Did Warfield Make the World Safe for Piper?

I haven’t yet seen anyone who is openly speaking as a confessional Lutheran in the thread, so since I’m LCMS, I wanted to respond to a couple of things.

A much earlier post had asked about the election controversy of the late 19th century, in which the Missouri Synod defended the election of grace (our term) on one side and a couple geographical synods now absorbed into the ELCA defended election intuitu fidei. I am unaware of what or if Warfield knew about this controversy, but since the LCMS also emphasized justification (in fact, objective justification was another issue in the same controversy), I think all Lutherans would come in for censure from him, not just the pietistic ones.

I also wanted to respond to some of Mr. Glaser’s points, with which I’m familiar from around the Reformed blogosphere. As a Lutheran seminarian, I often hear other Lutherans characterize Reformed Christians in all sorts of ways that sound correct to Lutherans but would sound incorrect to the guys I listen to on Reformed Forum, for instance. So let me explain briefly some Lutheran things in Lutheran ways.

1. The ubiquity of Christ is actually taught by Lutherans from the perspective of the communication of attributes between the divine and human natures of Christ. We don’t begin thinking about it as some kind of latent pantheism, just as I don’t think Calvin thought of himself as the Nestorian Lutherans often accuse him of being. So ubiquity in relation to the person of the Son of God is conceived of by beginning with the fact that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. David P. Scaer is good on this subject and his articles are available online.

2. The numbering of the commandments used by Lutherans is traditional in the West, and I don’t see numbers listed in the original Hebrew. But if you read Luther’s Small Catechism, you can see his explanation of “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” has to do with the preaching of the Word of God and its honor, not rest from external works. We understand the outward works of the Mosaic law to be fulfilled by Christ. So we understand your 2nd Commandment as an appendage of the 1st’s to have no other gods, with 2nd having to do with God’s Name and its use.

3. Dr. Hart gets the Lutheran understanding of the theology of the cross correct, and I’m sorry that the discussion re: Lutheranism in the thread has steered away from that very important topic, which has received so much attention in Lutheran circles of late. I would add that Lutherans do not have efforts in all realms of “life-activity” because we cannot be sure of God’s will toward us except in Jesus Christ. We cannot speak of God’s will apart from this Crucified One so we speak of his will for his church in relation to his Gospel, which is the Word we have had from the beginning, according to 1 John. Calculus, Shakespeare, and Dutch history can be understood by unbelievers who have his Law, but what is distinctively Christian is the Gospel of Christ crucified and raised for our justification. God has his rights in giving us the righteousness of Christ.

@ DJ: Didn’t want to presume, but hey – even better!

RMK is going for upwards of $200 on alibris. Drat. Time for a reprint!

Adam,

I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran too. I have tried for years to understand the doctrinal differences between confessional Lutherans and confessional Calvinists. It is very difficult to determine where and why they veered off from each other on such issues as baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the two natures of Christ, the ascension, how justification and sanctification relate to each other and differences on the use of the Law. You hear different explanations from different theologians on each side of the divide.

One of the more common explanations of why they come to varying doctrinal interpretations is that the Calvinists supposedly start with the Glory and Sovereignty of God as their starting point where the Lutherans start with Christology (or a theology of the cross as opposed to a theology of glory). Another explanation is that Calvinists thought through the Covenant theology as revealed in the Old Testament more thoroughly than Lutheran theologians did and their doctrinal differences stem from this Covenant thinking. Calvinists place great significance in the Covenants God made with man throughout redemptive history from the Old Testament into the New. They have worked out a detailed covenant structure in their theology and their doctrines stem from their understanding of the various covenants God made with man. It all gets very confusing when trying to sort it all out. I am sure others could do much better than I in explaining all this with much more clarity.

I think someone needs to write a book on the subject. I have found the doctrinal differences become quite complex the more you delve into it. Most of the differences you hear on web pages are caricatures repeated over and over again, aka., alot of sound and fury but usually signifying nothing of significance.

Nick,

That book The Spirituality of the Cross is by Gene Veith not Gene Keith.

Jason Stellman actually critiques a Theology of the Cross from his Calvinist perspective in his book on the two kingdoms (albeit a very short and I thought very generalized explanation). Alister McGrath wrote a whole book on the subject and goes into more theological depth than Veith does in his book.

Michael,

There’s also On Being a Theologian of the Cross by Gerhard Forde, which is a brief but pithy book on Luther’s Heidelberg Theses. Spirituality of the Cross was partly spurred by Veith’s journey from evangelicalism to Lutheranism, so Forde is a better place to examine the theology of the cross specifically.

