What are the distinctives between Reformed and Lutheran theology/churches?

[Sam Owen]

is there anyone that can give me a quick and reliable outline of the distinctives between Reformed and Lutheran theology/churches? I'm from a Reformed Baptist background myself. Thanks for any help. Also, if there are already threads about this that might be useful, a link to them would be muchly appreciated.

 

[Grimmson]

The main differences is in regards to views of the Lord’s Supper ( Reformed-Sacramental union vs. Luther’s In, With, and Under) and worship with RPW(Reformed) vs. whatever not forbidden in scripture (Lutheran).

 

[Grimmson]

Both Lutheran and Reformed Theology as a whole recognize the real presence of Christ, it is just a matter of how. Reformed Baptist however is a different story here. We recognize the spiritual nourishment and growth in the supper, but do not necessarily see the presence of Christ in the same way as are Reformed brothers and sisters. I would see chapter 30 of the 2LBC on that point. Lutherans hold that the real presences of the flesh and blood of Christ is in, with, and under the elements of bread and the wine so that you are really consuming Christ. This is different then the Roman view of the elements being transformed substantively into the flesh and blood of Christ. The Lutheran view called consubstantiation. The reformed do not see the elements as transferred or physically with Christ, but is instead united to Christ spiritually in faith.

In redards to worship, Lutherans see more freedom in forms then the Reformed with the RPW (regulative principle of worship), which is based partly for the reformed on the 2nd commandment of the decalouge.

 

[Sam Owen]

Thanks, dude

 

[Skyler]

So, Lutherans aren't technically Reformed?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

"Protestant" is the appropriate umbrella term. "Reformational" might be another adjective that covers all of us who look back to that era as formative. However, a Protestant really takes his heritage back to an orderly Reformation, while certain anabaptist (et al) strains would also identify the "Reformation period" as significant.

For several decades into the mid-to-late 16th century, all of us were "Lutheran." When politics (both civil and ecclesial) grew nasty, there was a distinct break. Partly, the issue went back to Luther vs. Zwingli. The Swiss-reformation looked a little different from Germany, because the whole place was a network of small confederate states. The theology of Geneva came to exercise the greatest influence, and that influence extended after a while into places like Basel, Heidelberg, Netherlands, etc., and into southern German regions (Germany as any kind of political entity was nonexistent).

Zwingli died, and in his place came Bullinger, who was even closer to Calvin's thought than was Zwingli. But the issues that had kept Luther and Zwingli apart continued to be projected upon all the Swiss, who were being tagged as "Reformed" to distinguish them from the "stricter" Lutherans. The Lutherans came to pejoratively call anyone to the "left" of them "Reformed," to include the fanatics (just as anyone to their "right" was Roman).


The major issues of difference with Confessional Reformed churches are:
1) Sacramentology; on Baptism and the Lord's Supper there are clear differences

2) Christology; we Reformed see a confusion effected by their insistence upon a full-communication of attributes to the two natures of Christ (reflected in the L.S.)

3) Worship; which we see them as not following enough of a radical (root) principle


We, the Reformed, are typically (careful with the generalizations) willing to grant a lot more charity to our Lutheran brothers, than they are to reciprocate. As someone pointed out in another thread, the strictest Confessionally cannot even pray with us. We would receive them at our Lord's Supper (if our practice was not fully closed, but open to members of an evangelical church); but they wouldn't receive us at their celebration.

 

[Grimmson]

So, Lutherans aren't technically Reformed?

No, Reformed are not now Lutheran and Lutheran are not Reformed. We do share a common history though. Particularly in relation to soteriology, as it relates to alien faith and imputed righteousness for justification, and the Law and Gospel distinction. The reason why I didn’t go into baptismal differences is because I have run across some reports and claims of reformed holding to infant faith in relation to baptism. I gave mention of a Presbyterian book that was showing evidence of that, but I have not read it yet. Pretty early on there were reformed protestants who were calling themselves Lutheran, at least according to my Dr. Clark Mid-Ref lectures. So early on, the relationship between the two as it falls under the Calvinistic stream was closely aligned and were considered mutual. It be sort like today with Reformed Baptist wanting to call themselves Reformed and Reformed folk claiming Reformed Baptist are not Reformed and should not call themselves such. Likewise, the reformed were the same way with the Lutherans. I couldn’t say when that exactly shifted though, but it was after Zwingli and closely around Calvin. Also I think it is important to realize that there are Lutherans that do not even agree with their own orthodox confession today (at least in spirit), therefore we should keep in mind in this discussion the historical difference between the Reformed and Lutheran, and not the varying different types out there that might not fit our traditional distinctions.

