Martin Luther vs. John Calvin

[Scottish Knight]

Actually they do have deacons, and the Church of Scotland has bishops.

The church of Scotland (as well as some Scottish Baptist churches) have ministers, elders (or presbyters) and deacons but they don't have bishops. Where did you hear the Kirk had bishops?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The church of Scotland (as well as some Scottish Baptist churches) have ministers, elders (or presbyters) and deacons but they don't have bishops. Where did you hear the Kirk had bishops?

My mistake. I was thinking historically before the abolition of the office. Don't mind me.

 

[simonthezealot]

So, no, simonthezealot, I haven't studied Calvinism at all.

But your still Lutheran. It makes no sense

 

[Tangible]

At the LCMS website there is a page that indicates differences between Lutheran and Reformed theology using the TULIP outline. It shows that Lutherans and the Reformed are in agreement on Total Depravity and share some common ground on Predestination, but that there are also major departures in doctrine between the two Reformation churches.

There is often a discussion among Baptists and other Evangelicals and Calvinists as to how many points of TULIP they agree with. You will hear people say things like "I'm a four-point Calvinist" meaning that they accept all but (usually) Limited Atonement. If Lutherans took part in this conversation they would probably jokingly be called "One and one-half point Calvinists".

Historically, however, most Reformed churches adhere to the five points of Calvinist theology commonly summarized by the acrostic "tulip" as these were set forth at the Synod of Dort (1618-19). On page 41 in his book, Churches in America, Dr. Thomas Manteufel reviews these five points and explains how they compare and/or contrast with what Lutherans believe regarding these matters.

T (Total Depravity) The Calvinists rightly teach that all descendants of Adam are by nature totally corrupt in spiritual matters. People do not have freedom of the will to turn to God in faith or cooperate in their conversions (Eph. 2:1; John 3:5-6; Rom. 8:7).

U (Unconditional predestination) Scripture does teach that it is by grace that God has predestinated the elect to eternal salvation and given them justifying faith. It is not because of any condition fulfilled by them (2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 1:4-6; Phil. 1:29). However, the Bible does not teach, as do the Calvinists, that some are predestined for damnation. God wants all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4).

L (Limited atonement) It is true that Christ died for the church and purchased it with His blood (Eph. 5:25; Acts 20:28). Furthermore, His atoning death does not mean that all people are saved (1 Cor. 1:18). However, Jesus died for all (2 Cor. 5:15).

I (Irresistible grace) We agree that God makes us alive by His mighty power, without our aid (Eph. 2:5; John 1:13). But Scripture warns that we can resist God’s gracious call (Matt. 23:37; Acts 7:51; 2 Cor. 6:1). And some people do resist God’s grace, or all would be saved (1 Tim 2:4). Furthermore, God warns us not to resist His grace (2 Cor. 6:1; Heb. 4:7).

P (Perseverance in grace) We affirm with Scripture that those who are predestined to salvation cannot be lost but will continue by God’s power to a blessed end (Rom. 8:30; 1 Peter 1:5). Scripture does not teach, however, that those who come to faith cannot lose that faith (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-29; Ps. 51:11). God urges His people not to continue in sin but to live in repentance and faith (Rom. 6:1-4).

Churches in America by Dr. Thomas Manteufel; p. 41 (St. Louis: CPH, 1994).​

Here are some links you might find interesting dealing with the interaction between Lutherans and the Reformed.

Crypto-Calvinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prussian Union (Evangelical Christian Church) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

My mistake. I was thinking historically before the abolition of the office. Don't mind me.

Ever see this bumper sticker/t-shirt concerning Obama

http://www.christianforums.com/t7464096-2/#post54625982

 

[BigNorsk]

I'm a little surprised you've gotten this far without talking about the formal and material principles and the differences.

For Lutheranism the formal principle is sola Scriptura.
The material principle is the doctrine of justification, that we are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone by Christ alone.

For Calvinism the formal principle is sola Scriptura.
The material principle is the glory of God.

Now though both have sola Scriptura as their formal principle, there is a subtle and not so subtle shading of that in Calvinism. See the problem was that Calvin was still influenced by his education in philosophy. And so the difference in the beliefs of the sacraments. See Calvin's knew that a physical body couldn't be in more than one place at a time. The Bible says Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father; therefore, the bread and wine could not be his body and blood because they were in heaven.

And so Calvin held to some sort of spiritual presence and you even see people try to finesse it with things like people's faith transporting them to heaven and all sorts of things which ultimately work to gloss or finesse over the simple words, this is my body and this is my blood into this is really not my body and this is not really my blood, they are as far removed from the bread and wine as heaven is from the earth.

