Martin Luther vs. John Calvin

[JacktheCatholic]

This is fraught with errors.

Calvin and Luther never met and only knew of one another through their writings. Luther was older than Calvin and got his start earlier so there is more of a dependent relationship on the part of Calvin toward Luther than that of colleagues or peers. Calvin acknowledges this.

They did not "work together" and have a falling out.

Luther did not believe in "consubstantiation".

Calvin did not believe that the Eucharist was merely "symbolic".

Luther and Calvin agreed that justification was by Grace through Faith alone.

Thank you for pointing out my errors.

Will you tell me (us) more?

 

[Anoetos]

There is no formal document outlining the differences between Luther and Calvin although there are oblique references to the Reformed in the Lutheran confessional documents.

The Marburg Colloquy was a meeting between Luther and Zwingli where they disagreed vehemently about the sacrament (and it's Zwingli who held for a merely symbolic and representational eucharist). I believe there is some documentation of this meeting but I don't know how "formal" it is, or even what you mean by that.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

Was there some kind of formal document concerning the differences they had with the sacrament(s)?

Zwingli is another I would like to learn more about. I think it is because Calvin and Luther are better known that I did not consider Zwingli.

In regards to Calvin I'm not sure..I bet you could find something in one of his confessions. The Lutheran church put together many apologies for the Roman Catholic Church and they had to address Communion a few times.
Augsburg Confession - Book of Concord

 

[Anoetos]

Thank you for pointing out my errors.

Will you tell me (us) more?

I am not sure I have the stamina to instruct someone who is already "reading about Luther" and wants to learn more about Calvin but who can offer representations as far off the beam as you have here.

Frankly, I wonder about your candor, sir. You begin by telling us that you are looking for understanding and that to that end you have been doing some reading. I wonder what you have been reading if this is what you learned.

 

[Scottish Knight]

I found a free ebook of calvin's institutes if you're interested. You'll get his theology in his own words

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Calvin%20Institutes%20of%20Christian%20Religion.pdf

 

[JacktheCatholic]

There is no formal document outlining the differences between Luther and Calvin although there are oblique references to the Reformed in the Lutheran confessional documents.

The Marburg Colloquy was a meeting between Luther and Zwingli where they disagreed vehemently about the sacrament (and it's Zwingli who held for a merely symbolic and representational eucharist). I believe there is some documentation of this meeting but I don't know how "formal" it is, or even what you mean by that.

I recall reading the disagreement of the sacrament of the Eucharist but I always recall it incorrectly as dealing with Calvin and Luther and not Zwingli and Luther.

Also, for some reason I always think Martin Luther taught the Consubstantiation. What is Luther's understanding and what is Calvin's?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I am not sure I have the stamina to instruct someone who is already "reading about Luther" and wants to learn more about Calvin but who can offer representations as far off the beam as you have here.

Frankly, I wonder about your candor, sir. You begin by telling us that you are looking for understanding and that to that end you have been doing some reading. I wonder what you have been reading if this is what you learned.

My sources are not great and I tend to go to Wikipedia.

Being here at a Forum with so much combined knowledge I thought it would be prudent to ask around.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

Quotes from Martin Luther about it.

For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated






Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, "This is my body," even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word "this" indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a "sacramental union," because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union.[

 

[Anoetos]

I recall reading the disagreement of the sacrament of the Eucharist but I always recall it incorrectly as dealing with Calvin and Luther and not Zwingli and Luther.

Also, for some reason I always think Martin Luther taught the Consubstantiation. What is Luther's understanding and what is Calvin's?

Luther rejected scholastic terminology. He was satisfied to say merely that the Body and Blood of Christ are present in, with and under the elements of bread and wine. The problem Lutherans seem to have with "Consubstantiation" is that it forces the discussion into Thomistic and Aristotelian terms which presuppose a separable accidens and substans or essens. They consider these terms un-useful at best.

Suffice to say that there are plenty of Lutherans here who can answer you. I just happen to know that they don't like or use the term and I think it's wise to respect them in the matter.

Calvin's view was that the Sacrament is a sign and seal of the reality it represents and that there is a Real Presence though not of locality since the Body of Christ is in Heaven at the right hand of the Father. Another, cheaper way of understanding this is to say that Calvin believed in a "spiritual presence" though I want to point out that this really doesnt do justice to his doctrine on the matter.

