Theologians of the Reformation

[J_B_]

To that end, the Lutheran tradition has generally been less interested in doing systematic theology the way the Reformed have; instead our theology is is confessional and kerygmatic.

These words of yours. Ha! Still, it's always fun to read your posts - especially since it's nice to have someone who (mostly) agrees with you.

I don't know why, but lately I've been on a kick of watching the YouTube channel from the New Yorker. They have a video on Scrabble champions and one on people who write crossword puzzles. I didn't know it, but a professional crossword puzzle writer is called a cruciverbalist. That may be the career for you. You could change your signature from CryptoLutheran to Cruciverbalist.

 

[Andrewn]

However, I think that, for Melanchthon's entire life he considered himself a follower of Luther. He never intended to become a "Philippist", "Calvinist", or anything else. In fact, it probably seemed sadly ironic that people who had never met or known Calvin were misinterpreting Calvin and calling him a Calvinist when Calvin was more Luther's heir than Melanchthon's progenitor.

Melanchthon was 14 years younger than Luther. And Calvin was 26 years younger than Luther. The idea that they were followers of Luther rather than his competitors makes sense.

In a sense this earlier intra-Lutheran struggle represents something we see often, throughout history. Namely: Where do we draw the line between conviction and unity; is it better to stand firm in our convictions even if it means schism? Is the threat of schism ever reason to soften our position in order to maintain unity? Can there even be unity in the Church unless we are united in our conviction?

For example, can we truly embrace one another at the Lord's Table if we don't even agree on what the Lord's Table is?

And that is the tension we see so often in the history of Christianity, between Christ's command and call for unity of His Body and also the necessity of standing firm and saying, "Here I stand!"

This is an accurate representations of the history of Christianity. Dogmatic individuals always win.

 

[hedrick]

For example, can we truly embrace one another at the Lord's Table if we don't even agree on what the Lord's Table is?

No, but we should also be careful in making judgements about this. Are the disagreements between Lutheran and Reformed about the nature of the real presence actually disagreements about what the Lord's Table is? I'm not convinced.

 

[Andrewn]

Did Luther or Zwingli have more effect on Calvin? Or, worded differently, which of them was closer to Calvin theologically, politically (in relation to Catholics and Anabaptists), and temperamentally.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Did Luther or Zwingli have more effect on Calvin? Or, worded differently, which of them was closer to Calvin theologically, politically (in relation to Catholics and Anabaptists), and temperamentally.

Calvin and Zwingli are both recognized as Reform theologians.

I'm not aware of Luther's own personal thoughts about Calvin, but he had a very low view of Zwingli, especially after their meeting at Marburg (see Marburg Colloquy). Luther would famously say that he would "sooner drink blood with the pope than mere wine with the radicals" in reference to the Swiss Reformed under Ulrich Zwingli.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, but we should also be careful in making judgements about this. Are the disagreements between Lutheran and Reformed about the nature of the real presence actually disagreements about what the Lord's Table is? I'm not convinced.

From the Lutheran position the Lord's Table is the Sacrament where the true, literal flesh and blood of Jesus is received in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine.

If it's not literally Jesus, then it's not the Eucharist; from a Lutheran POV anyhow.

So I think even the best Eucharistic theology from within the Reformed tradition is therefore going to be found very troubling and unacceptable to Lutherans.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

I can give only my impression of Calvin from a couple of books. I don't think he saw himself either as Lutheran or Zwinglian. There was at the time, a widespread movement for Reform, not specifically based on any one theologian. In France Calvin was exposed to Luther's works. When he moved to Switzerland, he was exposed to Bucer, who tried to combine Luther and Calvin. He certainly knew at least something of both. But it's my impression that he didn't consciously follow either.