Lutherans vs. Reformed

Status
Not open for further replies.
R. Scott Clark,


1. In your critique you did not observe the distinctions that Luther was making.
Click to expand...

I hold to those distinctions myself, but of the five books I may have missed something regarding use #3. (It is intrinsically in the catechism on the decalogue though)


2. You have an idiosyncratic definition of antinomianism, so that anyone who is not a theonomist or theocrat (of some sort) is an antinomian. This does strike me as a particularly fair way to critique Luther.
Click to expand...

I agree. I defined what I meant by antinomian. And it is stricter than the historic sense.

Fair ? I would love to discuss this with Luther. He could take it. We are talking about the guy who would not even shake hands with Zwingli over a disagreement on the eucharist.


3. You have not observed the distinction that all the Protestants made between the two kingdoms. They did it differently, but the all agreed that otoh, Christ is Lord over all things but otoh, he exercises his Lordship in the civil and ecclesiastical realms differently.
Click to expand...

This has got me intrigued. Could you explain more what you mean.
Church/State ? City of God ? I am taking Bahnsen's view of the seperation. How did I cross the line ?

On your account everyone who makes such a distinction (Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Melanchthon, etc) would have to be judged antinomian.
Click to expand...

Not in the historical sense. And I would argue that Calvin was a theonomist. But perhaps we should start a new thread.

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]
 
When Paul said we are not under the law he meant "under its comdemnation". Am I wrong here ?
 
Originally posted by Saiph What do you think of Luther's law/grace dichotomy ? What did he mean when he said the law was "abolished" ?
Click to expand...

I'm anything *but* a scholar on Luther. In fact, I've never read his commentary on Galatians!

But the law/gospel (I don't think it's law/grace) dichotomy is, as far as I understand it, a hermeneutic. It was Luther's understanding that a true theologian is one who has the incredibly difficult task of discerning where law and gospel are found throughout the Bible, and how to apply each.

The law is intended to speak to the proud, self-righteous. Its purpose is to crush them and drive them to despair. Then, in their hopelessness the gospel is to be applied, giving them the promise of forgiveness through Jesus Christ.

So, in this sense the law is *always* necessary for we always have the arrogant self-righteous with us. In fact, we ourselves often fall into that sin. (For me it's daily.) Thus all of us continue to need to hear the law.

If Luther said the law is "abolished' (I believe you that he did, I just don't know when and where he said it) then I can only assume he meant it in this existential sense - that the claims of the law on the sinner are abolished when he receives justification through faith in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Don't know if this helps, but this pretty much exhausts my rather skimpy knowledge of such things.<G>
 
Saiph said:
I would think that anyone who holds to the five solas is reformed.
Credo or Paedo.

I also do not agree completely with the RPW, or EP.
I also believe in paedo-eucharist.
I actually find Luther's view of the Lord's Supper more appealing than Calvin's
I do not agree with the Puritans understanding of the 2nd commandment (protestant). I think art representing Christ is acceptable.
Click to expand...

I'm probably 4 out of 5 with you here.

Hmm, I have other questions but this is probably not the place to ask them.
 
Where/when did this breakdown over law/gospel issues between the reformed and lutheran begin?

It seems to me that the two were in harmony on this issue (3 uses, strict distinction on law/gospel)), while some Lutheran have abandoned their Book of Concord on this point, and in response (?) some reformed have misconstrued the third use.

Just my limited observation, but I find it peculiar that those in the reformed camp who think that the law/gospel distinction as maintained by Luther (and Calvin and Beza) is strictly "Lutheran", are those who are sympathetic to Theonomy. This "Lutheranization" of Calvinism, as they call it, seems to be a prominent slogan/idea among the Federal Visionaries, also.

The Alliance of Confessing Evagelicals, Modern Reformation magazine, and the White Horse Inn are really strong on these issues to the point that some consider them "Lutheran" and "antinomian". I am thankful for groups like these that stand up to and do their part to tear down the straw-men that float around the reformed field.
 
