Reformed vs. Lutheran

Status
Not open for further replies.

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Professor
Hey I have been browsing around the forum and I see this thread is not new, however, I still lack understanding regarding the law and grace in their systems (That is how is the Lutheran System different from Reformed I know the Reformed standing). Can someone explain this to me in detail?

Also how does Westminster in California follow a semi-Lutheran approach that I have heard of?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
No differences in the theology, but differences historically within their historical-confessional/dogmatic traditions. Reformed theologians tend to emphasize the 3rd use of the law and applying scripture into how to live the Christian live and are more comfortable in talking about moral obligations, while Lutherans tend to emphasize more the foundation of Justification and the objective reality and focus on that. Sermons tend to emphasis the atonement and justification and sanctification tends to be ignored and the 3rd use of the law tends to be talked about in terms of God enabling us to obey as opposed to calling believers to struggle in obedience.

There has always been a great overlap, especially in the Continental european traditions (Reformed and Lutheran), while historically in the States, American Presbyterianism has developed independently, thus while Horton, Clark, and Billy Graham's Grandson (Can't spell his name! lol) sound different than what American Calvinists have been used to hearing, the rediscovery of Reformed Literature in the past 5 decades translated from the past and from other Reformed traditions, has shows that Calvinism is broader than traditional American Calvinism.

my two sense
 
Lutheran scholars... have debated at length over whether Luther taught in fact, though not in name, a third use of the law. Suffice it to say, Luther advocated that though the Christian is not "under the law," this ought not be understood as if he were "without the law." The law is not an obligation, but a delight. The believer is joyfully moved towards the law by the Spirits power. He conforms to the law freely, not because of the laws demands, but because of his love for God and His righteousness

Calvin... [taught] that the primary use of the law for the believer is as a rule of life.

Both of these quotes are taken from Joel Beeke's Puritan Reformed Spirituality, p. 107.

Interestingly, Beeke notes that the first reformer to develop the "third use" of the law was Melanchthon, Luther's successor. But it wasn't fully fleshed out until Calvin.
 
Ah. So Luther thought basically in reformed terms, however, it was eventually lost by the Lutheran church then? or at least some of them? (I am referring to the third use of the law)
 
My understanding is that Luther wasn't exactly there, so to speak, as far as the third use. He wasn't an antinomian, but he didn't have warm-fuzzies for the law as a rule of life either. But as is often the case with Christians, his "working theology" was more sound in certain ways than what he professed. He taught the law, even if he didn't think of it as law.

That's how I understand it, anywho.

As a result of Luther's fuzziness on the law's role in the life of the believer, Lutherans as a whole have been fuzzy ever since. Just like Luther's stance for the "real presence" of Christ in the Supper (though he didn't have it exactly worked out) led to his followers developing a deviant Christology to explain His presence.
 
Ah. So Luther thought basically in reformed terms, however, it was eventually lost by the Lutheran church then? or at least some of them? (I am referring to the third use of the law)

As Tyler pointed out he had developed any idea of it. Outside of the Third use of the Law, you will find Reformed folk trying to paint Luther as one of us, however, in all honesty this is not the case.
 
Trent,

1. Westminster Seminary California is NOT semi-Lutheran any more than the Reformed confessions (e.g., Three Forms, Westminster Standards) are. All the magisterial Protestants confessed the same doctrine of justification, sola scriptura etc.

2. The application of the 2nd & 4th commandments at WSC is confessionally Reformed.

3. Luther didn't use the nomenclature of the tertius usus legis but he taught the substance of the doctrine against the antinomians and in the Large Catechism (1529).

4. The confessional Lutherans & Reformed differed on baptism, Christology (& consequently on the supper), reprobation, perseverance, & worship (RPW). Today, one might be surprised how Lutheran many Reformed have become, e.g., on worship. E.g. If you're singing non-canonical hymns to instruments in public worship. You're closer to Lutheran than Reformed.
 
If you're singing non-canonical hymns to instruments in public worship. You're closer to Lutheran than Reformed.
That's a pretty broad statement.

With Luther's context in a Roman Catholic world (and known skepticism of James) I'm not surprised he would be slow to embrace all aspects of the law. The Westminster divines had another 100 years (and many intervening theologians) to use when formulating a reformed view of the law.
 
