What's the Difference?

[Zecryphon]

Start another thread concerning that topic in the TCL main forum and I will. Of course, you'll have to explain exactly what it is a Christmas Calvinist believes. Are you now saying that you are a Christmas Calvinist as opposed to a Lutheran.

 

[BelindaP]

While we agree with those limitations of Calvinism, Lutherans have always looked beyond that. The negative side of such an identification is that it is not consistent with how the Confessions speak about who we are when we confess the faith. That is, Calvinism as developed during the formative years of Lutheranism (post Augsburg, post Apology, post Catechisms, post Smalcald Articles) was shown not to be the standard (Formula of Concord, in particular, addresses the Calvinist teaching regarding the Lord's Supper and derivatively the two natures of Christ).

This followed the earlier confessional writings which did the same with the RCC or the Anabaptists who were not the standard, rather the Church Catholic. As Lutherans, the Church Catholic is our heritage, not a corrective of a side show (Calvinism). That is why when someone wants to discuss theology coming from the Reformed camp (in the broadest application of that term), we refuse to accept the definitions and parameters of either Calvinists or Arminians, because neither represents the Biblical, Catholic faith as confessed in the Book of Concord (each for different reasons).

Thus, it appears that applying any kind of adjective that includes "Calvinism" misses the positive confession of the Book of Concord, who we are as Lutherans.

So, what you're saying is that I'm using a term that most Lutherans knee-jerk to abhor. Thus, I'm not Confessional, even if I agree with all the confessions. That makes no sense. And, Luther would be appalled. He was all about theology being correct, not about whether the 'right' words were said.

 

[filosofer]

Calvinism isn't a denomination. It's a sotierology. There are calvinists in most denominations. I started a thread in CC to discuss calvinism and said I pretty much lined up with Christmas calvinists with regard to sotierology.

But as I noted, Calvinists run into a problem in soteriology as well. Read Formula of Concord, Article VIII, The Person of Christ.

 

[BelindaP]

Start another thread concerning that topic in the TCL main forum and I will. Of course, you'll have to explain exactly what it is a Christmas Calvinist believes. Are you now saying that you are a Christmas Calvinist as opposed to a Lutheran.

The two are not mutually exclusive. And, no. I am not going to start a thread in the TCL main forum to satisfy your belief that I'm not a Lutheran. I am LCMS and have as much right to post in this subforum as you do.

 

[BelindaP]

But as I noted, Calvinists run into a problem in soteriology as well. Read Formula of Concord, Article VIII, The Person of Christ.

I have, and I agree with it. I never said I was a full-blown calvinist. Christmas calvinists are a different breed. And, knowing me, I'm probably not a very good calvinist.

 

[filosofer]

So, what you're saying is that I'm using a term that most Lutherans knee-jerk to abhor. Thus, I'm not Confessional, even if I agree with all the confessions. That makes no sense. And, Luther would be appalled. He was all about theology being correct, not about whether the 'right' words were said.

No, theology is key. But when you use a term that includes bad theology, then we ask why the use of that term?

The point of Article VIII following on Article VII, is that getting wrong on the Lord's Supper means getting it wrong, theologically with the Person of Christ.

 

[BelindaP]

I don't hold to nearly all of Calvin's teachings. My saying I was a Christmas calvinist had to do with the sotierology, nothing more. I would have expected people to care more for the theology than the terminology. So far, nobody has pointed out to me how believing in election of the saints without election to damnation conflicts with the Confessions.

 

[filosofer]

I don't hold to nearly all of Calvin's teachings. My saying I was a Christmas calvinist had to do with the sotierology, nothing more. I would have expected people to care more for the theology than the terminology. So far, nobody has pointed out to me how believing in election of the saints without election to damnation conflicts with the Confessions.

Well, let's back up a just a minute. Are you saying that one portion of "election" is the cornerstone of soteriology? And if we agree on that one part of election, then we agree with that person on soteriology?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I had a question about the fellowship aspect of worship. From what I've read, the WELS don't agree with worshipping with non-WELS, as that is considered to be fellowship as well. Is that a correct reading on my part? If so, does that mean that WELS won't attend churches of other faiths or synods?

Generally yes, that's what it means, although some people will worship at other churches when they travel and whatnot and I'm sure they're not hellbound for it. Since I'm married to a pastor, it's not an issue for me since if we travel where there's no WELS church, we would just have church in our home.