Good question though.

 

[A.J.]

is there anyone that can give me a quick and reliable outline of the distinctives between Reformed and Lutheran theology/churches? I'm from a Reformed Baptist background myself. Thanks for any help. Also, if there are already threads about this that might be useful, a link to them would be muchly appreciated.

R. Scott Clark has a nice chart showing the major differences between them:

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

 

[jwright82]

One major difference is that Reformed theology is throughly covanental while Lutheranism is not. Soteriologically we are very much alike but this major difference does lead to differences in out look. To be fair to both sides there is much that we agree on but you could never do our differences and similaraties justice in a single post. If there is a particuler issue you wanted to know about that might be better to help you understand the two different traditions better.

 

[Casey]

Lutheranism sometimes allows justification to swallow up sanctification and undermine (or even deny) the third use of the law on the basis of their imposed law/gospel, imperative/indicative hermeneutic through which they force interpret Scripture (cf. Luther's rejection of James). The Reformed place the doctrine of justification in a covenantal framework, making the great scriptural divide not law/gospel but rather covenant of works/covenant of grace. This difference brought Vos to critique Lutheranism as making soteriology paramount (justification as the greatest interpretive principle; thus anthropocentric), whereas the Reformed consider doxology paramount (God's glory as the greatest interpretive principle; thus theocentric). See the chapter on covenant theology in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I made a blog about this issue a while back.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/p...storical-understanding-reformed-theology-316/

Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology Edit Blog Entry
Rate this Entry


Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology

edited... a bit of time has passed.

Here is a link to Matthew MacMahon’s article What Does It Mean To Be Reformed.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/covena...o-be-reformed-really-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/

This blog was a response to all of those who were conflicted over Dr. R. Scott Clark’s comments on an old blog post he wrote that no longer exists.

Dr. Clark said, "Calling a Baptist “Reformed” is like calling Presbyterians “Baptist” because they believe in believer’s baptism. The Reformed churches do practice the baptism of unbaptized believers but they also baptize the infants of believers. No self-respecting, confessional Baptist should accept me as “Baptist” and Reformed folk should resist labeling anyone who rejects most of Reformed theology as “Reformed.”


This comment got a lot of attention on his blog back then. Especially since he had a readership that includes many Reformed Baptists. I use to be one of them.

I would agree with this comment by Rev. Matthew Winzer on the Puritanboard.com, "I think the last time this was discussed the consensus was that "reformed" before "baptist" is one thing, and "reformed" on its own is another. Reformed Baptists are just that -- Baptists who have become reformed. But they are still distinct from reformed churches."

Just to clarify some things here, I believe everyone is getting up in arms over terms they have endeared themselves to. Let me give you all an example. A Pastor friend of mine wrote a blog defining what a Reformed Baptist was. http://www.prbctoledo.org/beliefs/convictions/ This of course made some Baptists upset because they wanted to be included as Reformed Baptists but they were dispensational (denying Covenant Theology) or had problems with one of the other points that Pastor David Charles included in his definition of what a Reformed Baptist is. These guys generally are New Covenant Theologians or Calvinistic Dispensationalists as John MacArthur. Just as some of the Calvinistic Baptists were offended by Pastor Charles, many Credo Baptists are finding themselves offended at Dr. Clark's insinuation that Baptists are not Reformed Theologians.

The term Reformed Baptist is a rather new one in church history. It was developed around the time that Ernest Reisinger was starting to work with Banner of Truth Trust by bringing good Puritan and Reformed writings back to the American Churches. He was the first ordained Preaching Layman in a Presbyterian Church. He was undecided about his position concerning baptism when he was ordained to preach. But he became a Credo Covenantal Baptist as time went on. It has been thought by some that Ernie's close association with Banner of Truth Trust (A Reformed Publishing Company) and his adherence to the Credo-Baptist position that somehow made the two terms come together.

Historic Baptist theology was being rediscovered during this time. Dispensationalism had taken over much of the church in the mid 1900's. And it is not the Historic Theology of the Reformers. It denies Covenant Theology and formed a new basis of hermeneutics and how others looked at portions of scripture. This dispensational hermeneutic interpreted the Bible in portions claiming that some sections were only meant for the Jews and certain periods of time and other sections were for everyone and others just for the gentiles. Example…Matthew chapter 5 is just for the Jews in the Millennium. This was foreign to Covenant Theology and very unbiblical. Ernie helped in a major way to get the Church back on track by being a representative for Banner of Truth Trust and promoting Covenantal thinking back into the American Church. To the dismay of some, even some Presbyterian's took up with dispensational teaching.