Thanks for your replies! I was wondering about it all.

thanks Dr. Scott for your clarification on WSCal, I had seen something like that floating around the forum here so I had to ask...

However, one more question out of sheer ignorance since I don't attend a full-fledged confessional church, but how is worship there? No instruments? What kind of songs?
 
Non-canonical hymns

Thanks for your replies! I was wondering about it all.

thanks Dr. Scott for your clarification on WSCal, I had seen something like that floating around the forum here so I had to ask...

However, one more question out of sheer ignorance since I don't attend a full-fledged confessional church, but how is worship there? No instruments? What kind of songs?

The historic confessionally reformed churches sang or chanted only the psalms and other scriptural passages, like the Ten Commandments and Luke 1:68-79, and the creeds and other confessional statements like the Te Deum Laudamus. The Church of Scotland sang only the Psalms. They sang or chanted these without instrumental accompaniment. The Lutheran Reformation sang hymns composed by believers as well as the Psalms and creeds.
Following the Wesleyan revival hymns came to be accepted by large parts of the Church of England and in some other reformed churches
 
Luther scholars go back and forth on whether Luther held to a third use of the law (much like the debates over Calvin vs. the Calvinists). A recent work by Edward Engelbrecht, Friends of the Law: Luther's Use of the Law for the Christian Life answers the question of whether Luther believed in the third use of the law in the affirmative.

Charges of forgery, heresy, legalism, and immorality turn on the question of whether Martin Luther taught a third use of the Law for the Christian life. For the past sixty years, well-meaning scholars believed they settled the question—with dire consequences.
*
Friends of the Law sets forth a completely new body of evidence that shows how little Luther’s teaching was understood. This new book looks at the doctrine of the Law and invites a new consensus that could change the way Christians view the Reformation and even their daily walk with God.
*
Contains
data tables
translations of passages not available in English
appendices
bibliography on Law and Gospel*
**
 
If you're singing non-canonical hymns to instruments in public worship. You're closer to Lutheran than Reformed.

Amen!

The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious oaths and vows, solemn fastings and thanksgivings upon special occasions which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and religious manner.

-WCF 21.5

IT is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family.

In singing of psalms, the voice is to be tunably and gravely ordered; but the chief care must be to sing with understanding, and with grace in the heart, making melody unto the Lord.

That the whole congregation may join herein, every one that can read is to have a psalm book; and all others, not disabled by age or otherwise, are to be exhorted to learn to read. But for the present, where many in the congregation cannot read, it is convenient that the minister, or some other fit person appointed by him and the other ruling officers, do read the psalm, line by line, before the singing thereof.

-Westminster Directory of Publick Worship, Of Singing of Psalms
 
1. Westminster Seminary California is NOT semi-Lutheran any more than the Reformed confessions (e.g., Three Forms, Westminster Standards) are. All the magisterial Protestants confessed the same doctrine of justification, sola scriptura etc.

This might be true concerning justification but not about other things....

“Viewed concretely, law and Gospel differ not so much in that the law always meets us in the form of command and the Gospel in the form of promise, for the law too has promises and the Gospel too has warnings and obligations. But they differ especially in content: the law demands that man work out his own righteousness, while the Gospel invites him to renounce all self-righteousness and to receive the righteousness of Christ, to which end it even bestows the gift of faith.

Law and Gospel stand in that relationship not just before and at the point of conversion; but they continue standing in that relationship throughout the whole of the Christian life, all the way to the grave. The Lutherans have an eye almost exclusively for the accusing, condemning work of the law and therefore know of no greater salvation than liberation from the law. The law is necessary only on account of sin. According to Lutheran theology, in the state of perfection there is no law. God is free from the law; Christ was not subject to the law for Himself at all; the believer no longer stands under the law. Naturally, the Lutherans speak of a threefold use of the law, not only of a usus politicus (civilis), to restrain sin, and a usus paedagogicus, to arouse the knowledge of sin, but also of a usus didacticus, to function for the believer as a rule of living. But this last usus is nonetheless necessary simply and only because and insofar as believers are still sinners, and must still be tamed by the law, and must still be led to a continuing knowledge of sin. In itself the law ceases with the coming of faith and grace, and loses all its significance.