John,

You do hear many different interpretations, although I find more on the Reformed side than the Lutheran, reflecting the fact that Lutherans don’t ever claim to be Calvin’s true heirs but Calvinists may claim to be Luther’s. We’re generally less interested, although I think this is by and large a tragedy.

Our Confessions actually address these differences in many places, like AC X which refers to Zwingli’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper, but most notably the Formula of Concord, composed after Calvin and strife within Lutheranism over the true body and blood of Christ, predestination, and other things. The Saxon Visitation Articles, usually included as an appendix to the Book of Concord, are specifically directed against Calvinism. As to where all of this stems from, specific historic events such as the Marburg Colloquy are best explained within their own contexts, instead of generalizing a la Warfield above.

In this regard, covenant theology’s relation to Lutheranism is particularly hard to address. For one, covenant theology’s dormancy in Reformed communions for a long time (see the recent Reformed Forum interview on it) and their multiplicity of seminaries means that not everyone knows of, has read, or least of all agrees with a Vos or a Kline. This is very different from the Missouri or Wisconsin Synods (pretty much the only games in town in the US), where everyone who is ordained has read Walther on Law and Gospel and Pieper on dogmatics, who were themselves piling on Luther, Chemnitz, and Gerhard quotes. It’s hard for a Lutheran to come to terms with Reformed theology because of its greater and perhaps more fruitful diversity, covenant theology being one example of the same.

A more theological reason for the same difficulty is that Lutheran theology is premised on the concept of promise, or with more specific reference to Holy Baptism or Communion, testament. Melanchthon says in the Apology that all the Scriptures are made up of either the law or the promises, synonymous with “gospel.” So thinking in terms of covenants, while not totally foreign to us (cf. Luther on Baptism in the Large Catechism), isn’t really something we do much of, focusing very heavily on the words and actions of God in the means of grace. Luther’s Large Catechism is a great example of this, composed after his encounters with Zwingli and the Anabaptists, who both denied baptismal regeneration. Luther therefore accents strongly the promissory nature of the water of Baptism in which children of God are made by the word of God. Oswald Bayer is a great resource on this in Theology the Lutheran Way.

I was just lurking and wanted to say that these last 3-4 articles by DG have been especially beneficial to me because I use to read and listen to a lot of Piper and I still think I am feeling some negative affects of it. (I hate to write that because I have a lot of love for him.)

Also, John and Adam, keep up the good discussion. There are no reformed churches in my area so I attended an LCMS church without knowing anything about Lutheran theology and was pleasantly surprised. I have been studying Lutheran theology for the past few months to see if I could join and I am finding that I am being persuaded of things that I didn’t expect. Would either of you have a good book or article you could recommend to me on the Lutheran view of baptism? I am having a hard time wrapping my head around it.
/end threadjack

Sorry, the Melanchthon quote should be “Basic disagreements persisted.” Big difference.

Luther’s theology of the cross was developed over a period of time. Korey Mass, a Lutheran Pastor who used to teach at Concordia College in Irvine, California wrote a paper entitled, “The Place of Repentance in Luther’s Theological Development.” In this paper he traces the development of Luther’s ideas on repentance with reference to his theology of the cross. They go hand in hand along with the development of his sacramental theology. The following are some of the quotes I extracted from the paper. It always has to be remembered that many cherry pick from Luther and draw the conclusions they want to draw without reference to how his theology of the cross developed over time. Here are some of the quotes:

1) “The theology of the ninety-five theses was expanded in Luther’s Explanations of 1518. While the content had not significantly changed, Luther emphasized more forcefully the necessity of self-hatred, mortifications, and crosses:

‘If a person’s whole life is one of repentance and a cross of Christ, not only in voluntary afflictions but also in temptations of the devil, the world, and the flesh, and more especially also in persecutions and sufferings, as is clear from what has been said previously, and from the whole of Scripture, and from examples of the saint of saints himself and all the martyrs, then it is evident that the cross continues until death and thereby to entrance into the kingdom.’

In this statement is heard the ‘theology of the cross’ which is often portrayed as a distinctly Lutheran theology.

2) By the middle of 1519 Luther was able to proclaim confidently the importance of Christ’s word alone, but he has yet to speak so confidently of Christ’s cross alone. The cross remains something both man and Christ share.

3) During the years 1520 and 1521 Luther produced three short works, all practical and pastoral guides for the penitent. Luther’s thought is summed up in the following: ‘The penitent should put his trust in the most merciful promise of God alone, with complete faith and with certainty that he who promised the forgiveness of sins to the person about to confess them will most faithfully fulfill his promise.’…………..confession is nothing without this trustworthy promise……….it is utterly useless to strive to create good intention…………..now he also points to God as the one who effects even contrition…………..Luther continues in this vein throughout 1520 and into 1521, speaking of God as the source of both grace and contrition………..insisiting that contrition without the promise of God is fruitless. But is this as far as Luther goes?