Historically the Puritan Credo Pastors in the 1600's were not known as Reformed but as Particular Baptists. They did hold to a Covenant Theology much like the Reformers but more closely to a Covenant Theology that was taught by John Owen and Samuel Petto. The New is not the Old renewed. It is New. They held to a unity of the Covenant of Grace through out the scriptures but more discontinuity between the particular covenants that God had instituted through Abraham, Moses, etc. These Baptists also adhered to the same soteriology of the Reformers. But they held to a different understanding of who was a Covenant Member in the Covenant of Grace. They believed that only the Elect were Covenant Members in the Covenant of Grace. The Confessional Reformers held that the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants were administrations of the Covenant of Grace and that it included both the elect and non-elect per their physical covenantal lineage.

There are Baptists today who call themselves Reformed Baptists because they hold to the 5 points of Calvinism but they are not Covenant Theologians. Some have developed a new theology called New Covenant Theology. It denies the Covenant of Works and some deny one Covenant of Grace. Some may tend to be antinomian in some ways.

The term Reformed (as it has been used in Church history) has been prostituted from the Confessional understanding of what it meant to be Reformed. It has lost some of its defined power because of those who wish to be called reformed when in fact they are not according to Confessional Christians.

When Matthew McMahan challenged me on what Reformed meant, when I first joined the Puritanboard.com, I was slightly offended because he said I wasn't reformed. I just said he wasn't reformed enough. I was ignorant about what he meant in its historical theological understanding. I was thinking of Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, Calvin, Bunyan, Owen, and all those during the time of the reformation and thinking that I was following their teachings. But some would say that Luther and Melancthon are not Reformed. I guess it depends on what you are referring to when you say Reformed. I think when a person is defining what Reformed is it matters what a person is referring to in relation to the time period or a system of doctrinal understanding. According to the Presbyterian's and Reformed Confessional Churches those who are Reformed are those who follow a theology and practice. They are correct. Reformed Theology is based upon an historical and theological understanding.

Reformed Baptists are not Reformed Theologians. They are Particular Baptist Theologians defined by their theology and practice as Reformed Theologians are by their's.

Be Encouraged,
R. Martin Snyder

 

[Sam Owen]

Thanks for all the helpful remarks!

 

[jwright82]

Lutheranism sometimes allows justification to swallow up sanctification and undermine (or even deny) the third use of the law on the basis of their imposed law/gospel, imperative/indicative hermeneutic through which they force interpret Scripture (cf. Luther's rejection of James). The Reformed place the doctrine of justification in a covenantal framework, making the great scriptural divide not law/gospel but rather covenant of works/covenant of grace. This difference brought Vos to critique Lutheranism as making soteriology paramount (justification as the greatest interpretive principle; thus anthropocentric), whereas the Reformed consider doxology paramount (God's glory as the greatest interpretive principle; thus theocentric). See the chapter on covenant theology in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos.

Great post. Although I would disagree with two points you made regarding Lutheranism.

1. They do not deny the third use of the law. The Formula of Concord adressed this issue and declared the Third Use of The Law. It seems that a homiletical preference to stress the use of the law to drive sinners to the Cross in keeping with the Law/Gospel distinction has been mistakingly taken to infer that Lutherans do not stress the Third Use of The Law.

2. That its beleif in Justification by Faith Alone as the greatest interpretive principle makes it anthropocentric, they would not see it this way they would see it as making "All Theology As Christology" to quote David P. Scaer (a contemporary Lutheran theologian). It is the Gospel that is essentially in view here. A good place to see this principle worked out is the Smalcald Articles by Luther, contained in The Book of Concord (the Lutheran confessions).

---------- Post added at 10:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 AM ----------

Here is a good website for free info on Lutheran theology.
Lutheran Theology Web Site

 

[jwright82]

All Theology is Christology.

Here is an article by Scaer where I got my quote from.

 

[cih1355]

Lutherans believe that baptism is God's work and that the word of God is combined with water to form baptism. They believe that the word of God comes to the person being baptized and regenerates him. They don't believe that water has some inherent properties that causes regeneration. It is the word of God coming through the water that causes regeneration. Hence, they would say "baptism saves you." They don't believe that baptism is man's work so they would deny that salvation is received through man's work. They believe that Christ alone saves people from their sin.

