What are the major theological differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism?

[Complete in Thee]

What are the major differences between lutheranism and calvinism theologically? What separates the two?

 

[Radagast]

What are the major differences between lutheranism and calvinism theologically? What separates the two?

The answer is going to depend on what you understand by "Lutheranism." The differences between, say, Presbyterians and the LCMS are probably less than the differences between the LCMS and the ELCA.

And if you mean Lutheranism as practised in Australia, answers from the US might be deceptive.

 

[St_Worm2]

What are the major differences between lutheranism and calvinism theologically? What separates the two?

One difference is that Lutherans believe the waters of baptism are salvific (even in the case of infant baptism), Presbyterians/Calvinists do not. Lutherans also believe that a person (who is 'truly' saved) can lose their salvation (which I believe is a requirement for any church that believes infants are 'saved' during baptism), while Calvinists believe that the saints will always persevere in the faith to Glory.

I'll leave it to one of our Lutheran's here to confirm those two points and to correct anything that needs to be corrected.

Finally, as far as Calvinism's "TULIP" goes, I believe Lutheran beliefs stop at the "T", Total Depravity.

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - in case anyone is interested, here is what TULIP stands for:

T - Total Depravity
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints​

 

[Radagast]

The LCMS have an official answer here: Denominations - Frequently Asked Questions - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

 

[HereIStand]

In addition to what has been posted, Lutherans believe in the real presence of Christ's actual body and blood in the Lord's Supper. Calvinists believe in the real spiritual presence of Christ's body and blood, but Christ's actual body remains in heaven.

 

[Radagast]

In addition to what has been posted, Lutherans believe in the real presence of Christ's actual body and blood in the Lord's Supper. Calvinists believe in the real spiritual presence of Christ's body and blood, but Christ's actual body remains in heaven.

The LCMS says "we receive in, with, and under the bread and wine the true body and blood of Christ shed on the cross, Jesus Christ Who is now risen and ascended and sits at the right hand of God the Father ... our Confessions further teach the same Jesus who died is present in the Sacrament, although not in exactly the same way he was corporeally present when he walked bodily on earth."

I'm not seeing how this differs from the Calvinist view which, according to the Belgic Confession is:

"... Christ has instituted an earthly and visible bread as the sacrament
of his body and wine as the sacrament of his blood. ...
Yet we do not go wrong when we say
that what is eaten is Christ’s own natural body
and what is drunk is his own blood—
but the manner in which we eat it
is not by the mouth, but by the Spirit through faith.

In that way Jesus Christ remains always seated
at the right hand of God the Father in heaven—
but he never refrains on that account
to communicate himself to us through faith. ..."

 

[HereIStand]

The LCMS says "we receive in, with, and under the bread and wine the true body and blood of Christ shed on the cross, Jesus Christ Who is now risen and ascended and sits at the right hand of God the Father ... our Confessions further teach the same Jesus who died is present in the Sacrament, although not in exactly the same way he was corporeally present when he walked bodily on earth."

I'm not seeing how this differs from the Calvinist view.

Lutherans believe that the bread and wine still are bread and wine while becoming the body of Christ. The Reformed view is that Christ is made present in the bread and wine by the Holy Spirit, but the Jesus who ascended has ascended once and for all until His second coming.

 

[tampasteve]

One difference is that Lutherans believe the waters of baptism are salvific (even in the case of infant baptism), Presbyterians/Calvinists do not.

Just to clarify, Lutherans believe, as written in the BOC, that baptism is "necessary and effectual to salvation." But salvation comes by Jesus's death and resurrection. Baptism is a means to grace.

 

[Tayla]

What are the major differences between lutheranism and calvinism theologically? What separates the two?

Calvin presided over a police state in Geneva and did away with all the liturgical elements that Luther kept.

 

[Radagast]

Calvin presided over a police state in Geneva and did away with all the liturgical elements that Luther kept.

How is that piece of gratuitous and ignorant abuse answering the OP's question?

Calvin did not "preside over" Geneva; it was ruled by a council, of which Calvin was an employee (except during his period of exile). And it was not a "police state" -- the council leaders were democratically elected.

Liturgy in Geneva during Calvin's time was largely Zwinglian (Zwingli's Reformation in Switzerland had run in parallel to Luther's in Germany), but that liturgy would not be out of place in a Presbyterian or Reformed church today. A typical Swiss Reformed liturgy would be:

• Call to worship
• Confession
• Absolution
• The Ten Commandments (sung)
• Psalm (sung)
• Scripture reading
• Prayer for Illumination
• Sermon
• Prayer of Intercession
• The Apostle’s Creed (sung)
• The Lord’s Supper
• Prayer of Thanksgiving
• Psalm (sung)
• Benediction

 

[John the Ex-Baptist]

Lutherans believe that the apostle John wrote:

John 1:9-10 (ESV)
9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.

And in the same account, the same apostle wrote:

John 3:16-17 (ESV)
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

And yet again in a later letter he wrote:

1 John 2:2 (ESV)
2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

As a Lutheran I believe when John is speaking of the world in these passages, he is talking in the whole of humanity sense. When I was in the reformed church I would often hear the word "kosmos" can be applied in a wide or narrow sense, and doesn't necessarily mean the whole of humanity, but only the elect. I don't want to open it up further on this thread, but I think it's an important distinction to make.

 

[FireDragon76]

We do not believe the water itself in baptism saves anybody, we believe it is water joined with a divine promise. Trying to reduce a sacrament to either the physical elements or the Word is a reductionism that we reject.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What are the major differences between lutheranism and calvinism theologically? What separates the two?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Adding to the good posts above.....


1. It must not be lost that Lutheranism and Calvinism (they usually prefer to be called "Reformed") are very close brothers. Not identical twins, but close brothers. Both stress monergism, for example. While there are differences, the similarities are FAR more significant.