Perhaps I read too much through the lens of theonomy. Luther was also up against a Goliath of monolithic works based Rome. Of course he is going to take the focus off of law a bit more than today, where easy believism abounds.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Would Galatians not be read much more consistently if we saw the 'law' as being the ceremonial law?
Click to expand...

Sure, but did Christ abolish the ceremonial ?
No, he fulfilled it. It is perpetually kept in His one sacrifice. Hebrews 10.

When Paul said Christ is the "end" of the law for them that believe I think he means telos. Or ultimate fullfillment and meaning.

Of course if that it what Luther meant by "abolish", that is, fulfilling it so the Levitical priesthood passes away, then I agree. He should have been more clear though.

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Saiph]
 
Saiph,

I guess that´s what I mean for if you can say Luther elevates justification over sanctification there are only three possibilities: 1. You really, no offense, haven´t read Luther. At least not so as to understand. 2. You really don´t understand sanctification. 3. Or both.

The Law is good and salutary, gracious in that sense, but it is not in the least grace or Gospel, neither in justification nor sanctification. If one believes that one IS Romish at the least or not in the faith at all in the worst.

Your reading Luther like a literal dispensationalist. Christ came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. And thus He has done so entirely & nothing falls short. What pithy Law fulfillment will one add to Christ? And then will one raise one´s self above God violating the Law by the Law, making an instrument of good evil. Or perhaps you obey the Law and love your neighbor so as to please God about yourself (glorifying yourself) - again violating the very heart of the Law (not altruistically loving your neighbor but so to make yourself better in God"˜s eyes) & again taking good & committing evil with it twice. How much sin is there by those who take the holy Law (= selfless love) & use it to gain in the end for themselves eternity (or so they think) & glorify themselves. It matters not whether you superficially label it justification or sanctification for "œapart from faith (Christ alone) ALL is sin".

Christ came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, you and I cannot, rather will not willfully, fulfill it before or after conversion. If you think so go & sell, right now, all that you have & give it to the poor, then come to follow God. But you have not, nor will not & neither will I. That´s the Law staring you point blank in the face & it reduces not one micron under post conversion sanctification, hence you & I must always have Christ alone or you have nothing.

This is what Luther means by his use of the term, in his context, "œabolish"œ. Christ does not abolish THE Law by inserting new Law, that´s what the sermon on the mound is clarifying, the issues of the heart not "œmotions of the Law" externally. Rather He & He alone fulfills it. In the fulfillment of the Holy Law the believer (truster of Christ alone) freely receives all from Christ for Christ has fulfilled all things & literally nothing is left to do. In Christ´s fulfillment the Law is abolished. Not its force that convicts us & drives us to Christ but its sting of death. To have faith, trust in Christ alone is to trust Him utterly for this very thing. Otherwise you have a false Christ & an idol of your own crafting. This IS the very heart and essence of the Gospel & consequently the stumbling block to the religious & foolishness to the irreligious.

The gnashing of teeth piety reaction to this IS the proof positive that the old man Adam is still working his way to God without Christ alone though he uses Christ´s name as a label for his filthy rags, & when the sons of Law hear this from the son´s of grace they rise up in their hearts, & sometimes in action, to slay Abel the son of faith. Trying to fulfill the Law the pick up stones (in their hearts or reality for in God´s sight it is the same) & murder violating the Law they seek to fulfill. This is the godless arrogance of the fallen nature wielding the doctrine meant for life as an instrument of death & murder.

Ldh
 
Larry,

Quite the sermon ther brother.
I agree. And I must be missing something. Did I say something different ?

Gal 2:19-21
For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God.
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.


And my understanding of sanctification comes chiefly from A. A. Hodge:

1. All of those in whom God has by regeneration created a new spiritual nature continue under his gracious influence, his Word and Spirit dwelling in them, and thus have the grace implanted in them developed more and more.

