Calvinistic Lutherans

[R. Scott Clark]

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.

Others have noted that same phenomenon. At least the confessional Lutherans, who regard us as "crafty sacramentarians" (Book of Concord), also regard us a baptized! Our consistent Baptist friends do not recognize us as baptized. In a formal sense, then, to Baptists, inasmuch as baptism is a testimony of faith for them and for us a testimony of our inclusion into the visible covenant community, we're not even Christians.

Part of the difficulty is the nature of modern (post-17th century) Baptists. They are rebellious offspring from the Reformed Churches and the confessional Baptists do share other aspects of our theology that the confessional Lutherans rejected (as listed above).

Thus, we have some important things in common with the confessional Lutherans and some important things in common with the confessional Baptists but we differ significantly from both.

That we tend to relate more to Baptists probably says more about the Baptist willingness to identify themselves as "Reformed" and our willingness to let them to do it and the relative isolation of the Lutheran communions from the rest of American evangelicalism and their unwillingness to even recognize confessional Reformed folk as fellow "Protestants." I've corresponded with Lutheran scholars who bristle at being grouped together with confessional Reformed folk as "confessional Protestants."

Be aware that when some confessional Lutheran folk look at confessional Reformed folk they see Jimmy Swaggart. I've heard some describe wacky evangelicals as "Reformed." They make no distinction between Calvin and the Anabaptists. We're all "fanatics" as far as they're concerned. Every time I talk with confessional Lutheran folk they seem genuinely shocked at how much we agree.

Some, perhaps much, of this goes back to the 19th-century identity formation of American confessional Lutherans as "not Calvinist." You might be shocked at what Lutherans write about Calvin -- whom they've rarely read. You wouldn't recognize the poor fellow. He wouldn't recognize himself. They know he signed the Augsburg and they take it as evidence of his "craftiness." There's a deeply held suspicion that is probably impossible, in this life, to overcome.

 

[jwithnell]

At one point, Covenant and Concordia seminaries in St. Louis allowed students to take some classes from either school for credit recognizing some of the similar heritage between our understandings of scripture, particularly the doctrines of grace.

I've been fairly close to the ELCA, and its forerunner the LCA, most of my life, and it seems to have a familial relationship to Luther's teachings rather than confessional -- in other words, it has tremendous respect for the man and fond memories of his influence but holds to very little of the truth that was dear to him. I think he would be horrified by what came out of the German seminaries from the 1800s on, particularly the rejection of the authority of God's word.

 

[davidsuggs]

Isn't Michael Horton a Lutheran?

 

[Ivan]

Isn't Michael Horton a Lutheran?

No.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Horton]Michael Horton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[ReformedChapin]

Isn't Michael Horton a Lutheran?

Michael Horton

The Rev. Dr. Michael S. Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Westminster Seminary California (Westminster Seminary California - Home) . He is the main host of The White Horse Inn radio broadcast and editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine (www.modernreformation.org). He received his M.A. from Westminster Seminary California, his Ph.D. from Wycliff Hall, Oxford and the University of Coventry, and also completed a Research Fellowship at Yale University Divinity School.

Dr. Horton is the author/editor of more than fifteen books, including Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of God-Centered Worship, The Law of Perfect Freedom, Made In America, Where In The World Is The Church, We Believe: Recovering the Essentials of the Apostles' Creed, Covenant & Eschatology, Lord and Servant, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology, and many others. His most recent book is Too Good to be True: Finding Hope in a World of Hype.

Dr. Horton is a minister in the United Reformed Churches of North America. He has served two churches in southern California and currently resides with his wife, Lisa, and four children in Escondido, California.

About Us | White Horse Inn

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Would Gene Veith qualify? I know he's a Tabletalk regular. I'd assume he's at least got some respect for Calvinism.

 

[SRoper]

I think David was making a joke.

 

[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.

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.

You're right Luther's Bondage of the Will was written in the context of his debate with Erasmus and not a comprehensive treatise on what we now call the "five points."

However, in it, he clearly lays out biblical objection to the Arminian-influenced notion of man initiating and determining his own salvation.