I do think it should be a last resort type thing, though. My mom used to attend my aunt's LCMS church because the rest of the family went there (over the holidays and whatnot) rather than the WELS church down the road. After my father finally fully understood the fellowship doctrine, he put his foot down and they now attend the WELS even though the rest of the family attends the LCMS church.

 

[BelindaP]

Well, let's back up a just a minute. Are you saying that one portion of "election" is the cornerstone of soteriology? And if we agree on that one part of election, then we agree with that person on soteriology?

Let me lay out what I believe and we can go from there. I haven't read a ton of Calvin, so it is entirely possible that I could be wrong.

People are totally depraved--i.e., they aren't able to do good without God's influence and help.
God chose us from before creation. It isn't based on any merit of our own. And salvation is a gift from God.
Jesus' atonement was for all mankind--i.e., nobody is predestined for damnation.
Those God has chosen, He draws to himself irresistibly. People can fight it and some do for a really long time, but He will have whom He will have. (This might be where I differ a bit from orthodox Lutheranism.)
One can't just walk away from God. I suppose it is possible to completely renounce God, but one doesn't casually lose salvation.

 

[Studeclunker]

I think I see where you're coming from, Belinda. Zee, BACK OFF A BIT! You're getting a bit overbearing and are close to breaking the rules now yourself, if you haven't already. Remember, we must correct in love, not pride.

Belinda, Luther would not approve of you following Calvinist doctrine at all. It's no surprise at all that Calvinist doctrine mirrors Lutheran doctrine in some things. Calvin spent several years living under Luther's protection in Germany. As a Huguenot, there was a price on his head (literally) by the French Crown. He and Melangthon (sp?) spent several years discussing and debating theology. Calvin still went his own way. His doctrines, theologies, etc.. mirror Lutheran but as like a fun-house mirror. It's distorted and bent in ways that Luther and even Melangthon would not approve. So, if you say that you're a Calviniste Noel, that is still a problem with your Lutheran heritage. It's a little like saying one is a Buddist-Christian. They don't mix without compromising seriously one or the other. This is why Zee is so stridently insisting you can't be both. It's very true, you can't serve under two masters. You either ascribe to the teachings of Martin Luther or Jean Calvin, both is not an honest option. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. As a WELS member I would be in the position of accusing you of Unionism (which is not something I would like to do at all).

 

[BelindaP]

I've already said that I am open to correction on this. So, show me where what I said I believe is in conflict with the Confessions.

I am not a cradle Lutheran and am not tied strictly to denominational identity. I go with what is scripturally correct. So, if you show me scripturally where I am wrong, then I am willing to listen. If you beat me over the head and accuse me of unionism or heresy or whatever, it ain't gonna fly. Even Luther himself would say stick to the scriptures. Zeph hasn't shown me the courtesy to do so. Instead, he's insulted and baited me for weeks now.

 

[Studeclunker]

Originally Posted by Studeclunker

Really Revrand? So, it's completely within the LCMS's rules that the altar can be exchanged with a bed showing two people having sex in the sanctuary? This is very, very well published as having been tried in Michigan with the full blessings of the synodical leadership. There are other excesses being experimented with (especially here in California) along the same line. I'll ask you the same question that I put to Hawkeye: I've spoken privately with the pastor and expressed my concerns on the liturgical, confessional, creedal, doctrinal, and theological license that he takes. He claims to be within the current Synodical rules. I've spoken with the elders and they don't even understand what the issue is. they think the wording of the confessions, creeds and liturgy are fluid and can change from week to week at will. So, with all this in mind, do you expect me to go a hundred or more miles to church every Sunday??? Sorry, Revrand, my Christian walk is more important to me than the LCMS. This congregation, in Redding, is poisonous to me. They're the only act in town and know it. Therefore the liberals are shoving their crap down the throats of the conservatives in that congregation. Since the synodical leadership approves of it, and encourages this kind of thing, I'll go over to WELS. There's little to nothing I and the rest of the laity can do otherwise. If you, and the rest of the good pastors LCMS has left, don't like it, then it's long past time for you to do something about it.
​

I'm really at a loss as to where in my post that you quoted you got the idea that I condone things that are clearly outside the official doctrinal and practical stance of the synod. Placing a bed in the chancel is clearly outside the doctrinal position of the Confessions since it places an emphasis on the flesh rather than on God. I doubt very highly that the synod "approved" such a thing, but there is no doubt they "allowed" it, which concerns me greatly. My post had to do with the worship of our Lord, not the worship of the flesh. Two completely different things.