2. I think there is an difference in "attitude" (I can't think of a better word for what I mean). Lutherans are humble.... Lutherans hold that humility is the foundation of all sound theology... Lutherans joyously embrace MYSTERY.... Lutherans are fine with tensions, balances, even with things that don't seem to "connect" or "fit." Lutherans welcome questions, they just don't take the speculative "answers" of fallen, sinful men too seriously and are highly cautious of speculation and forcing the Bible to "jibe" with pop philosophy or "science" and especially if such seems to endanger the Gospel. Reformed are more likely to employ "reason" and "logic" and philosophy..... Our Reformed brothers tend to hold that God is logical and thinks much as we do, they are more willing to appoint self to "connect the dots" and make "logical" extensions.


3. Later Reformed defined themselves (vis-a-vis Arminians, not Lutherans) by the famous (or infamous) TULIP. I'll post that in the next post. But it should be noted (as one Reformed poster here YEARS ago said, "nearly all Reformed Christians think that TULIP is a pretty flower and have NO IDEA that it has anything to do with theology or their denomination") There are some differences between MODERN Reformed Christians and Lutherans on Baptism and Communion, as well - although Calvin himself was closer to the Lutheran view.


I'm pleased if ANYTHING here helps a tiny bit....


MY prespective....


- Josiah

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

TULIP: A Response from Calvinism, Lutheranism and Arminianism


Calvinism has summarized its position in the famous acronym TULIP, and this serves as a useful way to approach the issue (being logical Calvinism is, if nothing else, easy to follow):


T: "total depravity"

Calvinism: Man after the Fall has no ability to cooperate with God's grace in conversion
Arminianism: Man after the Fall can cooperate with God’s grace in conversion
Lutheranism: Agrees with Calvinism on total depravity
Relevant Bible passages: Romans 3:9-20; Gal. 3:22


U: "unconditional election"
Calvinism: Before the world was created, God unconditionally elected some (the elect) for salvation and the others (reprobates) for damnation.
Arminianism: Before the world was created, God foresaw those who would choose Him of their own free will and elected them to salvation
Lutheranism: Before the world was created, God unconditionally elected some (the elect) for salvation but did not reprobate (chose for damnation) any.
Relevant Bible passages: Romans 9:11-13; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; Matt. 25:34, 41.


L: "limited atonement"
Calvinism: Jesus only died for the elect, objectively atoning for their sin, but he did not die for the sins of the reprobates.
Arminianism: Christ died to give all the possibility to be saved.
Lutheranism: Christ’s death objectively atoned for all the sin of the world; by believing we receive this objective atonement and its benefits.
Relevant Bible passages: John 1:29; 1 John 2:2; 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 19.


I: "irresistable grace"
Calvinism: In all of God's outward actions (preaching, baptism, etc.) there is an outward call which all receive, yet there is also a secret effectual calling which God gives to the elect alone. This effectual calling alone saves and is irresistable.
Arminianism: God gives in His outward actions the same grace to all; this grace can be resisted by all.
Lutheranism: The question is not answerable; for the elect, grace will irresistably triumph, yet those who reject Christ have rejected that Grace; yet the grace is the same.
Relevant Bible passages: Eph. 2:1-10; Acts 13:48; James 1:13-15


P: "perseverance of the saints" ("once saved, always saved.")
Calvinism: Salvation cannot be lost.
Arminianism: Salvation can be lost through unrepentant sin and unbelief.
Lutheranism: Salvation can be lost through unbelief, but this legal warning does not cancel the Gospel promise of election
Relevant Bible passages: 1 Cor. 10:12. 2 Peter 2:1, 20-22.


The above is NOT original with me but is common around the 'net. I think it's largely accurate, however.


I HOPE this helps a bit...


- Josiah




.

 

[grasping the after wind]

And it was not a "police state" -- the council leaders were democratically elected.

I do not wish to argue the merits of the state of Geneva during Calvin's time as I am completely in the dark on that and would be ill equipped to do so. I only wish to point out that a democratically elected governing body can still preside over a police state. The two things are not mutually exclusive. If the majority of the electorate favors a police state model of governance then a police state would be the result of the democratic process. In addition, if religious zealotry were the norm in a population then democratically imposed religious orthodoxy would be expected. I'm not saying this was the case in Geneva as I am not informed on the subject but that it could be the case that a democratically elected governing body could result in a police state.

 

[kdm1984]

We don't believe in double predestination. Calvinists believe God predestines some to heaven and some to hell. Lutherans believe God predestines some to heaven, but if man continually rejects the call of God, then he goes to hell. But man is not predestined beforehand to go there.

 

[twin.spin]

What are the major differences between lutheranism and calvinism theologically? What separates the two?

The major differences that Lutheran disagree with is that Calvinism confessions speak of double predestination, limited atonement, irresistible grace, the perseverance of the saints (OSAS), and the denial of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as means of grace.

 

[Arcangl86]

The major differences that Lutheran disagree with is that Calvinism confessions speak of double predestination, limited atonement, irresistible grace, the perseverance of the saints (OSAS), and the denial of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as means of grace.

The last isn't fair. While Calvinism has a different understanding of the sacraments then Lutherans, they are still seen as means of grace.

 

[Radagast]

The major differences that Lutheran disagree with is that Calvinism confessions speak of double predestination

Actually, Reformed (Calvinist) confessions never speak of "double predestination."

and the denial of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as means of grace.

That is also not true: "We believe, that our gracious God, on account of our weakness and infirmities hath ordained the sacraments for us, thereby to seal unto us his promises, and to be pledges of the good will and grace of God toward us, and also to nourish and strengthen our faith."