Would Lutherans today agree with Luther's book, The Bondage of the Will?

 

[jwright82]

Would Lutherans today agree with Luther's book, The Bondage of the Will?

On the whole yes, conffessional Lutherans would but their realation to Luther is like our relation to Calvin. Calvinist is a somewhat shorthand term for the whole of Reformed theology not strictly everything Calvin taught in antithesis to his predeccessors or followers. In the same vain Lutheranism has its own rich theological history to draw from as well.

If you read the Apology of Augsberg Conffession on the "Freedom of The Will: Article XVIII", than it sounds much more like Luther than the original Augsberg Conffession on this point. Also see the Formula of Concord on this point as well, you can read both of those on that Lutheran Theology website I gave.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Reformed Baptist however is a different story here. We recognize the spiritual nourishment and growth in the supper, but do not necessarily see the presence of Christ in the same way as are Reformed brothers and sisters. I would see chapter 30 of the 2LBC on that point.

I keep hearing this! I don't think you can safely pigeon-hole all RBs into this category. I for one affirm the Reformed view of the Supper and believe the BCF 1689 articulates, or is at least consistent with this view. At the most, the difference is nuanced and hard to draw a clear distinction.

I don't believe the framers of the BCF 1689 were attempting to articulate a different or new position but instead framing a statement that would allow those of differing persuasions to subscribe to it without reservation.

 

[jonjordan]

No, Reformed are not now Lutheran and Lutheran are not Reformed.

Great concise way to sum it up, thanks

 

[dudley]

The Lutheran view of the sacraments especially the Lords Supper is not at all Reformed and actually it is very close to the Roman catholic view. I agree with pastor Buchanan. I am a Calvinist Presbyterian and I believe as did John Calvin that we are spiritually fed Christ’s Body and blood at the service of the Lords Supper. In an article “The Contemplative Shape of Calvin’s Eucharistic Thought” by Michael J. Pahls the following is a beautiful explanation of what we believe as Presbyterians and Reformed Protestants. He says of Calvin’s teaching on the Lords Supper “This “Spiritual” feeding on the body and blood of Christ are symbolized for the believer, whose faith is nourished, sustained, and increased. This is, of course, the point of the symbol. Calvin does not halt at a mere parallelism, however. As has been seen, the Eucharistic symbols have an instrumental function. The Holy Spirit, then is active in the Supper, feeding the believer by nourishing, sustaining, and increasing the mystical union “just as” the believer partakes of the bread and wine. The elements thus retain their substance, but the spiritual reality cannot be separated from them. Calvin, however, has maintained that the body and blood of Jesus Christ are locally present at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. How, then can there be a true feeding?

The high water point of Calvin’s mystical turn is in his theology of the “Eucharistic Ascent”. Rather than dragging Christ down to earth under the form of corruptible elements, Calvin argues that believers must be “raised up” to heaven in order to feed upon him there. In the 1539 edition of the Institutes, he argues,
But if we are lifted up to heaven with our eyes and minds to seek Christ there in the glory of his Kingdom, so under the symbol of bread we shall be fed by his body, [and] under the symbol of wine we shall separately drink his blood to enjoy him at last in his wholeness. For though he has taken his flesh away from us, and in the body has ascended into heaven, yet he sits at the right hand of the Father


Calvin takes a similar tack when offering critique of the Roman Catholic practice of adoring the consecrated host. The Lutheran view of consubstantiation in my mind is as much an abomination of the sacrament as the roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation. Far from being a sanctioned practice to facilitate Eucharistic contemplation, Calvin says this practice is an idol which evokes a vain imagination: “For what is idolatry if not this: to worship the gifts in place of the Giver himself? In this there is a double transgression: for both the honor taken from God has been transferred to the creature, and he himself is also dishonored in the defilement and profanation of his gift, when the holy Sacrament is made a hateful idol”

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

What is the Lutheran view of the Covenants?

 

[jwright82]

What is the Lutheran view of the Covenants?

They to my knowledge do not incorperate the idea of covenant in their theology very much. I have read Robert Kolb say that this is because Luther saw many theologians of the meadevel days as using the idea to promote works rightoussness, like FVer's today. I think that this is one area were Lutheranism is lacking because of how important covenant theology is to the whole of redemptive-history.

 

[KaphLamedh]

the distinctives between Reformed and Lutheran theology/churches?

At least baptism (infant baptism) and Lord´s supper.
I have to add that lutherans are "infant baptism-only".