Also, don't equate the actions of your congregation in CA with the synod as a whole. The LCMS is still very much a congregational polity, and as such, the practices of that congregation must have been asked for and approved by the majority of the laity. There is where your concerns should lie, not with me nor with the synod as a whole.

Revrand, if you re-read the last line of what you quoted from me, you will see that I never accused you of any doctrinal or theological folderol in the least. The solution that I can no longer wait for is for Pastors like yourself to rise up and shake the leadership into doing something about the eroding standards coming out of, and encouraged by, St. Louis.

As to the actions of the Redding Congregation, and many others in California, Michigan and other states, the Synod IS responsible to dicipline the Pastors and congregations when they err like this. The Synod is not only not doing so, they are encouraging this activity, and this disturbs ME very greatly. It injures my conscience so much that to even attend at the Redding church is out of the question. So much so, that I can no longer continue in your Synod. This is because I will NOT quit going to Church. The only possible alternative is to switch Synods as there is no other LCMS Church in possible commuting distance. Not to my liking, not really my choice either.

By the by, according to the latest statistics, LCMS is shrinking not growing. So, I'm not the only one who feels this way, I'm sure.

 

[LilLamb219]

I've already said that I am open to correction on this. So, show me where what I said I believe is in conflict with the Confessions.

I am not a cradle Lutheran and am not tied strictly to denominational identity. I go with what is scripturally correct. So, if you show me scripturally where I am wrong, then I am willing to listen. If you beat me over the head and accuse me of unionism or heresy or whatever, it ain't gonna fly. Even Luther himself would say stick to the scriptures. Zeph hasn't shown me the courtesy to do so. Instead, he's insulted and baited me for weeks now.

Actually...Luther called people plenty of names in the past

 

[BelindaP]

I know Luther called a lot of names. But, he always followed up with scriptural arguments. All I get is "You're not Lutheran." Well fine. Perhaps I should go back to the Church of Christ I left since I'm not worthy to be called a Lutheran.

See, I don't want to do that. But, what alternative do I have if people only call me names and don't bother setting me straight on scripture. If you think I'm a heretic, correct me. Don't insult me.

 

[LilLamb219]

Sorry, Belinda, but claiming to belonging to different denominations is what YOU have done.

 

[filosofer]

Let me lay out what I believe and we can go from there. I haven't read a ton of Calvin, so it is entirely possible that I could be wrong.

People are totally depraved--i.e., they aren't able to do good without God's influence and help.
God chose us from before creation. It isn't based on any merit of our own. And salvation is a gift from God.
Jesus' atonement was for all mankind--i.e., nobody is predestined for damnation.
Those God has chosen, He draws to himself irresistibly. People can fight it and some do for a really long time, but He will have whom He will have. (This might be where I differ a bit from orthodox Lutheranism.)
One can't just walk away from God. I suppose it is possible to completely renounce God, but one doesn't casually lose salvation.

Okay, thanks. This helps in addressing some of the issues.

People are totally depraved--i.e., they aren't able to do good without God's influence and help.

As Lutherans we state that this is true according to God's Word. See Augsburg Confession (AC) Article II; Apology Article II; Smalcald Article, Part III, Article I; Formula of Concord (FC), Article I, II.

God chose us from before creation. It isn't based on any merit of our own. And salvation is a gift from God.

This also is the Lutheran position. But here we begin to see the difference between Luther(an) and Calvin(ism). Calvin (following Augustine) wanted to address the question behind the question: "why then are some saved and others not?" Calvin wanted to draw back the curtain and see God's work behind the scenes. His conclusion is based on absolute election or better double predestination. Hence “sovereign predestination” became the absolute ground for Calvin. He even mistranslated 1 Timothy 2:4 to avoid contradictions with his doctrinal position (“God desires all kinds of people to be saved” rather than the correct, “God desires all people to be saved”). Salvation becomes secondary to his position on predestination.