4) Toward the middle of 1521………..there is no longer room for both man and Christ to share in its sufferings and punishments. Thus, Luther can write confidently:

‘Our sins have truly been taken from us and placed upon him, so that everyone who believes on him really has no sins, because they have been transferred to Christ and swallowed up by him, for they no longer condemn.’

5) These insights become even more evident in Luther’s Personal Prayer Book of the next year. Although based on medieval handbooks of prayer and penitence, Luther completely revises the content and focus, and therefore the theology, of such devotionals. Gone is the lengthy catalogue of sins; in its place are the ten commandments. While these commandments bring the penitent to a realization of his own sinfulness, the creed outlines the content of the gospel………..And the office of the keys has been given to the Church to proclaim this forgiveness, to deliver these gifts, to the penitent.

6) This idea finds its fullenst expression in Luther’s writing, Against the Heavenly Prophets, which was completed in 1525. Although he speaks primarily of the sacrament of Holy Communion, his emphasis certainly mirrors that placed on Holy Absolution. That is, forgiveness is discussed in two ways, how it was acheived and how it is delivered. Christ has won forgiveness on his cross; but this is delivered in the sacrament. Thus, Luther can explain:

‘If now I seek forgiveness of sins, I do not run to the cross, for I will not find it given there. Nor must I hold to the suffering of Christ….in knowledge or remembrance, for I will not find it there either. But I will find in the sacrament or gospel the word which distributes, presents, and gives to me that forgiveness which was won on the cross.’

Here is seen what can properly be called Luther’s mature theology of repentance, or quite simply, his mature theology.

The point being is that his mature theology of the cross was not really reached until 1525 and any quotes taken before this time can be construed for anyone’s purposes. The theology of the cross by 1525 contained the glory of what Christ won for us in it. Gone is the talk of the “necessity of self-hatred, mortifications and crosses.” These become useless and fruitless in Luther’s mature theology of the cross. Korey Mass also adds this quote: “The absence of any such emphasis on humility and sufferings is what is most notable in Luther’s revised edition of 1525. This absence of man’s sufferings and crosses serves then to highlight the focus on the singular, all sufficient work of Christ’s suffering and cross which permeates Luther’s mature theology.

Mass’s conclusion to this paper is so good I have to quote it in full:

“As noted in the introduction, Luther’s road to Reformation was neither straight, simple, nor easily mapped. Depending on the audience for (or often against) whom he was writing, Luther often modified his emphases. But having tracked some of his thoughts on penance and repentance we are now prepared to offer at least a tentative outline of his progress.

Comparing the theology of his writings, lectures, and sermons reveals that, at any given time, Luther presented his theology of repentance quite consistently. Up to and through the year 1517 Luther consistently spoke of the theology of penance in terms of his theology of crosses and sufferings. God’s word was considered a word of condemnation which the Christian accepted and restated. The penitent, rather than attempting to escape God’s judgment through indulgences, must judge himself in order to be righteous; he must cling to sufferings and persecutions as proof of God’s mercy.

In the years 1518-1519, laying hold of a new understanding of the word metanoia, Luther began to see God’s word in a new light. His theology of humility had not yet disappeared, but there was a new emphasis on the penitent’s faith, faith which trusts in the work of absolution rather than the word of condemnation. In 1520 and early in 1521 this focus is becoming clear as Luther begins to distinquish between God’s promising word and his threatening word. These words effect both man’s contrition and his absolution; that is, all mention of man’s work in repentance begins to fade. But God’s work, according to Luther at this time, is still a work in man (in man is still the important distinction here- my addition).

It is only toward the middle of 1521 that Luther begins explicitly to refer God’s work (for man, rather than in man) back to Christ’s work, his suffering and death for man’s sake. God’s words are no longer merely doing or promising; they are delivering the benefits of that which has already been done at Calvary. Luther now understands grace to be the favor Dei rather than something which is infused in man. With these new foci, Christ’s atoning work and the gift of its benefits in absolution, Luther now begins to emphasize receiving Holy Absolution rather than doing penance as a whole or even doing confession in particular. This becomes the manner in which Luther speaks consistently by 1525. This understanding of repentance, evident in the writings, lectures, and sermons of 1525, is that which then finds expression in Luther’s mature works of the late 1520′s and 1530′s, those which might be called his “definitive” works.