As you can see, I don't agree that Calvinism is quite sola Scriptura, it's sola Scriptura with a twist. Lutherans would take sola Scriptura as meaning the Bible is the sole source and norm, the Calvinists that it is the sole norm.

Now on to the material principles. It's necessary to understand the material principle and keep it in view when studying something because if you don't, you'll get it wrong.

People who attack Luther and his writings have long made it a passion and a pastime to intentionally get it wrong, same for Calvin. When they read some of his earthy writings, they do so while completely throwing out and not keeping in view the material principle and so they misunderstand.

You might hear something for instance of how Luther rearranged the Bible a bit, it's sometimes referred to as Christocentric, but really what he did was take some of the books that really don't teach much about the material principle, a synopsis of the Gospel, and move them to the back. He really only moved a couple.

And you might hear how he called James a epistle of straw, but it's quite clear if you read his whole quote of how James is an epistle of straw as compared to Romans and the other main Gospel letters, that it is in comparison between the letters and how they teach the Gospel.

Now in Calvinism the glory of God is the material priniciple. Now note, that almost everywhere you go today, the Calvinists aren't Calvinistic, instead of the glory of God being their material principle, they use Zwingli's material principle of divine causality, or in other words predestination as the material principle.

To give you an example of that we turn no further than limited atonement. That Jesus only died for the elect. Reasoning being that due to the sovereignity of God that if Jesus died for you, you would be saved. If you aren't saved, well that's proof Jesus didn't die for you.

A Calvinist would talk of how that glorifies God but Zwinglians would talk of predestination.

As I say it's pretty hard to find a Calvinist.

Oh, and just so you can pick up on it. Zwinglians add the direct revelation of the Holy Spirit to the formal principle with the Bible.

Now just for reference and not intending to sidetrack but simply to give the OP a reference to understand, the formal principle in Catholicism is the Bible, Tradition, Reason, the Pope, and the Magisterium.

The material principle I'm not sure I can state correctly because it always reads and gobblygook to me. Basically it's man's body is alienated from God but his soul is not and so through progressive justification he is made totally holy. This is done through the sacraments and obedience to the church.

Hope I didn't butcher that too badly.

Marv

 

[Anoetos]

Marv,

You didn't butcher it badly, but you didn't butcher it well either, though I've definitely seen worse.

It can be difficult to talk about a different church. It's probably best if we just represent our own. I took your part early in this conversation because, as yet, there were no Lutherans around.

Any Lutheran appraisal of Calvinism, or Calvinist appraisal of Lutheranism is bound to be somewhat unsatisfactory to the people the person is hoping to describe. Your remarks about Calvin being beholden to philosophy make this point since the implication is that Lutherans do not use "philosophy" and are but dewy-eyed biblicists. This really isn't true and any perusal of Hollaz, Quenstedt or Pieper will prove this.

Anyway, I have probably already said too much, may I just suggest that we allow the Calvinists to describe Calvinism and the Lutherans to describe Lutheranism and we let the onlookers discover the points of convergence and departure for themselves?

(Your point about the formal and material principles is spot on, btw)

 

[Aibrean]

If you can find some Calvinists.

 

[Anoetos]

Aibrean, I am not sure what you mean, there are plenty of Calvinists around here.

 

[Aibrean]

Not in here.

 

[Anoetos]

Not in here.

In this thread you mean? There have been a couple.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Ever see this bumper sticker/t-shirt concerning Obama

http://www.christianforums.com/t7464096-2/#post54625982

ROTFL!!!! WOW!

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Any Lutheran appraisal of Calvinism, or Calvinist appraisal of Lutheranism is bound to be somewhat unsatisfactory to the people the person is hoping to describe. Your remarks about Calvin being beholden to philosophy make this point since the implication is that Lutherans do not use "philosophy" and are but dewy-eyed biblicists. This really isn't true and any perusal of Hollaz, Quenstedt or Pieper will prove this.

And case in point- simonthezealot makes the same claim about Lutherans being beholden to philosophy and the he and Calvinists are, rather, dewy-eyed biblicists.

 

[Anoetos]

And case in point- simonthezealot makes the same claim about Lutherans being beholden to philosophy and the he and Calvinists are, rather, dewy-eyed biblicists.

Point taken...and point made.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And case in point- simonthezealot makes the same claim about Lutherans being beholden to philosophy and the he and Calvinists are, rather, dewy-eyed biblicists.

What is "dewy-eyed"

 

[Protoevangel]

What is "dewy-eyed"

Innocent or childlike.

Dewy-eyed | Define Dewy-eyed at Dictionary.com

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Innocent or childlike.

Dewy-eyed | Define Dewy-eyed at Dictionary.com

Ahhhh.....thanks