Luther(ans) do not try to look behind the curtain, because Scripture does not permit us. For Luther(ans) predestination took second place to justification by grace through faith. By doing so, Luther placed predestination in its rightful position, subordinate to the central doctrine of faith, meaning that justification by grace through faith informs predestination. Scripture does not give us a glimpse “behind the curtain” and determine the “sovereign predestination.” Rather, we can only look at predestination from the perspective of faith; predestination as Paul presented it in Ephesians 1:4 (“just as He chose us in Him”) 1:5 (“He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ”), etc.

This has implications for the living out of the faith. According to Calvinism, the key is whether you have been predestined. But how does a person know? One can never know from predestination, unless one ultimately gave demonstration that “this is proof that I am predestined.” But is that enough? On the other hand, according to Lutheran teaching, the key is whether you are “in Christ.” If you are “in Christ” then you know that you have been predestined. There is no other way than “being in Christ.” See FC, Article IX.

Jesus' atonement was for all mankind--i.e., nobody is predestined for damnation.

The first part directly impacts soteriology (salvation) and the Person of Christ. If Christ did not die for the whole world, then what does that say about his saving work? Unfinished, diminished, lacking...? Calvinism teaches that Christ died only for the elect; notice how election/predestination is the determining factor, which then has to force a wrong understanding on the work of Christ, which affects the salvation of people.

Jesus' atonement was for all mankind--i.e., nobody is predestined for damnation.

This is obviously the Lutheran teaching, but it is not Calvinism’s teaching (see above how he translated 1 Tim. 2:4).

Those God has chosen, He draws to himself irresistibly. People can fight it and some do for a really long time, but He will have whom He will have.

Here again Lutherans differ from Calvinism. While the statement itself can be agreed to by both sides, the question behind the question shows the distinctions. For Lutherans, we believe that God has given us “means of grace,” tools that the Holy Spirit uses to bring us that saving grace to create and sustain faith (the Word, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper). The means actually convey what is presented, namely, forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation (Luther’s Small Catechism and Large Catechism, and FC Article VII).

For Calvinism, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper do not actual convey the grace, but are “merely outward symbols to indicate the inward work.” If you ever read this statement, it is not by Lutherans (or perhaps by misinformed Lutherans). Thus, they refer to them as ordinances, which become “law keeping,” rather than means of actually conveying God’s work of grace in the life of a person.

One can't just walk away from God. I suppose it is possible to completely renounce God, but one doesn't casually lose salvation.

Once again, this reflects a Calvinist position regarding salvation (“once saved, always saved”). It contains a partial truth, but doesn’t give the entire picture. We see in Scripture that people do walk away from faith and renounce God. Calvinists’ offer the response, “Well, the person was not one of the elect.” The problem is: how do they know? “The elect will never walk away from faith,” a circular argument set up to reinforce both views, neither of which is Biblical.

I hope that what you begin to discover is that Lutheran theology is of one piece built around the chief article of the Christian Church, justification by grace through faith in Christ), and by which the Church stands or falls. AC Article IV, Apology Article IV, FC Article III. We do not put piece meal what we want or take bits and pieces from here and there. Rather, we take the entirety of Scripture as witness to the truth of what we confess.

 

[LilLamb219]

Thank you, Filo for taking the time to clearly show how those two denominational beliefs are different.

 

[filosofer]

I know Luther called a lot of names. But, he always followed up with scriptural arguments. All I get is "You're not Lutheran." Well fine. Perhaps I should go back to the Church of Christ I left since I'm not worthy to be called a Lutheran.

See, I don't want to do that. But, what alternative do I have if people only call me names and don't bother setting me straight on scripture. If you think I'm a heretic, correct me. Don't insult me.

No one is "worthy to be called Lutheran" if by that we set up a human standard. Rather, to be Lutheran means that we know what the Lutheran Confessions teach, and we accept them as true statements of the faith articulated in the Scriptures.

I hope that you can follow the discussion. And I have been called many names too. But ultimately we have to determine what Scripture teaches, what our public confession of the church teaches, and what we believe in our hearts. My guess, based on what you have written is that you are not so much Calvinist as you think. But see my post above for a starting point.

Let's continue the discussion.