2. This work of sanctification involves both the gradual destruction of the old body of sin, and the quickening and strengthening of all the graces of the new man, and the inward purification of the heart and mind, as well as all those holy actions which proceed from them.

3. This work of sanctification involves the entire man -- intellect, affections and will, soul and body.

4. It is never perfect in this life, but in every case, as in that of Paul, there remains more or less of the old "law in our members," warring against the law of our mind.

5. That nevertheless, from a constant supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the gracious element in the believer's nature prevails, and he gradually advances in holiness until he is made perfect at death.

1. God, having implanted in regeneration a new spiritual nature in the subject of his grace, always continues to foster and develop that principle, by the indwelling of his word and Spirit, until it attains full perfection.
Click to expand...


WCF XIII

I. They who are once effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ´s death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are
more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no
man shall see the Lord.

II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part: whence ariseth a continual
and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.

III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ,
the regenerate part doth overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace,m perfecting holiness in the fear of God.n
Click to expand...

Which book by Luther shoud I read where he explains Sanctification ?


[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Saiph]
 
Christ came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, you and I cannot, rather will not willfully, fulfill it before or after conversion. If you think so go & sell, right now, all that you have & give it to the poor, then come to follow God. But you have not, nor will not & neither will I. That´s the Law staring you point blank in the face & it reduces not one micron under post conversion sanctification, hence you & I must always have Christ alone or you have nothing.
Click to expand...

Larry, I think your frustration is valid. My choice of words is sloppy sometimes.

If I mentioned fulfilling the law after regeneration I should have qualified it by saying "in Christ".

Gal 6:2
Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

The contrast being the very next verse.

Gal 6:3
For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.

I would like for someone to direct me to the writings where Luther explains his ideas on the third use of the law.

I was not referring to his ideas as antinomian in that sense, I already clarified that with my comments on theonomy.

The Spirit does not replace the Law, or oppose the Law. He writes it on our hearts. The Spirit enlivens us and enables us to observe the law.

2Co 3:5,6 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

The possibility of doing what the law requires is in that believers are in the Spirit and live through the Spirit.

Gal 5:25
If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

The fact remains though, that the work of the Spirit consists in working out the Law of God in the life of the believer.

Rom 8:4
in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Without the Spirit the law is powerless. Romans 7:13-25

The fruits of the Spirit are the good works the law requires.

Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Saiph]
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Would Galatians not be read much more consistently if we saw the 'law' as being the ceremonial law?
Click to expand...

No, not according to Luther and Calvin. That Paul was only referring to the ceremonial law was the Roman position in the 16th century! They read the bible as containing "old" and "new" law (not law and gospel). Moses was the "old law" and Christ the new. The difference between Moses and Christ, says Rome, is that there is more grace under Christ to keep the law toward eventual justification.

The reason, Rome said, that Paul spoke as he did, is that he was addressing the "old law" not justification by grace and cooperation with grace by law-keeping (as Rome taught).

When Paul quoted Deut that "cursed is everyone..." he was not speaking only of the ceremonial law!

rsc
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Perhaps I read too much through the lens of theonomy. Luther was also up against a Goliath of monolithic works based Rome. Of course he is going to take the focus off of law a bit more than today, where easy believism abounds.
Click to expand...

Mark,

Theonomy, from an historic perspective is a novelty. Our older theologians were theocrats (they believed the civil magistrate was obligated to enforce the first table) but they were not theonomists. The expression, "abiding validity of the law of God..." is a novelty. It is anachronistic to call Calvin and "theonomist" though it has been tried. It works right up to the point folk actually read Calvin (e.g., Inst. 4.20) where he repudiates the assumptions of the movement.

As to easy-believism, the proper response is not to abuse the third use and to obliterate the three-fold distinction between civil, ceremonial, and moral (as theonomy does; one can't hold it well and affirm the abiding validity of the civil law) is to go back to the Heidelberg Catechism and teach Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude.

