I know one of the issues which comes up sometimes is the fundamental differences between Reformed theology and Lutheran theology. Certain doctrines such as ‘law and gospel’ or ‘justification by faith alone’ are said to be particularly Lutheran, and that Reformed theology maintains a significantly variant version.
But it appears to me that this distinction may have been overdone. Let me quote the historic Reformed theologians B. B. Warfield:
“It is unfortunate that a great body of the scientific discussion which, since Max Goebel […] first clearly posited the problem, has been carried on somewhat vigorously with a view to determining the fundamental principle of Calvinism, has sought particularly to bring out its contrast with some other theological tendency, commonly with the sister Protestant tendency of Lutheranism. Undoubtedly somewhat different spirits inform Calvinism and Lutheranism.”(1)
“But it is gravely misleading to identify the formative principle of either type of Protestantism with its prominent points of difference from the others. They have vastly more in common than in distinction. And nothing could be more misleading than to trace all their differences, as to their roots, to the fundamental place given in the two systems respectively to the principles of predestination and justification by faith.”
“Just as little can the doctrine of justification by faith be represented as specifically Lutheran. It is as central to the Reformed as to the Lutheran system. Nay, it is only in the Reformed system that it retains the purity of its conception and resists the tendency to make it a doctrine of justification on account of; instead of by, faith. It is true that Lutheranism is prone to rest in faith as a kind of ultimate fact, while Calvinism penetrates to its causes, and places faith in its due relation to the other products of God’s activity looking to the salvation of man. And this difference may, on due consideration, conduct us back to the formative principle of each type of thought. But it, too, is rather an outgrowth of the divergent formative principles than the embodiment of them. Lutheranism, sprung from the throes of a guilt-burdened soul seeking peace with God, finds peace in faith, and stops right there. It is so absorbed in rejoicing in the blessings which flow from faith that it refuses or neglects to inquire whence faith itself flows. It thus loses itself in a sort of divine euthumia, and knows, and will know nothing beyond the peace of the justified soul. Calvinism asks with the same eagerness as Lutheranism the great question, “What shall I do to be saved?” and answers it precisely as Lutheranism answers it. But it cannot stop there. The deeper question presses upon it, “Whence this faith by which I am justified?” And the deeper response suffuses all the chambers of the soul with praise, “From the free gift of God alone, to the praise of the glory of His grace.” Thus Calvinism withdraws the eye from the soul and its destiny and fixes it on God and His glory. It has zeal, no doubt, for salvation but its highest zeal is for the honour of God, and it is this that quickens its emotions and vitalizes its efforts. It begins, it centres and it ends with the vision of God in His glory and it sets itself; before all things, to render to God His rights in every sphere of life-activity.”
So clearly, there are differences, between the two traditions; Reformed Theology seeks to dig deeper and give all the glory everywhere to God. But it is essential to realize that they both start at the same point! The same doctrine. They don’t fundamentally disagree. Calvinism just goes further in explaining it.
So, this begs the question: why would some want to maintain a distance between the Reformed and Lutheran positions? Why would we want to draw separation between these two Protestant traditions which, when regarding these fundamental doctrines, have historically seemed merely to emphasize their solidarity?
_____________
(1) B. B. Warfield Collection, found at: http://www.agessoftware.com/ages_warfield_collection_excerpt_1.html
It is in the Calvinist exposition of these theological concepts that the differences and disagreements manifest themselves. For example: Calvinism typically holds to a double predestination where as Lutheranism holds to a single predestiantion. They are both predestination by justification, but there are differences.
I also think it’s unfair to say that Calvinism “just goes further in explaining it.” Many Lutheran theologians, starting with Philip Melanchthon have worked hard on the meaning of “law and gospel” and “justification by faith through grace.”
Craig, thanks for your comments.
Yeah, and my thought, I suppose, is that Calvinism has attempted to point everything back to God… So that as a system, it is God Centered. E.G. WCF Q.A. 1. What is the chief end of man? To glorify God and enjoy him forever.
Where as the Lutheran understanding (as far as I know, which isn’t much) seems not to stress the same emphases on God’s sovereignty and glory, and may be more content to remain focused on his benefits and comforts (e.g. justification), which I don’t necessarily think is bad.
First, to Craig: Calvinism typically does not hold to double predestination, precisely because of an emphasis on total depravity. You don’t need God to work sin in people who are hopelessly depraved.
Brenden: Interesting quote. I wasn’t aware of any significant differences in the respective views of justification by faith. I’m not sure how “deeper” a calvinist might be able to go because of a difference in theology, but it’s certainly high register, whatever it is. I don’t have any objection there.
