the Godhead, and in His humanity, fully human without that humanity being in any sense Divine but the Lutherans believe that Christ's humanity was a mixture of himan and divine.