Calvinistic Lutherans

[BG]

Do any of you know of any "Calvinistic Lutheran" groups ?

 

[InevitablyReformed]

I know that the LCMS and ELCA are definitely not Calvinists as neither of them affirm "double" predestination. They also believe that one can have saving faith and lose it. The WELS denom. is probably your best chance:

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) -

 

[JDKetterman]

I know that the LCMS and ELCA are definitely not Calvinists as neither of them affirm "double" predestination. They also believe that one can have saving faith and lose it. The WELS denom. is probably your best chance:

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) -

I'm afraid you wouldn't have much "luck" there either. They are more confessional than the LCMS and their confessions do teach that one can fall away. If you want to commune with them, you need to believe fully in the Lutheran confessions.

 

[dannyhyde]

Do any of you know of any "Calvinistic Lutheran" groups ?

What exactly do you mean by "Calvinistic Lutherans?"

 

[JM]

Crypto-Calvinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[shackleton]

The Lutheran theology I have read, Mueller, which is the book they use at Concordia, states that Calvinism means to read too much into what is specifically stated in scripture. They do not like the Calvinistic notion of election or predestination.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

The WELS would be horrified to see themselves described as Calvinistic Lutherans!

 

[PresbyDane]

The funny thing being hat if you go back and read Luther himself he is just as outspoken on the socalled "calvinistic issues" as Calvin was.

 

[JM]

Lutheranism was hijacked by Philipp Melanchthon and should be called Melanchthonism.

 

[PresbyDane]

 

[ReformedChapin]

Mg gf is one, she adheres to the doctrines of grace but goes to a Lutheran Church.

-----Added 1/3/2009 at 01:27:21 EST-----

Lutheranism was hijacked by Philipp Melanchthon and should be called Melanchthonism.

Why do you say that? I think their concept of election and the Lords Supper is very Lutheranish. At least for the WELS and LCMS.

 

[dannyhyde]

Lutheranism was hijacked by Philipp Melanchthon and should be called Melanchthonism.

Serious Lutheran scholars, among them Robert Kolb, would seriously disagree. It's an old canard the "true"(gnesio) Lutherans threw up against those they called "crypto-Calvinists." The baseless nature of the claim can be demonstrated by the fact that both groups considered themselves followers of Luther and that nearly all in both camps were educated under Melanchthon, whether in person or through his texts.

 

[BG]

Do any of you know of any "Calvinistic Lutheran" groups ?

What exactly do you mean by "Calvinistic Lutherans?"

Lutherans that have a Calvinistic view of Salvation.

 

[Poimen]

The WELS would be horrified to see themselves described as Calvinistic Lutherans!

True but I am still at your description.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Do any of you know of any "Calvinistic Lutheran" groups ?

What exactly do you mean by "Calvinistic Lutherans?"

Lutherans that have a Calvinistic view of Salvation.

What do you mean by "Calvinistic"?

If by "Calvinistic" you mean, "the five points," that's a very truncated definition of "Calvinist."

The confessional Lutherans (who hold the Book of Concord) reject limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. They agree with us on total depravity (or at least some of them do) and they agree with us on unconditional election. They reject reprobation also.

We (confessional Reformed and Lutherans) agree on justification and on the broad outlines of the law/gospel distinction.

Beyond soteriology, we disagree on Christology, baptism, the supper, ecclesiology, and worship among other things.

Here are a couple of charts that might help:

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/Ref-RomeChart1.pdf

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/Ref-RomeChart2.pdf

 

[JM]

Luther and the Lutheran church at first shared the doctrine of predestination and election, Luther in his treatment of free will reproducing the Augustinian form of the doctrine in a strict manner. The predestination of Luther and Melanchthon proceeded, not from their conception of God, but rather from the doctrine of sin and grace. Melanchthon was less disposed than Luther to press the doctrine of absolute predestination, and, in his "synergistic" tendencies, laid increasing stress on human freedom, until he at length rejected the doctrine of absolute predestination. He was blamed by strict Lutheranism for yielding too much to Pelagianism. But the Lutheran "Formula of Concord," prepared in 1577, was not a very logical and consistent presentation of the case, for, opposed at points to Augustinianism, it fell back, in the end, on election in the Augustinian spirit. Or, to put the matter in another form, the "Formula of Concord" may be said to have held with Augustinianism, but to have differed by maintaining a Universal call along witha particular election, and it rejected the decree of reprobation. Later Lutheranism adopted a moderate form of doctrine, wherein predestination was often identified with prescience. But Lutheranism ought not, in strictness, to be identified, as is sometimes done, with the Arminian theory. The Lutheran doctrine of predestination was further developed by Schleiermacher, who emphasized the efficiency of grace, while adopting its universality in the Lutheran sense.

NETBible: Predestination

The Modern Lutheran church does not stand with Martin Luther on the issue of predestination, and thus suffers from an internal contradiction. It's efforts to modify Luther's views and to present a more moderate case for predestination ultimately end in conflict with Luther's uncompromising doctrine of God's Sovereignty. However, before critically analyzing the writings of Luther, an examination must be made of the various presuppositions possible in approaching Luther's writings.