The fundamental problem with much of the Reformed reaction to easy-believism is that it has become moralism. In that case, the cure is as bad as the disease. The answer to antinomianism is not moralism. The answer is the 1st use of the law in all it's fearsome power (not as ten-steps to a prosperous life! -- why is theonomy so attractive to the health and wealth crowd?), followed by the gospel of pure grace, followed by sound Christian instruction in living in union with Christ according to his revealed will. Full stop. Anything more or less than that is not biblical Christianity, it is not Protestant, it is not confessional and it is certainly not Reformed.

One of the biggest problems theonomy has from a Reformed pov is that it tends to weaken the 1st use of the law. The law is no longer really threatening. It can be kept, they suggest. Really? Ask the Israelites. Well, I'm told, we have more grace. Really? Why on earth did the Reformation happen if we're back to the "old law/new law" or "less grace/more grace" hermeneutic?

They must imply or say that or else their program for the enforcement of the civil laws collapses. If they can be kept, then the law isn't really very threatening is it? If those laws can be kept (either by pulling one's self up by the bootstraps or by cooperating with grace, take your pick) and if they're not categorically distinct from the moral law, then by and by it turns out that the moral law can be kept. Poof, there goes the historic law/gospel distinction and the Protestant doctrine of justification.

How many theonomists (beside Joe Morecraft) are speaking out in defense of the confessional doctrine of justification and what proportion are among those associated with the so-called, self-described, Federal Vision?

rsc
 
But the law/gospel (I don't think it's law/grace) dichotomy is, as far as I understand it, a hermeneutic. It was Luther's understanding that a true theologian is one who has the incredibly difficult task of discerning where law and gospel are found throughout the Bible, and how to apply each.
Click to expand...

Pastor,

I suppose it depends upon how one defines "hermeneutic." It is often described that way in the secondary literature and rightly so, in my view. If a hermeneutic simply means "a programmatic way of reading Scripture" or
"a set of questions regularly asked of the text of Scripture" then it seems that it can be called a hermeneutic.

What Protestants want to know is, is this text before me "law" (i.e., does it say "do and live" or is it "gospel" i.e., does it say, "Christ shall do" or "Christ has done"?

These seem to me to be hermeneutical questions. Theology is hermeneutics and hermeneutics is theology. This is why Luther, in his preface to the '35 lectures on Galatians said that a theologian distinguishes law and gospel.

It is a hermeneutic in the way the distinction between the theology of the cross and the theology of glory is a hermeneutic.

rsc
 
RSC,

First, I very much appreciate your comments. I have many things to consider and research now.

How many theonomists (beside Joe Morecraft) are speaking out in defense of the confessional doctrine of justification and what proportion are among those associated with the so-called, self-described, Federal Vision?
Click to expand...

Fred and others have have said this many times. If you would not mind laying out the argument as to why theonomy leads to FV in email, u2u, I would appreciate it. No one has explained this to me.

If those who say this cannot demonstrate it ideologically then it is mere post hoc ergo proptor hoc.

Bahnsen defends justification by faith alone.
 
Fred and others have have said this many times. If you would not mind laying out the argument as to why theonomy leads to FV in email, u2u, I would appreciate it. No one has explained this to me.
Click to expand...

Mark,

I'm not arguing that theonomy leads necessarily to FV or moralism. I am saying, however, that having rejected historic and confessional distinctions and boundaries it opens the door. There are lots of non-theonomic moralists too. They share theonomy's dissatisfaction with the traditional guilt, grace, gratitude structure of the Reformed faith. I am saying that it is this very dissatisfaction that leads to moralism. In theonomy it manifests itself in the rejection of the Reformed view of the two kingdoms.

If those who say this cannot demonstrate it ideologically then it is mere post hoc ergo proptor hoc.
Click to expand...

My argument would be guilty of PHPH only if I am arguing that theonomy leads necessarily to moralism. I am only observing what is.