In that way, he very effectively (and passionately) refuted the countervailing points that would be made again by the remonstrants (those who refuted the "five points of Calvinism" as a necessary and related system of doctrine).

 

[shackleton]

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.

I wonder if it is because almost every reformed person I know started out life as a baptist and know very little about Lutherans?

 

[Staphlobob]

You're right Luther's Bondage of the Will was written in the context of his debate with Erasmus and not a comprehensive treatise on what we now call the "five points."

However, in it, he clearly lays out biblical objection to the Arminian-influenced notion of man initiating and determining his own salvation.

In that way, he very effectively (and passionately) refuted the countervailing points that would be made again by the remonstrants (those who refuted the "five points of Calvinism" as a necessary and related system of doctrine).

Almost everything Luther wrote was done in the context of debate. Lots of polemic there. Because he was fighting so many enemies on so many fronts, Luther never had the opportunity to set his thoughts down in a systematic manner. I think the Smalcald Articles are the closest he ever came to this theological endeavor.

Consequently one has to study a lot of Luther to get a grasp of his thoughts, his life, and the historical setting in which he lived. Sproul seems to have done this.

 

[BG]

R. Scott Clark,


Great message, thanks.

 

[ReformedChapin]

You're right Luther's Bondage of the Will was written in the context of his debate with Erasmus and not a comprehensive treatise on what we now call the "five points."

However, in it, he clearly lays out biblical objection to the Arminian-influenced notion of man initiating and determining his own salvation.

In that way, he very effectively (and passionately) refuted the countervailing points that would be made again by the remonstrants (those who refuted the "five points of Calvinism" as a necessary and related system of doctrine).

Almost everything Luther wrote was done in the context of debate. Lots of polemic there. Because he was fighting so many enemies on so many fronts, Luther never had the opportunity to set his thoughts down in a systematic manner. I think the Smalcald Articles are the closest he ever came to this theological endeavor.

Consequently one has to study a lot of Luther to get a grasp of his thoughts, his life, and the historical setting in which he lived. Sproul seems to have done this.

Let's not forget A Treatise of Jews and Their Lies.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Isn't Michael Horton a Lutheran?

No, no more than I am or any confessionally Reformed minister and prof at Westminster Seminary California is "Lutheran." All Reformed folk are "Lutheran" when it comes to justification, in some sense, but none of us can be confessionally Lutheran.

People do say this and it just amazes me. He does a radio show with a Lutheran and a Baptist (but no one ever accuses him of being "Baptist"). He gets called "Lutheran" (as I do) for simply standing up for what the Reformed Churches confess about justification. It's a strange world when one becomes "Lutheran" for being Reformed. As I tell my students, "If Lutheran is the worst thing they can say about me, bring it on."

As has already been pointed out, he's a minister in good standing in the URCs. He's an associate pastor in Christ Reformed Church, Santee, CA and he was a founding pastor of Christ Reformed, Anaheim.

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 10:02:02 EST-----

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.

I wonder if it is because almost every reformed person I know started out life as a baptist and know very little about Lutherans?

This is a good observation. I don't know of many Lutherans (we've had a few at WSC) who've become Reformed but I know a fair number of ex-Baptists who've become confessionally Reformed. The confessional Lutherans were somewhat isolated from American evangelicalism ethnically and theologically and liturgically. That isolation carries over to the present.

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 10:03:51 EST-----

I think David was making a joke.

Hard to tell in writing (w/o emoticons). That question gets asked in earnest a lot. I've answered more than a few times.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Be aware that when some confessional Lutheran folk look at confessional Reformed folk they see Jimmy Swaggart. I've heard some describe wacky evangelicals as "Reformed." They make no distinction between Calvin and the Anabaptists. We're all "fanatics" as far as they're concerned. Every time I talk with confessional Lutheran folk they seem genuinely shocked at how much we agree.

