What do you think about...?

[Augustinus51]

Hy everybody!

Excepted U. Zwingli, who was obviously unconciliable with lutheran faith, what do you think about theologians like M. Bucer or J. Calvin (and, especially, about their theology)?
Thank for your answers!

God bless you!

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Well, I respect Calvin as the 'only true Calvinist.' His Eucharistic theory, while denying a physical presence of Christ, still involved the participant in communion with Christ through the elevation of the soul into the heavenly throneroom (and tabernacle) depicted in Revelation and consecrated per the details supplied in Hebrews 8 and 9, and still permitted that sins were forgiven through partaking in the Lord's Supper. The idea that as Christ's body and blood come to us in the elements our hearts and souls are pulled into his realm to touch the kingdom in it's fulness, I think, really balances out the whole beautiful climax of worship.

I also have a strong appreciation for Reformed redemptive-historical covenant theology in Calvin and the eminent Francis Turretin, but most of all in modern Reformed biblical scholars like Geerhardus Vos, M.G. Kline, and my personal favorite, Michael Horton. In some ways it really adds substance and grounding to the Lutheran emphasis on the broader themes of Law and Gospel.

That said, similar Eucharistic theology can also be found among the Eastern Orthodoxy while still maintaining the real presence of Christ under the elements, and similar covenant theology is found in La Nouvelle Theologie of modern Catholicism (of which our current pope was a major figure). I also have serious, serious issues with Calvin and his followers's theories of double predestination, limited atonement, and eternal security. I also cannot abide Reformed ecclesiology, with it's rejection of the episcopacy, but since I'm in a congregationalist synod, I really can't talk.

 

[LilLamb219]

Oooh, here's my chance for a good Lutheran reply... "Why do you ask?"

 

[Augustinus51]

I asked this question because I read somewhere that several lutheran theologians said (like Johannes Gerhard) that if they had to chose between Calvinism and roman Catholicism, they would choose the second way.
Surprise, to me...

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I read somewhere that several lutheran theologians said (like Johannes Gerhard) that if they had to chose between Calvinism and roman Catholicism, they would choose the second way.
So would I.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I asked this question because I read somewhere that several lutheran theologians said (like Johannes Gerhard) that if they had to chose between Calvinism and roman Catholicism, they would choose the second way.
Surprise, to me...

As Mark said, so would I. Although given the choice, I'd go with Eastern Orthodoxy or one of the conservative provinces of the Anglican Communion.

Actually, during the Thirty Years' War, the very Lutheran Elector of Saxony (I believe) sided with the Catholic powers because he didn't want to be fighting alongside Calvinists.

Now that's a little extreme, but there was a lot of bad blood spilled (sometimes literally) over the Eucharistic and, later, soteriological debates in the hundred years after the start of the Reformation. Many, including Zwingli on the Reformed side and Melnachthon on the Lutheran, tried hard to reach some sort of an accord so that there would be a united Protestant Church to square off against the Catholics. But, for good or ill (and I'm still unsure on that question), it never materialized.

 

[Till]

Actually, during the Thirty Years' War, the very Lutheran Elector of Saxony (I believe) sided with the Catholic powers because he didn't want to be fighting alongside Calvinists.

Now, I do not know to what extent this decision by Kurfürst Johann Georg I. of Saxony was theologically caused but an error it definitely was. And a huge one that cost Saxony dearly. He did indeed side with the empereor against the Bohemian Calvinist and thus basically saved the Emperor and enabled him to regain Bohemia where in due case the counter reformation started. Which of course not only persecuted Calvinists but also the Lutherans of Bohemia.

Also the fact that Johann Georg later also betrayed the Lutheran Swedes and turned against them indicates that his reasons for supporting the emperor against the Calvinist Bohemians were not mainly theological. He probably was just simply a weak leader.

Now that's a little extreme, but there was a lot of bad blood spilled (sometimes literally) over the Eucharistic and, later, soteriological debates in the hundred years after the start of the Reformation. Many, including Zwingli on the Reformed side and Melnachthon on the Lutheran, tried hard to reach some sort of an accord so that there would be a united Protestant Church to square off against the Catholics. But, for good or ill (and I'm still unsure on that question), it never materialized.

What about the Leuenberg Church Fellowship? See http://www.leuenberg.net .

@Augustinus51

Regarding Johann Gerhard's statement: This is more against the Zwinglian ideas than Calvin's Eucharist theology. You have to understand that for these early Lutheran theologians the Zwinglian sacramentology was destroying the heart of Christian faith. A compromise like Calvin and especially Bucer tried to achieve was not possible for them. Therefore these strong words.

And I think this is also till this day the real problem: It is not Calvin whose ideas form the Eucharist and generally Sacramental teaching of most Reformed but Zwingli. Aks the average "Evangelical" christian what the meaning of the Lord's supper and Baptism is and their answers will have little to do with Calvin's theology but much more with Zwingli and also the Anabaptists whom Zwingli almost joined.

The other problem with Calvinism is of course the soteriology as GCC mentioned. But that is a much later discussion which did not play a role in the 16th century.

 

[Edial]

You guys would choose Catholicism of salvation by faith and works?

You really mean that? I find it hard to believe.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Till]

You guys would choose Catholicism of salvation by faith and works?

You really mean that? I find it hard to believe.

Thanks,
Ed

Does being Roman-Catholic necesarily mean trying to get saved by work?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

What about the Leuenberg Church Fellowship? See http://www.leuenberg.net .