As to Bahnsen's view of justification, he seems to have tried to have it both ways: to affirm some orthodox sounding doctrine of justification and Norman Shepherd's reconstruction (no pun intended) of the doctrine of justification.

Both Shepherd's earlier and most recent writings (the book, the Reformation and Revival articles) have made it pretty clear that tightrope has snapped.

Interpreters of GB are split on what his doctrine of justification was, whether it was sola fide, sola gratia as understood by the Reformation or Shepherd's redefinition of faith in the act of justification as faithfulness.

NS' rejection of the imputation of active obedience and his redefinition of faith in the act of justification as trusting AND obeying makes clear that the previous claim (from c. 1981-1982) that NS was merely defending the "old" Reformed faith against "easy believism" is no longer tenable.

rsc
 
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has a Presbyterian form of Church Government. Missouri is similar. Some smaller bodies are congregational in polity. the Liberal mainstream Evangelical Lutheran Church is episcopal in polity and is now in communicate fellowship with the apostate Episcopal Church.
 
It has been a souple of decades since I read through the Lutheran Doctrinal standards. The Book of Concord includes the Augsburg confession of 1530, the Apology for the Augsburg, Luther's Larger and Smaller Catechisms, The Smallclad Articles, The Saxon Visitation Articles, and a couple of smaller documents that bear the name Concord if I remember correctly.
 
Originally posted by yeutter
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has a Presbyterian form of Church Government. Missouri is similar. Some smaller bodies are congregational in polity. the Liberal mainstream Evangelical Lutheran Church is episcopal in polity and is now in communicate fellowship with the apostate Episcopal Church.
Click to expand...

As regards the ELCA, very accurate.

But I'm not sure what is meant by a "Presbyterian form of Church Government." So I can't really say if that's accurate or not. I know the LCMS has "presidents" (not bishops) of districts whose position is temporary. The president must also be an ordained pastor. They have no "deacons" that I know of (other than deaconesses). Not sure if they have elders or not.

My ignorance re WELS is the same.

As regards confessional Lutheranism, the entire Book of Concord is held to - rather firmly. The words "quia" and "quaetnus" are often used to distinguish between what is confessional and what is not. "Quaetnus" (insofar as) indicates the confessions are authoritative only "insofar as" they are in harmony with the Scriptures. "Quia" (because) holds that the the confessions are authoritative "because" they are in harmony with Scripture.

Thus one can see that the confessionalists are always on the "quia" side.

This is in opposition to the ELCA that officially recognizes only the Augsburg Confession and the Small Catechism to begin with. (All other works in the Book of Concord are good and worthwhile, but hold no authority for the ELCA.) Consequently one cannot hold the ELCA to be "Lutheran" in any genuine sense. (Whether they are Christian is another question altogether.)
 
American Lutheran polity has been described as "episcopopresbygational" at least in the case of the LCMS.

District Presidents in the LCMS correspond to Bishops of the ELCA, they have some regional oversight but no real governing authority beyond what they can rig together out of consitutional workings. Local congregations are governed (in theory) by a board of elders and the voting assembly. The elders are, as often as not, proposed and then voted on by the assembly. Property is owned by the local congregation. The actual nuts and bolts governance of a local congregation is divided obscurely between boards, committees, the voters assembly and the Pastor and Board of Elders, each, generally, having their own agenda. in this they are very much like most Congregationally composed churches.

This has the effect of making LCMS Congregation voters assemblies rather lively and interesting to one who knows the politics involved.

The denomination is divided into districts, each with, as I've said a Bishop/President but programs and direction are taken at the district level out of a rather presbyterian looking conference of pastors with the Bishop/President, lay elders may or may not attend. This varies, I think. This corresponds roughly to a Presbytery meeting.

The denomination itself is governed by a board of executives Vice Presidents and one President elected for a term of two years (I think) at the Synodical Conference which is held at various locations throughout the country. This corresponds roughly to a Presbyterian GA.

[Edited on 11-3-2005 by Steadfast]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top