The Reformed, however, have thought about this in an entirely different way. The usus politicus and the usus paedagogicus of the law became necessary only accidentally because of sin; even with these uses aside, the most important usus remains, the usus didacticus or normativus. After all, the law is an expression of God’s being. As a human being Christ was subject to the law for Himself. Before the fall Adam had the law written upon his heart. With the believer it is again written upon the tablets of his heart by the Holy Spirit. And all those in heaven will walk according to the law of the Lord.

The Gospel is temporary, but the law is eternal and is restored precisely through the Gospel. Freedom from the law consists, then, not in the fact that the Christian has nothing more to do with the law, but lies in the fact that the law demands nothing more from the Christian as a condition of salvation. The law can no longer judge and condemn him. Instead he delights in the law of God according to the inner man and yearns for it day and night.

Therefore, that law must always be preached to the congregation in connection with the Gospel. Law and Gospel, the whole Word, the full counsel of God, is the content of preaching. Among Reformed people, therefore, the law occupies a much larger place than in the teaching of sin, since it is also part of the teaching of gratitude.”
[Here Bavinck has a footnote providing bibliographical references relating to the views of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Zanchius, Witsius, De Moor, Vitringa, Schneckenburger, Frank, and Gottschick.]

(from paragraph 521 of Herman Bavinck’s Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 3rd unaltered edition, vol. 4 (Kampen, J. H. Kok, 1918), emphases in bold added, and taken from this translation from the Dutch)

When you hear Professors speak from Westminster California on Law and Gospel they speak more like Lutherans. This is not just my opinion.

We can discuss a lot of other things like Meredith Kline who is basically the Mentor of Westminster California and his views of the Mosaic and law and Gospel.

I have raised these issues myself. What is the Gospel? I have blogs and posts below that discuss this.


http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/kline-karlburg-not-confessional-concerning-mosaic-69258/#post889328

Following the book The Law Is Not of Faith (see pp. 10-11, 43), R.S. Clark believes that chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith “clearly suggests” that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai. The argument goes something like this: Westminster Confession of Faith 19.1 states, God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works. Paragraph 2 begins with “This law,” obviously referring to the law described in paragraph 1. Since the law in paragraph 1 was described as a covenant of works, the law of paragraph 2 must be as well.

This argument is nothing new as it is one that I addressed in a journal article back in 2004, which you can find here. Its appearance in the book TLNF, however, may well be the first time it has appeared in print. And quite frankly I am surprised to see the editors using it because it is such a poor argument and one that is easily answered. Chapter 19 does not say that the covenant of works was delivered or republished at Mt. Sinai. It says the law was delivered at Mt. Sinai. What law? “This law” of paragraph 2 does refer to the law in paragraph 1, i.e. the one given to Adam as a covenant of works. But what the editors of the book TLNF and Clark fail to see is that “This law” is further defined in paragraphs 3, 5, and 6. In these sections we learn that “this law” is the moral law (paragraph 3), which is the perfect rule of righteousness (paragraph 2) binding on all persons in all ages (paragraph 5) and is given to true believers not as a covenant of works (paragraph 6). Therefore, WCF 19 clearly does not clearly suggest or indicate that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai.

Now since the law that was delivered at Mt. Sinai was the moral law, it is the same law that was given to Adam in the garden. Indeed it is the same law that binds all men in every age as the Confession rightly says. Consequently, it is correct say that part of the content of the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai and for that matter in the new covenant since the moral law is restated there as well. This is what Brent Ferry calls material republication (see TLNF, 91-92). It is important to note, however, that this is republication of the law and not the covenant of works. This is why it is misleading to refer to material republication as a sense of the republication of the covenant of works. There is a difference between law and covenant or at least the Puritans thought there is. In other words, to say that the law (or content of the covenant of works) was republished is different from saying that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai.

Notice in 19.1 of the Confession that the law given to Adam is qualified by the phrase “as a covenant of works.” This qualifier is missing in paragraph 2 and it is replaced with “a perfect rule of righteousness.” In the garden the law was a perfect rule of righteousness and the condition of the covenant of works. But at Mt. Sinai the law no longer serves as the condition of a covenant of works though it does continue to be a perfect rule of righteousness. It is this Puritan and Confessional distinction that Clark and the editors of TLNF fail to incorporate in their reading of chapter 19. As a result they completely misread the Confession.