I meant the full, totally flowering of a pan-Protestant Church with only a few Anabaptist who were not part of it. Sure, there's also the Evangelische Kirke in Germany, and the United Church of Christ here, but having a few 'union churches' among many other Protestant flavors wasn't exactly the ultimate goal of Melanchthon and similarly minded fellows.

This is more against the Zwinglian ideas than Calvin's Eucharist theology. You have to understand that for these early Lutheran theologians the Zwinglian sacramentology was destroying the heart of Christian faith. A compromise like Calvin and especially Bucer tried to achieve was not possible for them. Therefore these strong words.

Well, don't take this the wrong way, but I would agree. As far as I'm concerned, the Eucharist is the heart of all Christian life and faith. It's the sun around which our lives orbit.

 

[Till]

Well, don't take this the wrong way, but I would agree. As far as I'm concerned, the Eucharist is the heart of all Christian life and faith. It's the sun around which our lives orbit.

No, it is not. The heart of all Christian existence and faith is personal faith in Christ Jesus and his saving work. Without this there is no Christian faith and existence.

Now I do not want to artifically separate personal faith from the saraments which create and strengthen faith. But without personal faith partaking in the Eucharist is useless.

 

[Augustinus51]

Till said:
Regarding Johann Gerhard's statement: This is more against the Zwinglian ideas than Calvin's Eucharist theology. You have to understand that for these early Lutheran theologians the Zwinglian sacramentology was destroying the heart of Christian faith. A compromise like Calvin and especially Bucer tried to achieve was not possible for them. Therefore these strong words.

And I think this is also till this day the real problem: It is not Calvin whose ideas form the Eucharist and generally Sacramental teaching of most Reformed but Zwingli. Aks the average "Evangelical" christian what the meaning of the Lord's supper and Baptism is and their answers will have little to do with Calvin's theology but much more with Zwingli and also the Anabaptists whom Zwingli almost joined.

The other problem with Calvinism is of course the soteriology as GCC mentioned. But that is a much later discussion which did not play a role in the 16th century.

That's right, and I regret a such zwinglian orientation of a part of Reformed.
Nevertheless, that's also a pitythat the way of the concord of Wittenberg (1536) and of the consensus of Sandomir (in Poland)was not followedwith more perseverance...

 

[Edial]

Does being Roman-Catholic necesarily mean trying to get saved by work?

It means that it is necessary to believe that, since this is the official doctrine that they follow.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Till]

That's right, and I regret a such zwinglian orientation of a part of Reformed.

Nevertheless, that's also a pitythat the way of the concord of Wittenberg (1536) and of the consensus of Sandomir (in Poland)was not followedwith more perseverance...

This way was followed. Not the least in the Leuenberg agreement which is the base of the Community of Protestant Churches in Europe. See here for the text of the agreement. But even the Leuenberg agreement - which I not accept even though I appreciate the process - is a far cry from the ideas in most "Evangelical" groups and denominations. And I am afraid it is "Evangelicalism" that forms the biggest part of the Reformed. The words of the Wittenberg Concord which Bucer signed would probably be regarded as Roman superstition by most "born-again Christians". It seems to me the sublteties of Calvin's sacramentology are lost on most Evangelicals. Zwingli is more appealing and closer to the natural religion of our flesh: "It is all in our hands; Christian faith is something WE do."

 

[BBAS 64]

I meant the full, totally flowering of a pan-Protestant Church with only a few Anabaptist who were not part of it. Sure, there's also the Evangelische Kirke in Germany, and the United Church of Christ here, but having a few 'union churches' among many other Protestant flavors wasn't exactly the ultimate goal of Melanchthon and similarly minded fellows.



Well, don't take this the wrong way, but I would agree. As far as I'm concerned, the Eucharist is the heart of all Christian life and faith. It's the sun around which our lives orbit.

Good Day, Gratia

Do you not belive that the doctrine of justifcation by faith alone is the one single doctrine where by the church stands or falls?

In HIm,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

Does being Roman-Catholic necesarily mean trying to get saved by work?

Good Day, Till

Indeed:

As God’s grace is the presupposition and foundation of (supernatural) good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, at the same time gifts of God and meritorious acts of man...By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God...A just man merits for himself through each good work an increase in sanctifying grace, eternal life (if he dies in a state of grace) and an increase of heavenly glory (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), Book Four, Part I, p.219; 3.5, p. 222; Book III, Part 2, Chapter 2.III.11.3, p. 190; Book IV, Section 2, Chapter 3.23.2, 3.25.1, pp. 264, 267).

For His Glory Alone!!

Bill

 

[seajoy]

Good Day, Till

Indeed:

As God’s grace is the presupposition and foundation of (supernatural) good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, at the same time gifts of God and meritorious acts of man...By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God...A just man merits for himself through each good work an increase in sanctifying grace, eternal life (if he dies in a state of grace) and an increase of heavenly glory (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), Book Four, Part I, p.219; 3.5, p. 222; Book III, Part 2, Chapter 2.III.11.3, p. 190; Book IV, Section 2, Chapter 3.23.2, 3.25.1, pp. 264, 267).

For His Glory Alone!!

Bill

Like the Chris Driesbach song: "and if I should try and help to pay the price, I'd heap scorn on my Best Friend and His Sacrifice."

As Bill said, For His Glory Alone! Not my severely lacking works.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

I read somewhere that several lutheran theologians said (like Johannes Gerhard) that if they had to chose between Calvinism and roman Catholicism, they would choose the second way.
So would I.

I love the liturgy and all that, but if I had to decide between the papacy or Calvinism, it'd be Calvinism...it's basically like comparing the word of the Pope to the Word of God.