...Luther through the eyes of the Book of Concord, the standard book of Lutheran confession, which was compiled thirty-four years after Luther's death in 1546. In other words, the Concord Paradigm looks at more recent developments of Lutheran theology and reads Luther in that light.

Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination

He had great loyalty to Martin Luther. This relationship was somewhat impaired in the later years of Luther because of doctrinal differences, but the relationship was never destroyed.

Melanchthon modified his position on predestination and free will. In the beginning he held to the convictions of Luther, but later changed. He made this change to appease Rome and to find common ground with the papal system, for Rome was violently opposed to election and predestination. Melanchthon had many conferences with Reformed and Roman divines, and wanted peace at all costs. It was the influence of Erasmus, the humanist, that caused him to abandon what he thought was fatalistic theology. He taught a cooperation (synergism) of the divine and human wills in the work of conversion. He went back to semi-Pelagianism and laid the ground for Arminianism in Lutheran theology. He believed that God had to take the initiative to convict of sin, but man could accept or reject divine grace. Thus he said, “God draws the willing” to salvation. He would not, however, condemn the doctrines of unconditional election, predestination and total depravity of the human will because Luther had always held to these so tenaciously. He tolerated Augustinianism as a theological opinion, but rejected it himself. The Augsburg Confession, which is the basis for all Lutheran theology, is a product of Melanchthon and not of Luther.

http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/jac_arnold/CH.Arnold.RMT.5.pdf

 

[Staphlobob]

There is a world of difference between Luther and "Lutheranism." If anything Luther was more of a "5 pointer" than Calvin.

OTOH, "Lutheranism" didn't really come about until 1580 and the completion of the Book of Concord. By that time there was a significant change in their understanding of salvation. What is authoritative for Lutheranism is the Book of Concord, not Luther. I used to say - and still do - that Lutherans hold to the "T" and "U" of TULIP. But the LIP is thrown out.

BTW, the ELCA is NOT Lutheran by any known definition of the word. Heaven only knows what is the nature of that association.

 

[PresbyDane]

I would fully with that.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

There is a world of difference between Luther and "Lutheranism." If anything Luther was more of a "5 pointer" than Calvin.

OTOH, "Lutheranism" didn't really come about until 1580 and the completion of the Book of Concord. By that time there was a significant change in their understanding of salvation. What is authoritative for Lutheranism is the Book of Concord, not Luther. I used to say - and still do - that Lutherans hold to the "T" and "U" of TULIP. But the LIP is thrown out.

BTW, the ELCA is NOT Lutheran by any known definition of the word. Heaven only knows what is the nature of that association.

Kevin, I agree. Just to be clear, that's why I spoke of confessional Lutherans.

 

[BG]

Are Confessional Lutherans Reformed?

Is there a movement within Lutheranism toward Reform?

 

[MOSES]

This is an intersting thread for me. I am a member of the OPC, but I am attending a Lutheran Church (LCMS). I will continue to attend until a Reformed church gets started in my area (there are no reformed churches near where I live, and I hold membership at the nearest OPC to me). The LCMS has closed communion, so my family and I are not able to partake, unless we became members.
So, I have a dilema. Do I become a member, setting aside some of my disagreements, so I can partake, OR, do I continue as is and not partake, essentially being just like one who is under church discipline and not able to partake (which, in my opinion, is not a good position to be in)? Or, do I commute to the OPC I'm a member of at least once a month when they take communion?

Note: I met with the pastor of the LCMS before attending and we had a 5 hour conversation on theology, mainly the sacraments and calvinism. We were actually in agreement on a lot of things, much more then I expected. Some of the key things, which may perhaps relate to this thread were these:

- Monergistic salvation (we were in agreement). The Lutheran Pastor condemned arminianism.
- The Lord's supper. We both seemed to hold to Calvins view (though he espoused Melanchton's...but Calvin and Melanchton's views were essentially the same), and we both rejected Zwinglism (memorialism) and Rome's Transubstantiation (as well as Consubstantiation).
- Baptism. We both saw baptism as a sign and seal of being brought into the kingdom by the work of the Holy Spirit. I.e., Baptism is "passive" in nature, not "active".
- A rejection of pre-millinialism and NT only Christianity
- A support of the Law of God...that it is both useful and necessary, and essential in a Law/Gospel distinction.

So....we were in agreement on How God saves (monorgestically) as well as the sacraments.
Of course, we quibbled quite a bit over Limited atonement. But he did agree that the atonement was not universal in the sense that it is universally effectual; that it is effectual to believers only. In this way he was able to say that the atonement is "Limited".

 

[Staphlobob]

and we both rejected ... (as well as Consubstantiation).

This is great! It's wonderful to see someone acknowledge that "consubstantiation" is not a Lutheran teaching. Amen!