 

[BelindaP]

This also is the Lutheran position. But here we begin to see the difference between Luther(an) and Calvin(ism). Calvin (following Augustine) wanted to address the question behind the question: "why then are some saved and others not?" Calvin wanted to draw back the curtain and see God's work behind the scenes. His conclusion is based on absolute election or better double predestination. Hence “sovereign predestination” became the absolute ground for Calvin. He even mistranslated 1 Timothy 2:4 to avoid contradictions with his doctrinal position (“God desires all kinds of people to be saved” rather than the correct, “God desires all people to be saved”). Salvation becomes secondary to his position on predestination.

Luther(ans) do not try to look behind the curtain, because Scripture does not permit us. For Luther(ans) predestination took second place to justification by grace through faith. By doing so, Luther placed predestination in its rightful position, subordinate to the central doctrine of faith, meaning that justification by grace through faith informs predestination. Scripture does not give us a glimpse “behind the curtain” and determine the “sovereign predestination.” Rather, we can only look at predestination from the perspective of faith; predestination as Paul presented it in Ephesians 1:4 (“just as He chose us in Him”) 1:5 (“He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ”), etc.

This has implications for the living out of the faith. According to Calvinism, the key is whether you have been predestined. But how does a person know? One can never know from predestination, unless one ultimately gave demonstration that “this is proof that I am predestined.” But is that enough? On the other hand, according to Lutheran teaching, the key is whether you are “in Christ.” If you are “in Christ” then you know that you have been predestined. There is no other way than “being in Christ.” See FC, Article IX.

I'm a lot closer to Luther than Calvin on this particular point. I'm fairly certain I have been chosen of God, because He has given me the gift of faith, and I cling to Christ for my salvation.

The first part directly impacts soteriology (salvation) and the Person of Christ. If Christ did not die for the whole world, then what does that say about his saving work? Unfinished, diminished, lacking...? Calvinism teaches that Christ died only for the elect; notice how election/predestination is the determining factor, which then has to force a wrong understanding on the work of Christ, which affects the salvation of people.

This is where the No-L part comes in. Jesus died for the whole world. I have no quarrel with the Lutheran teaching at all.

Here again Lutherans differ from Calvinism. While the statement itself can be agreed to by both sides, the question behind the question shows the distinctions. For Lutherans, we believe that God has given us “means of grace,” tools that the Holy Spirit uses to bring us that saving grace to create and sustain faith (the Word, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper). The means actually convey what is presented, namely, forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation (Luther’s Small Catechism and Large Catechism, and FC Article VII).

For Calvinism, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper do not actual convey the grace, but are “merely outward symbols to indicate the inward work.” If you ever read this statement, it is not by Lutherans (or perhaps by misinformed Lutherans). Thus, they refer to them as ordinances, which become “law keeping,” rather than means of actually conveying God’s work of grace in the life of a person.

In my CoC days, I was completely with Calvin on this. But, I do not consider the Eucharist to be merely symbols. It is the Real Presence and a means of grace, just as baptism is.

Once again, this reflects a Calvinist position regarding salvation (“once saved, always saved”). It contains a partial truth, but doesn’t give the entire picture. We see in Scripture that people do walk away from faith and renounce God. Calvinists’ offer the response, “Well, the person was not one of the elect.” The problem is: how do they know? “The elect will never walk away from faith,” a circular argument set up to reinforce both views, neither of which is Biblical.

I have seen many walk away and renounce God. I've done that myself. But, God is always faithful to draw people back. At least He was with me, and he has been with many others I know. I truly believe that if you are elect, He will draw you to Himself--eventually. I think that the few exceptions are likely people who never had Christ at all. Is it possible for somebody to completely and irrevocably walk away? I suppose. But, I think that it happens only very rarely. If you talk to people who have lost the faith and come back again, they will tell you of how they never felt quite right during the time they were away. It was God drawing them, even then.

I hope that what you begin to discover is that Lutheran theology is of one piece built around the chief article of the Christian Church, justification by grace through faith in Christ), and by which the Church stands or falls. AC Article IV, Apology Article IV, FC Article III. We do not put piece meal what we want or take bits and pieces from here and there. Rather, we take the entirety of Scripture as witness to the truth of what we confess.

I do see that. You should see the arguments that I have with my many fundy relatives about it. They tend to hold the view that salvation is an act of will rather than an act of grace. When I first realized that (at the feet of a very patient Lutheran pastor), it was such a release from the burden I had always borne.