Martin Luther vs. John Calvin

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

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 was deeply concerned by your previous post, but you have vindicated every single point. This post says it all, at least as regards the Eucharist.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

I justthought of another question.

Did Luther use the Septuagint? If not then what?

Also did Luther use the Vulgate?


Sorry to be a pest... I know am I bombarding with questions.

Its no problem but I don't know the answer tho I'm very confident that GratiaCorpusChristi knows something about it..he is pretty darn smart.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Another question concerning the Concord.



Does this mean one has to believe both the Body and Blood are present or they are to be rejected?

If so then how would that work for a Calvin that does not believe Jesus is present by Body and Blood?

Also, does "reject" boil down to excommunicate?


Thanks again.

Yes, that pretty much condemns Anabaptists, Zwinglians, and Calvinsits. And 'reject' pretty much boils down to excommunicate.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Anyone remember this news announcement?
Did the RCC think worst about ML than JC?

http://www.christianforums.com/t6980813/
That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope

Story from the TIMESONLINE
From The Times

Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I do have a question. What Bible translation did Calvin and Luther use? Thanks

Luther used his own translation, Die Bibel. It was the first full, cover-to-cover translation of the Bible from the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) in German.

I'm not sure about Calvin, but the Geneva Bible, an English translation, became very popular among Reformed circles.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yes, that pretty much condemns Anabaptists, Zwinglians, and Calvinsits. And 'reject' pretty much boils down to excommunicate.

Thanks that is how I was reading it but did not want to assume.

BTW I changed the OP and hope it is written more accurately.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Yes, I was corrected already.

I should probably update the OP.

Not sure what to change it to?

My mistake. I actually realized my error soon after posting.

Edit, re: post #66: I saw. I think that works well.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I justthought of another question.

Did Luther use the Septuagint? If not then what?

Also did Luther use the Vulgate?


Sorry to be a pest... I know am I bombarding with questions.

For the Old Testament, Luther used the Masoretic Text, the Hebrew Bible of Europe's Jews. It does not contain the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha, which is why the Protestant canon does not have it, whereas the Septuagint, from whence the Orthodox Bible is translated, does have the Deuterocanon.

For the New Testament he used Desiderius Erasmus's Textus Receptus, a critical compilation of extant New Testament manuscripts roughly corresponding to the Byzantine text-type. This was the same Greek New Testament reconstruction used for the translation of the King James.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Anyone remember this news announcement?
Did the RCC think worst about ML than JC?

http://www.christianforums.com/t6980813/
That Martin Luther? He wasn’t so bad, says Pope

Story from the TIMESONLINE
From The Times

Pope Benedict XVI is to rehabilitate Martin Luther, arguing that he did not intend to split Christianity but only to purge the Church of corrupt practices.

I have to admit it, I love Pope Benedict XVI. His academic work is breathtaking.

I mean, here's how I understand the Catholic position: Luther was a better theologian than Calvin, but he also did far more damage to Mother Church. Which is a shame, since hurting the church was never his intent, but I can't entirely condemn the Catholics for that evaluation. Oh, the times I have wished that Luther could have more polite!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

In reading the Book of Concord it refers to groups like the Anabaptists and not directly to a false teaching. Why is that? Also, does a Lutheran receive education on all the Book of Concord to know what a Anabaptist?

I was also curious if Lutherans have Bishops, priests and deacons? If so do they have nuns or women in the clergy?


Thanks, it seems one question leads to 5 more. I appreciate your time in answering and your patience with me.

Article XII: Of Repentance.


1] Of Repentance they teach that for those who have fallen after Baptism there is remission of sins whenever they are converted 2] and that the Church ought to impart absolution to those thus returning to repentance. Now, repentance consists properly of these 3] two parts: One is contrition, that is, 4] terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin; the other is faith, which is born of 5] the Gospel, or of absolution, and believes that for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts 6] the conscience, and delivers it from terrors. Then good works are bound to follow, which are the fruits of repentance.
7] They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such 8] perfection in this life that they cannot sin.
9] The Novatians also are condemned, who would not absolve such as had fallen after Baptism, though they returned to repentance.
10] They also are rejected who do not teach that remission of sins comes through faith but command us to merit grace through satisfactions of our own.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

In reading the Book of Concord it refers to groups like the Anabaptists and not directly to a false teaching. Why is that? Also, does a Lutheran receive education on all the Book of Concord to know what a Anabaptist?