Luther understood quite early that theology and practice, especially that concerning penance, could not be separated. He would soon come to understand that the doctrine of penance was intimately entwined with the whole of Christian theology, and especially the central Reformation doctrine of justification. Thus, as noted in the introduction, Luther’s three great “breakthroughs”- the understanding of God’s righteousness, law and gospel, and repentance- can only be understood in relation to one another. And ultimately, Luther would confess, these can be properly understood only in relation to the person and work of Christ, the Christ who alone suffered and died for the forgiveness of sin, and the Christ whose gifts are bestowed in his Holy Absolutions.”

@ Michael. Another good book on the theology of the cross is Forde’s On Being a Theologian of the Cross. Whereas Veith’s book can be finished in one or two sittings, Forde reflects on the Heidelberg Disputation, and took me quite a while to get through (although it is not very long).

To any whom it may concern here. I have recently been blogging over at Gene Veith’s web site (Cranach) and some Lutherans I think are misrepresenting some Calvinist’s points of view about the Gospel. Check this one out from a guy named Stephen:

John @ 218

“The gospel which a Calvinist finds “extra nos” is no gospel. It sees this Christ who is outside the believer only as mirror of the sanctified, obedient believer in which is to be found assurance of election. This is to put on Christ as example – in your words “appropriated in someone’s life.” But this is not the gospel which actually saves, for again, it locates the truth within the believing individual for its certainty – in works of obedience to law, and thus making the gospel into law. There is no cross, no mercy, no Christ “for me.” And it is also not certain, because the human realm is always broken by sin. This is the fallacy that some finally discover as their efforts to appropriate the “example” fail them, and why many flee such false doctrine, inoculated forever against true faith in Christ alone. This kind of faith is old Adam faith, and it cannot offer assurance because it depends upon experience which is always uncertain, headed for the grave. Such a difference is anything but subtle.

Lutherans (ideally) do not trust in their ability to appropriate anything. They trust in the promise made to them in Christ alone sealed in their baptism. We believe and trust in the mercy of God in Christ for our salvation and nothing else. The only “evidence” of faith is found where God has placed it – in Word and Sacrament. This is truly extra nos, independent of any act of believing. Where Christ is, there is life and salvation.”

Is this not misrepresenting and misinterpreting Calvin’s understanding of the Gospel? Is this not a caricature which Lutherans have of the Calvinist Gospel? Or, is he not saying enough here to come to any clear conclusions on the matter? From that first sentence this Lutheran named Stephen seems to be saying that the Calvinist Gospel is a different Gospel. He seems to treading on dangerous ground in a somewhat cocky and overly confident manner. Am I wrong about that?

To go back to the original post – I see that Paul Helm is hilighting an upcoming post on his blog that will cover Religious Affections, and in his words: “I claim that his main thesis in that work is both unclear and exaggerated. This thesis also forms part of the political character the work noticed earlier, and suggests that the book is a powerful, though perhaps unintentional, factor in the development of ‘evangelicalism’ whose characteristics are identified and noted by David Bebbington; notably, in this case, the novel stress on conversionism and on activism. “

Here: http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2011/03/april.html, the actual post is not up yet – he typically posts at the beginning of the month to headline his upcoming posts.

Frank,
I am trying to follow what are you saying but I’m having some trouble with the start. You are a bit over my head. If you could point me to some articles about what you mean by all of this I would appreciate it. -Mark

“There is a fundamental Law/Gospel difference that Reformed cannot see that is the stumbling block for Lutherans.

For Lutherans this is the formula:

The Image of God = Original Adamic Rightousness = Sanctification = ?

For Lutherans that “?” is this: faith alone in Christ alone. Alone!
Image: Lutherans say that Adam´s Original Righeousness was naked faith in Jesus Christ. From the very begining. This is sort of radical eh? “

mark M

Good. The big question for everyone, including pagans, can really be summed up as this question: “How do we get back to Paradise and Eden?

The Lutherans suggest that the way to do this is exactly and only through Holy Baptism. There we are restored instantly to the Image of God and the Adamic Original Righeousness that is and was faith alone in Christ alone.

Lutherans perceive this and it could be wrong:

that the Reformed by way of Calvin, and the Romans have in common that they identify the Image of God is revealed in the Law of God. That law was written in the heart of adam, but with the fall that image became like a shattered mirror. the Image is for all intents and purposes ruined, even though we can see bits and pieces of it in things such as “natural law” (as defined by saint thomas aquinas).

So in that case the way back to Paradise is to reconform mankind to the Law of God. The purpose of the gospel and regeneration is to do exactly this.

Can you see how this starting point, if in fact the Lutherans are correct in their observation about the other groups, would make a huge difference in how the respective theologies play out ?

You can find more on this in the Lutheran Confessions, in the Apology/Defense of the Augsburg Confessions at http://www.bookofconcord.com

Let me know if you have other questions. fwsonnek@gmail.com