A friend of mine (retired Marine) was stationed in Michigan and he only had a Lutheran Church as an option. He heard this common refrain. Even the folks on TBN were referred to as "Reformed". I think it's a culturally conditioned thing sort of like if you went to a Southern Baptist Church in a dry town in Texas and tried to convince them that Jesus really did make water into wine.

I really love the WHI but I think the show gives many Reformed folk the idea that we could just walk into a Lutheran Church and feel right at home but I think Rosenbladt is much more like Luther than most Lutherans you'd actually run into.

 

[JDKetterman]

Be aware that when some confessional Lutheran folk look at confessional Reformed folk they see Jimmy Swaggart. I've heard some describe wacky evangelicals as "Reformed." They make no distinction between Calvin and the Anabaptists. We're all "fanatics" as far as they're concerned. Every time I talk with confessional Lutheran folk they seem genuinely shocked at how much we agree.

A friend of mine (retired Marine) was stationed in Michigan and he only had a Lutheran Church as an option. He heard this common refrain. Even the folks on TBN were referred to as "Reformed". I think it's a culturally conditioned thing sort of like if you went to a Southern Baptist Church in a dry town in Texas and tried to convince them that Jesus really did make water into wine.

I really love the WHI but I think the show gives many Reformed folk the idea that we could just walk into a Lutheran Church and feel right at home but I think Rosenbladt is much more like Luther than most Lutherans you'd actually run into.

I was actually one of those odd ones that became converted to the Reformed faith from Lutheranism. When you speak about what most Lutherans think about us, you're pretty much right. In the LCMS church I was at, I did meet some Calvinists, but only in the broad sense of the word. They were usually looked at badly as evangelicals. When I was Lutheran at the time, I already had much sympathy with Calvin since Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will was one of the first works of his that I read.

There is a lot that the Reformed have in common with Lutherans, but one thing that I did notice within Lutheranism is a down playing with the third use of the Law. Although their confessions teach the third use of the Law, but I noticed the tendency in the LCMS to lean towards being antinominian. The Law for them was usually seen in a negative light. Overall though, I think we much in common with our Lutheran brethren.

 

[LawrenceU]

Can I just slip something in here?

I read a reference above that seemed to equate Baptists with Anabaptists. Two completely different theologies. Baptists are not the 'grandchildren' of Anabaptists.

Thanks.

Over.

 

[Christusregnat]

Can I just slip something in here?

I read a reference above that seemed to equate Baptists with Anabaptists. Two completely different theologies. Baptists are not the 'grandchildren' of Anabaptists.

Thanks.

Over.

This depends on whom you talk to. Some baptists (such as verduyn or Bill Downing) make this link. I believe that the 1644 London Baptist also makes the link to the Anabaptists.

So, while you may not trace your heritage, some may.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Stomata leontôn]

Interesting thread. I have learned some things.

 

[yeutter]

The Evangelical Church [Evangelical Synod of North America], which merged with the Reformed Church of the United States to form the Evangelical and Reformed Church, was sort of a Calvinistic Luthern denomination. Reinhold Neibuhr was originally a member of this body. Eden Theological Seminary was affiliated with the Evangelical Church.
The Evangelical Church liturgy was Lutheran. She either subscribed to the 1540 version of the Augsburg Confession or permitted one to hold to the 1540 Variata exceptions to the 1530 Augsburg. I think this was also the confessional position of the Church of Wuerttemberg.
Melanchthon wrote the 1540 Confessio Augustana Variata to keep the Reformed in union with the Lutherans. The issue was the sacraments, not the doctrines of grace.

 

[LawrenceU]

Can I just slip something in here?

I read a reference above that seemed to equate Baptists with Anabaptists. Two completely different theologies. Baptists are not the 'grandchildren' of Anabaptists.

Thanks.

Over.

This depends on whom you talk to. Some baptists (such as verduyn or Bill Downing) make this link. I believe that the 1644 London Baptist also makes the link to the Anabaptists.

So, while you may not trace your heritage, some may.

Cheers,

Adam

Actually the 1644/46 LBC explicitly denies it:

The
CONFESSION
Of Faith, of those Churches
which are commonly (though falsely)
called ANABAPTISTS.