I think the Calvinist’s resistance to Lutheranism seems to hinge primarily on the third use of the law. However, I’ll admit that my understanding of Luther’s view is pretty weak – I have always thought of Agricola’s view as “Lutheranism” – not intentionally, that just seems to be the popular Calvinist view. I’d be interested to know what Luther actually thought about the third use of the law.
Jerid,
Yeah, that’s a good point. And I’ve thought there is definitely something there as well, regarding the different approaches to the law in it’s normative use.
My thought is that although Luther decidedly affirmed the 3rd use, Lutheranism more broadly has not traditionally stressed it. This would make sense of the various reactions against antinomianism throughout different periods (eg. Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s teaching against ‘cheap grace’).
As for the different doctrines of Justification: There is view which seems to maintain that Calvin was attempting to drive a line of compromise between Luther and Rome, and that as such, the Reformed doctrine is somewhat of middle way.
Your thoughts?
Brenden – I’m not familiar with the argument. I hardly see Calvin as a middle way; who is it that sees him as such?
I’ve always seen Luther as negative on the third use of the law, and Calvin as positive, but I’m realizing that such a view is overly simplistic. Later Lutherans seem to have slurried my own view of Luther.
J.Kru
Double predestination does not imply that God works sin in people. It means that God elects some individuals to salvation and others to damnation.
Single predestination holds that one can reject God’s gift of salvation and it is sin that condemns one to damnation.
I think it does, actually. Wayne Grudem writes in his _Systematic Theology_ that “the term double predestination,is not a helpful term because it gives the impression that both election and reprobation are carried out in the same way by God and have no essential differences between them.” I take this (along with some other things that I don’t have on hand) is that double predestination generally implies that God works sin in the reprobate as he works righteousness in the elect, and this is most definitely not a part of mainstream Calvinism.
However, if “double predestination” is defined as you have, (and I’m sure that there are some theologians who would agree with you on this) I would agree that this is a part of Calvinism.
B. B. Warfield, Lutheranism, and Justification…
Fellow seminarian, Brenden Link, cites B. B. Warfield, “The Lion of Princeton” on the differences between Calvinism and Lutheranism, especially in regard to Justification. It seems this message from the theologian, exegete, and historian is…
While I agree that this doctrine is definitely agreeable, the Lutheran doctrine of Christology, Sacramentology differ in regards to the communication of Attributes. They hold to a more Cyrillian view of Christology, namely that the human is deified and receives it properties and the divine humanized.
This affected Sacramentology directly and ecclesiology indirectly. They purport a type of irrational mantra of ‘the Body and blood of Christ’ stating they are taking Christ at his word that when they partake of the Bread and wine they are partaking of his physicality on Earth.
Calvin and the later tradition that overcame Zwingli’s mere memorialism would see that we do partake of Christ by His spirit through faith. Christ descends in Spirit while his body did not become omnipresent and remains at the Right Hand of the Majesty on High. His gospel brings us to Him in the Lord’s Supper by faith and we partake of his body and soul in heaven. This is the spiritual presence view verses the consubstantiation view.
This difference polarized the Reformed/Calvinists and the Lutherans even though Calvin himself wished for greater unity and consolidation. Calvin himself signed the Augsburg Confession to the chagrin of the ‘pure’ Lutherans.
Yeah. Good points Tim. And I agree.
What would you say, however, about Calvin’s refutation of Andreas Osiander in his Institutes? Do we find grounds here to believe that Calvin is articulating a different soteriology, given the disagreement on Sacramentology/Christology?
He is arguing a different soteriology from Osiander whom the Lutherans repudiated as heretical. His view of union was Platonic/ontological, partaking and becoming deified.
It is not correct in my opinion to say that Calvin thought the Osiander was the ‘logical consequence’ of Lutheran thinking. This idea is not found in Calvin to my knowledge. I think there was an excellent article refuting the historicism of this idea that Calvin viewed all Lutherans as he view Osiander in the Ordained Servant by Dr. Godfrey and others. I will have to check and let you know.
I listened to the 6 part lectures of Mark Garcia (his book was too expensive) where he espoused this idea and it was highly problematic, and eisegetical. I believe others have proven his scholarship is lacking and presumptuous at best.
It is actually a Lutheran dogmatic claim to say that since “Calvinists differ on Christology and Sacramentology they MUST differ on justification sola fide”. It was not a Calvinistic argument until recently if I remember correctly.
Thanks, that’s very helpful.
Yeah, Mark Garcia is who I just read, and I found it pretty troubling. But that makes sense if Osiander was considered a heretic.