Keith Mathison has written an excellent book on the subject of Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper. I recommend it highly.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

In regards to Calvin I'm not sure..I bet you could find something in one of his confessions. The Lutheran church put together many apologies for the Roman Catholic Church and they had to address Communion a few times.
Augsburg Confession - Book of Concord

I have glossed over the Concord more than once but really never had anyone try to explain things. In my Church we have a book which is huge and goes into great details. I think I would need some help to fully understand some things in the Book of Concord.

For example how is a person to be treated in the Lutheran Church if they refuse to believe in a teaching such as the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons?

Article I: Of God.

1] Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; 2] that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and 3] yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term "person" 4] they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.
5] They condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article, as the Manichaeans, who assumed two principles, one Good and the other Evil: also the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all such. 6] They condemn also the Samosatenes, old and new, who, contending that there is but one Person, sophistically and impiously argue that the Word and the Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but that "Word" signifies a spoken word, and "Spirit" signifies motion created in things.

 

[Anoetos]

Church discipline resulting in excommunication in the event that they are intransigent.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I found a free ebook of calvin's institutes if you're interested. You'll get his theology in his own words

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books/Calvin Institutes of Christian Religion.pdf

I am looking at the First Book and the reading reads like legalize. It appears to be slow reading....


I will try to spend some time but I have to admit I get bored reading legalize quickly.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Church discipline resulting in excommunication in the event that they are intransigent.

I am not familiar with this word 'intransigent'. What is that saying exactly?

 

[Anoetos]

I am not familiar with this word 'intransigent'. What is that saying exactly?

I am just saying that if they are unwilling to return to what the church teaches, but persist in error, they would be excommunicated.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Quotes from Martin Luther about it.

For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated






Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, "This is my body," even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word "this" indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a "sacramental union," because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union.[

I think I understand this. Luther is saying that the bread exists and so does Jesus? If so, does Luther or has the Lutheran Church explained this further?

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

I have glossed over the Concord more than once

If you did more than just "gloss over" you could actually learn ALOT about the Lutheran faith. I myself own the Book of Concord..its a very wonderful resource tho Catholic beware you are in for a scare

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Luther rejected scholastic terminology. He was satisfied to say merely that the Body and Blood of Christ are present in, with and under the elements of bread and wine. The problem Lutherans seem to have with "Consubstantiation" is that it forces the discussion into Thomistic and Aristotelian terms which presuppose a separable accidens and substans or essens. They consider these terms un-useful at best.

Suffice to say that there are plenty of Lutherans here who can answer you. I just happen to know that they don't like or use the term and I think it's wise to respect them in the matter.

Calvin's view was that the Sacrament is a sign and seal of the reality it represents and that there is a Real Presence though not of locality since the Body of Christ is in Heaven at the right hand of the Father. Another, cheaper way of understanding this is to say that Calvin believed in a "spiritual presence" though I want to point out that this really doesnt do justice to his doctrine on the matter.

Keith Mathison has written an excellent book on the subject of Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper. I recommend it highly.

I will try to remember not to use the word consubstantiation with the beliefs of Lutherans. Thanks.

Thanks for the reference to the book. I have to admit I am looking more for quick answers at the forum than a lengthy read. I bet there will be a lurker that will find this helpful.

Anyhow...

It sounds like Lutherans want to keep the understanding of the Eucharist simple or maybe as a mystery. But for the Calvin side it sounds easy enough to understand if you are saying that the bread is infused with the Holy Spirit. Otherwise it sounds a little confusing to me.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I am just saying that if they are unwilling to return to what the church teaches, but persist in error, they would be excommunicated.

Makes sense.

 

[Anoetos]

I will try to remember not to use the word consubstantiation with the beliefs of Lutherans. Thanks.

Thanks for the reference to the book. I have to admit I am looking more for quick answers at the forum than a lengthy read. I bet there will be a lurker that will find this helpful.

Anyhow...

It sounds like Lutherans want to keep the understanding of the Eucharist simple or maybe as a mystery. But for the Calvin side it sounds easy enough to understand if you are saying that the bread is infused with the Holy Spirit. Otherwise it sounds a little confusing to me.

We wouldn't say that there is any infusion. Rather, we would say that a Sacrament, by just being what it is (a Sacrament), is a means of Grace and that the simple practice of the Sacrament is a real communion with Christ's Body and Blood, broken and shed for us.

And from what I have read, that is pretty much what Calvin would say as well...

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

the bread is infused with the Holy Spirit. Otherwise it sounds a little confusing to me.

"a secret too sublime for my mind to understand or words to express. I experience it rather than understand it." -John Calvin..in regards to the Eucharist.


I think calvin felt almost the same