If we would follow the Confession’s teaching on the law as explained in chapter 19 it is imperative that we distinguish between the law as given to Adam from the law as given to Israel. James Durham explains:

Then you would distinguish between this law, as given to Adam, and as given to Israel. For as given to him, it was a covenant of works; but, as given to them, it was a covenant of grace; and so from us now it calls for gospel duties, as faith in Christ (1 Tim. 1:5), repentance, hope in God, etc. And although it call for legal duties, yet in a gospel-manner; therefore we are in the first commandment commanded to have God for our God, which cannot be obeyed by sinners but in Christ Jesus; the covenant of works being broken, and the tie of friendship thereby between God and man made void. So that now men, as to that covenant, are without God in the world, and without Christ and the promises (Eph. 2:21-13). And so our having God for our God (which is pointed at in the preface to the commandments) and Christ for our Savior, and closing with his righteousness, and the promises of the covenant (which are all yea and amen in him) must go together.[1]


I might also add that I find it quite ironic that Klineans appeal to Fisher and Boston for support of the republication of the covenant of works. The position advocated by Fisher and Boston is one that is repudiated by Kline. Furthermore, their (mis)reading of chapter 19 would support the position of Fisher and Boston but there is no way it could support Kline’s republication view. Perhaps this is why they tend to argue for republication in general (“in some sense”) and not for specific views of republication. But of course it is fallacious to argue that since republication in some sense is found in the Reformed tradition that therefore a particular view of republication is Reformed. I have previously argued that the particular view espoused by Kline and Karlberg, like its closest predecessor, namely the view held by Samuel Bolton, is incompatible with the Westminster Standards
(see here).

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/gospel-sanctification-674/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/confusing-law-gospel-675/
 
Last edited:
Mr. Snyder,

Great quote, though I never knew Bavink wrote in such a large hand. :lol:

I didn't know he wrote in English. LOL

BTW, I don't think this is just an issue about the third use of the law. WSCal affirms the third use of the law. It is about what the Gospel is and what soteriology is. It is about Covenant Theology and how it has a unity. I remained a Reformed Baptist for many years holding on to what some at WSCal believed till I saw the unity in the Covenants.

This is a part of my Journey... I know the links don't work but the message is still there.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/mosaic-covenant-same-substance-new-724/
 
Any time you want to know what a “Lutheran” belief is read The Book of Concord on it. Read what Melanchthon wrote in article 20 (XX) of The Augsburg Confession and than his defense of it in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, especially at the end of the Apology article. The context of the Apology must be taken into consideration in that it was a response to a Confutation{/I] by RCC theologians. So naturally it at first defends the Gospel over and against Roman errors. Oh Melanchthon wrote these early in his career when he was in most agreement with Luther.

Next in The Book of Concord is The Smalcald Articles written by Luther. If you read Part 3, section 2 you will see his words on the law. He does almost exclusively emphasize the function of the law to show us our sins. But again the historical occasion of the Articles was towards a RCC council to discuss these matters, so it is no surprise that Luther emphasized this function against the RCC. But when you look in the next section at Luther’s "Larger" and "Smaller" Catechism, directed towards Lutheran Christians, he gives entire sections on the Christian’s duty to obey the law. He gives expositions on what the Christian should know to obey the Ten Commandments.

The Formula of Concord rounds out the discussion and has already been posted by Thomas. To give some background this was a response to divisions and “controversies” amongst theologians who “dissented” about their understanding of The Augsburg Confession. It is the final say in Lutheran Orthodoxy on those matters in which it touches upon. My whole point is this “confessionally” you cannot argue that Lutherans are antinomian or downplaying the Third Use of the Law. It just cannot be done. I respect Dr. Clark and the entire faculty of Wes. Cal., even where I respectfully disagree with them. But on this issue they are right.
 
As I noted above.... It isn't about the third use of the law....(well, it might be in some ways with modern guys) I believe this issue about the law and gospel is still a hotbed issue. It is about the Gospel and soteriology as a whole. Modern Reformed Thought is not Historical as I understand it. It has changed to a more dichotomous view over defining the distinctions between justification, sanctification, and glorification. The emphasis of Reformed Thought over Modern Reformed Thought has been vigorously debated on the board.
 