I was also curious if Lutherans have Bishops, priests and deacons? If so do they have nuns or women in the clergy?


Thanks, it seems one question leads to 5 more. I appreciate your time in answering and your patience with me.

Phew, now isn't that a loaded question! No worries!

My personal theory on why the Book of Concord refers to Anabaptists as opposed to just the specific heresy in general in its condemnations is because the Anapbaptists were just so darn wrong in every single little thing they said. The group was better condemned not as a collection of individual, largely unrelated heresies, but as a group. Catholicism, on the other hand, is treated as a true church with individual defects.

Most Lutherans do not have to learn the whole Book of Concord, but are only taught the Small Catechism of Martin Luther, which is great reading. Often people will go from there to the Large Catechism and the Augsburg Confession, but all the other documents tend to be advanced reading. Granted, that isn't the way I think it should be, but my prescriptions for the Lutheran denominations are another matter...

As for our clergy... the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, of which I am a member, has only male clergymen (pastors- no bishops) and both male and female deacons (deacons and deaconesses). We also have elders, rather than bishops, who are more of a parish council with the deacons and oversee the pastor in that capacity, rather than as a superior. We had one so-called bishop (he, too, was elected) back in the day, but he was run out of town on trumped-up charges of adultery by our power-hungry founder, C.F.W. Walther.

The larger, mainline Protestant (note: Protestant is a dirty word as far as I'm concerned) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has bishops who are elected for limited terms, pastors, and deacons. They can be male or female. I'm not sure whether the ELCA has elders.

Alas, there is no Lutheran church that has both the threefold office with full bishops and a purely male clergy above the deaconate level.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I am reading that Lutherans have confession and ot appears necesaary. But does a Calvinist have confession like Lutherans?

It seems Lutherans have priest and bishops and that they do confession with the parishoners as needed.

1] Confession in the churches is not abolished among us; for it is not usual to give the body of the Lord, except to them that have been previously examined and absolved. And 2] the people are most carefully taught concerning faith in the absolution, about which formerly there 3] was profound silence. Our people are taught that they should highly prize the absolution, as being the voice of God, 4] and pronounced by God's command. The power of the Keys is set forth in its beauty and they are reminded what great consolation it brings to anxious consciences, also, that God requires faith to believe such absolution as a voice sounding from heaven, and that such faith in Christ truly obtains and receives the forgiveness of sins. Aforetime satisfactions were immoderately extolled; 5] of faith and the merit of Christ and the righteousness of faith no mention was made; wherefore, on this point, our churches are by no means to be blamed. For this even our adversaries must needs concede 6] to us that the doctrine concerning repentance has been most diligently treated and laid open by our teachers.
7] But of Confession they teach that an enumeration of sins is not necessary, and that consciences be not burdened with anxiety to enumerate all sins, for it is impossible to recount all sins, as the Psalm 19:13 testifies: Who can understand his errors? Also Jeremiah 17:9 : 8] The heart is deceitful; who can know it? But if no sins were forgiven, except those that are recounted, 9] consciences could never find peace; for very many sins they neither see 10] nor can remember. The ancient writers also testify that an enumeration is not necessary. For in the Decrees, Chrysostom is quoted, 11] who says thus: I say not to you that you should disclose yourself in public, nor that you accuse yourself before others, but I would have you obey the prophet who says: "Disclose thy way before God." Therefore confess your sins before God, the true Judge, with prayer. Tell your errors, not with the tongue, but with the memory of your conscience, etc. 12] And the Gloss (Of Repentance, Distinct. V, Cap. Consideret) admits that Confession is of human right only [not commanded by Scripture, but ordained by the Church]. 13] Nevertheless, on account of the great benefit of absolution, and because it is otherwise useful to the conscience, Confession is retained among us.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Phew, now isn't that a loaded question! No worries!

My personal theory on why the Book of Concord refers to Anabaptists as opposed to just the specific heresy in general in its condemnations is because the Anapbaptists were just so darn wrong in every single little thing they said. The group was better condemned not as a collection of individual, largely unrelated heresies, but as a group. Catholicism, on the other hand, is treated as a true church with individual defects.

Most Lutherans do not have to learn the whole Book of Concord, but are only taught the Small Catechism of Martin Luther, which is great reading. Often people will go from there to the Large Catechism and the Augsburg Confession, but all the other documents tend to be advanced reading. Granted, that isn't the way I think it should be, but my prescriptions for the Lutheran denominations are another matter...