 

[shackleton]

Is it possible to be non-Calvinistic reformed? That is, they came out of the reformation, are not dispensational or revivalistic, practice the sacraments and baptize babies. They are not a part of the Anabaptist revolution. I am thinking of Lutherans and Anglicans they are technically reformed but not Calvinist's. (I am not referring to liberals)

 

[ReformedChapin]

and we both rejected ... (as well as Consubstantiation).

This is great! It's wonderful to see someone acknowledge that "consubstantiation" is not a Lutheran teaching. Amen!

From my conversations with Lutherans they reject the terminology consubstantiation but still hold to a physical presence in the sacrament otherwise known to them as the Sacramental Union of Christ in, with and under the elements.

 

[MOSES]

Didn't Calvin not only sign and support the Augsburg confession (Lutheran confession), but also specifically helped (infuenced) Melanchton in his wording on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Teaching that the body and blood of Christ are truly "exhibited" in the sacrament...and that they are not merely represented. Calvin also saying that the sacrament is not an empty sign, but that the thing signifed must truly be there.
???

 

[Scott1]

Most of us are aware, Luther's Bondage of the Will is one of the strongest advocates for what we now call "Calvinism." It is a classic in terms of helping people understanding the "five points" and the overarching topic of the sovereignty of God.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Most of us are aware, Luther's Bondage of the Will is one of the strongest advocates for what we now call "Calvinism." It is a classic in terms of helping people understanding the "five points" and the overarching topic of the sovereignty of God.

I was confused by Bondage of the Will when trying to understand Lutheran system of soteriology. Luther in Bondage seemed to me at first glance to hold to the 5 points to me in that book when fighting Erasmus; he just didn't address all the issues clearly.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Didn't Calvin not only sign and support the Augsburg confession (Lutheran confession), but also specifically helped (infuenced) Melanchton in his wording on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Teaching that the body and blood of Christ are truly "exhibited" in the sacrament...and that they are not merely represented. Calvin also saying that the sacrament is not an empty sign, but that the thing signifed must truly be there.
???

Yes, Calvin most likely signed the unrevised (invariata) 1530 Augsburg and he certainly supported the 1540/1 (I can't remember just now which year) Variata, in which Philipp revised Art 10 on the Supper (as already suggested in this thread).

-----Added 1/3/2009 at 09:45:55 EST-----

This is an intersting thread for me. I am a member of the OPC, but I am attending a Lutheran Church (LCMS). I will continue to attend until a Reformed church gets started in my area (there are no reformed churches near where I live, and I hold membership at the nearest OPC to me). The LCMS has closed communion, so my family and I are not able to partake, unless we became members.
So, I have a dilema. Do I become a member, setting aside some of my disagreements, so I can partake, OR, do I continue as is and not partake, essentially being just like one who is under church discipline and not able to partake (which, in my opinion, is not a good position to be in)? Or, do I commute to the OPC I'm a member of at least once a month when they take communion?

Note: I met with the pastor of the LCMS before attending and we had a 5 hour conversation on theology, mainly the sacraments and calvinism. We were actually in agreement on a lot of things, much more then I expected. Some of the key things, which may perhaps relate to this thread were these:

- Monergistic salvation (we were in agreement). The Lutheran Pastor condemned arminianism.
- The Lord's supper. We both seemed to hold to Calvins view (though he espoused Melanchton's...but Calvin and Melanchton's views were essentially the same), and we both rejected Zwinglism (memorialism) and Rome's Transubstantiation (as well as Consubstantiation).
- Baptism. We both saw baptism as a sign and seal of being brought into the kingdom by the work of the Holy Spirit. I.e., Baptism is "passive" in nature, not "active".
- A rejection of pre-millinialism and NT only Christianity
- A support of the Law of God...that it is both useful and necessary, and essential in a Law/Gospel distinction.

So....we were in agreement on How God saves (monorgestically) as well as the sacraments.
Of course, we quibbled quite a bit over Limited atonement. But he did agree that the atonement was not universal in the sense that it is universally effectual; that it is effectual to believers only. In this way he was able to say that the atonement is "Limited".

Yes, we do have a lot more in common with confessional Lutherans than many on both sides seem to recognize. I see a nearly Luthero-phobia among some Scottish and American Presbyterians and there is definitely a Calvino-phobia among most confessional Lutherans. I've written on the latter (coming out this year, Dv) but I don't have a complete grasp on the Luthero-phobia yet. Here's a lecture on Lutherophobia.

 

[BG]

R. Scott Clark

Thank you for the link I will try to listen to it tomorrow after Church.

 

[MOSES]

Yes, we do have a lot more in common with confessional Lutherans than many on both sides seem to recognize.

It seems that many "Reformed Calvinist" folks have a lot more non-phobia (or tollerance for) with modern American culture Baptists, then they do for Lutherans. I find that to be extremely odd. Lutherans and (at least) 'old school' Calvinists have way more in common. The common friendship between Luther, Calvin, Melanchton, etc. is completey opposite of that of latter Calvinists and Ana-baptists.
Yet today, it seems to be just the opposite of that.