This is a comment I made somewhere else. It is about recent discussions that have been going on. It bleeds into another area of controversy that most recently is a hotbed of issue also. R2K. It stems from the same controversy I believe. Now this thread is not about R2K. But I do believe they are inter related.

Rev. Stellman he has lost his moorings and is confused. I believe his confusion comes in light that he has forgotten the distinctions that are inter related to the gospel.

There are distinctions in the gospel concerning justification. James speaks of these. St. Paul makes note of these. He has also not shown the distinctions between justification, sanctification, and glorification as they are all parts of the gospel. Some don't like to say this. They propose that the Gospel is something totally objective and only pertains to a message and something outside of us.

Some in the Reformed faith have made dichotomies of these doctrines. Law and Gospel are opposed to each other in their thinking when they are not. Especially in the Covenant of Grace. Jason Stellman held to this Lutheran view and I believe it ended up confusing him. I have a lot on my blog discussing this issue.
The Reformed, however, have thought about this in an entirely different way. The usus politicus and the usus paedagogicus of the law became necessary only accidentally because of sin; even with these uses aside, the most important usus remains, the usus didacticus or normativus. After all, the law is an expression of God’s being. As a human being Christ was subject to the law for Himself. Before the fall Adam had the law written upon his heart. With the believer it is again written upon the tablets of his heart by the Holy Spirit. And all those in heaven will walk according to the law of the Lord.

The Gospel is temporary, but the law is eternal and is restored precisely through the Gospel. Freedom from the law consists, then, not in the fact that the Christian has nothing more to do with the law, but lies in the fact that the law demands nothing more from the Christian as a condition of salvation. The law can no longer judge and condemn him. Instead he delights in the law of God according to the inner man and yearns for it day and night.

The Gospel in total is about reconciliation. Tell me the Gospel leaves the law separate and in a place that is dichotomous to it.

(Psa 19:7) The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

(Psa 19:8) The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.






 
Last edited:
The Heidelberg Catechism was written to show the continuity of the Reformed with Confessional Lutheranism. As I read Michael Horton it is obvious to me that he stands in the Heidelberg tradition not the Westminster tradition or the confessional Lutheran tradition.
 
Here is a link to a good summary from Louis Berkhof. Key issue being that those who see the law and gospel as total opposites as the Klinean devotees do, are simply not in the Reformed mainstream:

The Law and the Gospel
 
The Heidelberg Catechism was written to show the continuity of the Reformed with Confessional Lutheranism. As I read Michael Horton it is obvious to me that he stands in the Heidelberg tradition not the Westminster tradition or the confessional Lutheran tradition.
He is Hegelian then.... Finding a middle ground. His language is not confusing to me. Maybe you read it as an Anglican one. This is not to degrade your understanding... Believe me.

The Heidelberg Catechism was written to show the continuity of the Reformed with Confessional Lutheranism.

BTW, I am not so sure this is totally correct. Maybe it is. I am wondering if it wasn't written to move on the Confessing Church in defining it's stance. The Reformed faith was growing.
 
Randy,

1. I did not learn my understanding of the law/gospel distinction from Meredith Kline. I learned it from Calvin, Olevianus, and Theodore Beza to name just three. Some resources:

Audio: A lecture on Olevianus' defense of the distinction between law and gospel.

A Resource List on Covenant Theology

Reformed Sources on the law/gospel distinction

There is a chapter in this book that explains the classical Reformed distinction.

2. The historic Reformed distinction is more nuanced than some posts above suggest. There are ways in which law and gospel are juxtaposed and ways in which they agree entirely. This distinction should not be dismissed lightly since its recovery was foundational to the Reformation. Notice please that Calvin used it repeatedly (often but not always distinguishing between law and grace when making the hermeneutical distinction and between law and gospel when making a historical distinction) and never criticized Luther for making the distinction.

As I've pointed out many times here and elsewhere Beza, no Lutheran, made the hermeneutical distinction between law and gospel fundamental to understanding Scripture. It's Rome, the Federal Visionists, and other moralists who deny it.