That is the header above the first article.

 

[Staphlobob]

Let's not forget A Treatise of Jews and Their Lies.

I don't think that was as systematic much as it was consistent. Luther spewed this stuff for years. He even got sick of it himself and regretted doing it, but seemed to go back to it again and again.

Lots of people here in the Baltimore-Washington D.C. corridor make trips to the Holocaust Museum (a very worthwhile place), but are often surprised when I have to point out to them that, while Luther was vilely anti-Jewish, to say that he was anti-Semitic would be anachronistic.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Let's not forget A Treatise of Jews and Their Lies.

I don't think that was as systematic much as it was consistent. Luther spewed this stuff for years. He even got sick of it himself and regretted doing it, but seemed to go back to it again and again.

Lots of people here in the Baltimore-Washington D.C. corridor make trips to the Holocaust Museum (a very worthwhile place), but are often surprised when I have to point out to them that, while Luther was vilely anti-Jewish, to say that he was anti-Semitic would be anachronistic.

Didn't mean to imply it was systematic just trying to further show Luthers polymic nature.

 

[MOSES]

As I said earlier concerning that there is not a reformed Presbyterian church near where I live, though I am a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and that I am currently attending a Lutheran Church (lcms):

Well...I am going to be taking up membership in the Lutheran Church. (Mainly because you have to be a member there in order to partake of communion).

So, before long I guess you will officially have a Calvinist-Lutheran in your midst.

 

[asc]

Part of the difficulty is the nature of modern (post-17th century) Baptists. They are rebellious offspring from the Reformed Churches and the confessional Baptists do share other aspects of our theology that the confessional Lutherans rejected (as listed above).

I think it makes sense that since "reformed" baptists broke away from Reformed churches that the two groups would be closer than with Lutherans. There is a shared history, a shared library, a shared religious language, a shared liturgy, and a shared ethnicity than makes the association much more natural; despite the large disagreements over baptism, etc.

 

[MOSES]

Part of the difficulty is the nature of modern (post-17th century) Baptists. They are rebellious offspring from the Reformed Churches and the confessional Baptists do share other aspects of our theology that the confessional Lutherans rejected (as listed above).

I think it makes sense that since "reformed" baptists broke away from Reformed churches that the two groups would be closer than with Lutherans. There is a shared history, a shared library, a shared religious language, a shared liturgy, and a shared ethnicity than makes the association much more natural; despite the large disagreements over baptism, etc.

What do you mean by "a shared ethnicity"?

 

[Cranmer1959]

Luther himself believed in double predestination as anyone who reads the Bondage of the Will knows. The problem is Luther didn't write much more on the issue than that. and unfortunately, Melancthon went back in the semi-pelagian direction. Melanchthon was unfortunately the architect behind the Augsburg Confession.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Luther himself believed in double predestination as anyone who reads the Bondage of the Will knows. The problem is Luther didn't write much more on the issue than that. and unfortunately, Melancthon went back in the semi-pelagian direction. Melanchthon was unfortunately the architect behind the Augsburg Confession.

I have read bondage of the will and I don't Luther specified about double predestination. I think it would be assuming too much.

 

[Mark Hettler]

Dr. Clark, I wanted to say that I found your observations regarding Calvinism and Lutheranism (and Luther) particularly helpful and insightful.

 

[asc]

I think it makes sense that since "reformed" baptists broke away from Reformed churches that the two groups would be closer than with Lutherans. There is a shared history, a shared library, a shared religious language, a shared liturgy, and a shared ethnicity than makes the association much more natural; despite the large disagreements over baptism, etc.

What do you mean by "a shared ethnicity"?

I'm no church historian, but I think after the Reformation, the Reformed and
Lutheran churches were dominant in different countries, and some of this
split is still present to this day. Lutherans were predominant in German and
northern Europe: Norway, Sweden, etc. While Reformed churches were
dominant in England and Scotland (and thus the Puritans in America), and
Netherlands. (and then other countries like France remained staunchly Roman
Catholic and persecuted the Protestants).