As for our clergy... the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, of which I am a member, has only male clergymen (pastors- no bishops) and both male and female deacons (deacons and deaconesses). We also have elders, rather than bishops, who are more of a parish council with the deacons and oversee the pastor in that capacity, rather than as a superior. We had one so-called bishop (he, too, was elected) back in the day, but he was run out of town on trumped-up charges of adultery by our power-hungry founder, C.F.W. Walther.

The larger, mainline Protestant (note: Protestant is a dirty word as far as I'm concerned) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has bishops who are elected for limited terms, pastors, and deacons. They can be male or female. I'm not sure whether the ELCA has elders.

Alas, there is no Lutheran church that has both the threefold office with full bishops and a purely male clergy above the deaconate level.

Thanks! I can see where it could look like a loaded question, not my intent and i think you know that.

What about nuns? Is there such a thing?

Also is there a Patriarch or Bishop in charge of a church area?

Thanks again!

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Thanks! I can see where it could look like a loaded question, not my intent and i think you know that.

What about nuns? Is there such a thing?

Also is there a Patriarch or Bishop in charge of a church area?

Thanks again!

Alas, we don't really have monasteries of any sort, or even non-cloistered orders. We do have a place up in Minnesota called St. Augustine House where two Lutheran guys follow the Benedictine rule, but that is not the norm at all. Oh, how I wish I could go there on retreat, though...

As I said, the ELCA has bishops. I don't know if they have a primate like the Anglicans do, but I'm pretty sure there is no position of patriarch.

As to your previous post: We have a corporate order of confession at the beginning of each Mass, but private confession is a bit ad hoc. It is always, in theory, offered, although there is no time of the day or week when it is specially offered in a confessional. Rather, it often takes place face to face in the pastor's office at the request of the penitent. Note that this diverges from standard Lutheran practice, which had both the corporate confession as a preface to the liturgy as well as regular private confession with confessional booths.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I finished the Book of Concord...

Now the harder to read "Institues of the Christian Religion". But I fear I will be asleep shortly after starting. The writings, at first glance, appears quite dry.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Alas, we don't really have monasteries of any sort, or even non-cloistered orders. We do have a place up in Minnesota called St. Augustine House where two Lutheran guys follow the Benedictine rule, but that is not the norm at all. Oh, how I wish I could go there on retreat, though...

As I said, the ELCA has bishops. I don't know if they have a primate like the Anglicans do, but I'm pretty sure there is no position of patriarch.

As to your previous post: We have a corporate order of confession at the beginning of each Mass, but private confession is a bit ad hoc. It is always, in theory, offered, although there is no time of the day or week when it is specially offered in a confessional. Rather, it often takes place face to face in the pastor's office at the request of the penitent. Note that this diverges from standard Lutheran practice, which had both the corporate confession as a preface to the liturgy as well as regular private confession with confessional booths.

Thank you for your time and answers. The Concord seems pretty easy to read and I had only a few things that left me puzzled (such as using Anabaptist). Again, thanks, your time is appreciated.

Now I have to find energy to tackle the Calvin reading I was given.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I finished the Book of Concord...

Now the harder to read "Institues of the Christian Religion". But I fear I will be asleep shortly after starting. The writings, at first glance, appears quite dry.

Just don't do it on a window ledge

Young) Acts 20:9 and there was sitting a certain youth, by name Eutychus, upon the window--being borne down by a deep sleep, Paul discoursing long--he having sunk down from the sleep, fell down from the third story, and was lifted up dead.

 

[Protoevangel]

For the Old Testament, Luther used the Masoretic Text, the Hebrew Bible of Europe's Jews. It does not contain the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha, which is why the Protestant canon does not have it, whereas the Septuagint, from whence the Orthodox Bible is translated, does have the Deuterocanon.

Luther did, however, include the Deuterocanon in his translation, which Philipp Melanchthon and Justus Jonas translated from the Greek for him. He did not have these books listed in the table of contents, and he prefaced the section with "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read"

 

[simonthezealot]

Jack i am proud of you brother for finally expanding your horizons a little bit...

You need highlight anything you question on these guys and then come find out what it means.

 

[Tangible]

Great thread!

I finished the Book of Concord...

Then you're way ahead of the vast majority of Lutherans.