Take a look at and listen to these resources.

rsc
 
Dr. Clark, In all due respect..

Randy,

1. I did not learn my understanding of the law/gospel distinction from Meredith Kline. I learned it from Calvin, Olevianus, and Theodore Beza to name just three.
Are you denying Kline had any influence though.

The problem with the above is that the Reformed perspective is not presented in full light in my estimation as I knew it before someone dropped out of sight. As noted in above posts. Yes, Maybe Beza made the distinction but it is being made dichotomous now days. And you know this Dr. Clark. I believe we have confronted you here about this also. Do you want to rehash it? I think it should be rehashed. At least the word distinction is being used now. But the view of Gospel and law as being opposed... Have we done some refining? I need to find out.

I remember a lot from the past concerning your discussions with Rev. Winzer and my discussions on what the Gospel is as per your friends who are Klinean.

I believe the following addresses some of this..... It directly makes you the target and your theology. The whole thread does...

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/kline-karlburg-not-confessional-concerning-mosaic-69258/#post889328
 
Last edited:
As I've pointed out many times here and elsewhere Beza, no Lutheran, made the hermeneutical distinction between law and gospel fundamental to understanding Scripture. It's Rome, the Federal Visionists, and other moralists who deny it.

Dr. Clark,

While I have not read your work on the law/Gospel distinction, I know that when I was drunk with the wine of the Federal Vision, I was confused and paralyzed by not understanding the hermeneutical distinction between the two. My elders (who were not my elders at the time) graciously walked me through the distinction, and brought me to the Confessional view. I'm forever indebted to them for this, and the law/Gospel distinction is now one of the most important parts of understanding what a passage means for me personally. I firmly believe that the law is a gracious gift to the believer, and that we should endeavor to keep it with all our heart, mind, and strength. But it is rigidly distinct from the Gospel.

The Gospel frees us from the curse of the law, and frees us to obey the law uninhibited by the debt of sin.
 
The Gospel frees us from the curse of the law, and frees us to obey the law uninhibited by the debt of sin.

In all due respect Tyler, Dr. Clark would not say anything different. I wouldn't either. This is a bit more nuanced maybe concerning the Mosaic and our confession. It also has to do with other things a bit more complex. And it shouldn't be but we have been so inundated by modern media. That is something Dr. Clark is leaving out here in my estimation.
 
The Gospel frees us from the curse of the law, and frees us to obey the law uninhibited by the debt of sin.

In all due respect Tyler, Dr. Clark would not say anything different. I wouldn't either. This is a bit more nuanced maybe concerning the Mosaic and our confession. It also has to do with other things a bit more complex. And it shouldn't be but we have been so inundated by modern media. That is something Dr. Clark is leaving out here in my estimation.

Okay. I think I see. I suppose you're talking about the "recapitulation of the covenant of works" view. While I have not studied that position out at length, I can't find any support for it in Moses, Paul, or elsewhere. Not to mention it seems contrary to the gracious nature of the Mosaic covenant.

Is that what y'all are getting at?
 
Yes, Tyler.... This is a law gospel (or grace) dichotomy issue. I believe Republication is the term and not Recapitulation.
 
In all due respect to the above.... I honestly believe that things are being left out by Dr. Clark. We can even go to D. G. Hart and Dr. Horton. I have numerous quotes. I am not a Theonomists nor someone who advocates the position. I am not a Federal Visionist. These guys know that. Dr. Clark knows what is being discussed and what is being said. He has been called out by others on this platform for this. In my estimation these Profs from WSCal are still learning. They need to be better refined and define things better since they are training our future Pastors. Just my humble opinion. This discussion is ongoing and very intense. Yes, they are Lutheran and not Reformed in my estimation. There are works in the process to show this. This is a work. It is like the situation we just went through the past 20 years in learning what the New Paul Perspective and Federal Vision was. I can't believe that that situation took place. It was more distinguishable in my estimation. This one is working itself out.


The first sight I list below is good for quoting many historical references.


https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/

http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=199

https://d3ecc98b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...iWUb2J24nR-Kd7FTSDTLa5Zjq7kNg=&attredirects=0

http://www.kerux.com/pdf/Kerux.24.03.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top