I am still wondering about the advisability of turning union into a polemical doctrine that divides Reformed Protestants and Lutherans. Benjamin Warfield supplies support for that wonder.
CALVINISM AND LUTHERANISM
It is unfortunate that a great body of the scientific discussion which, since Max Goebel (“Die religiose Eigenthumlichkeit der lutherischen und der reformirten Kirchen,” Bonn, 1837) 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. And undoubtedly the distinguishing spirit of Calvinism is rooted not in some extraneous circumstance of its antecedents or origin — as, for example, Zwingli’s tendency to intellectualism, or the superior humanistic culture and predilections of Zwingli and Calvin, or the democratic instincts of the Swiss, or the radical rationalism of the Reformed leaders as distinguished from the merely modified traditionalism of the Lutherans — but in its formative principle.
But it is misleading to find the formative principle of either type of Protestantism in its difference from the other; they have infinitely more in common than in distinction. And certainly nothing could be more misleading than to represent them (as is often done) as owing their differences to their more pure embodiment respectively of the principle of predestination and that of justification by faith. The doctrine of predestination is not the formative principle of Calvinism, the root from which it springs. It is one of its logical consequences, one of the branches which it has inevitably thrown out. It has been firmly embraced and consistently proclaimed by Calvinists because it is an implicate of theism, is directly given in the religious consciousness, and is an absolutely essential element in evangelical religion, without which its central truth of complete dependence upon the free mercy of a saving God can not be maintained. And so little is it a peculiarity of the Reformed theology, that it underlay and gave its form and power to the whole Reformation movement; which was, as from the spiritual point of view, a great revival of religion, so, from the doctrinal point of view, a great revival of Augustinianism. There was accordingly no difference among the Reformers on this point: Luther and Melanchthon and the compromising Butzer were no less jealous for absolute predestination than Zwingli and Calvin. Even Zwingli could not surpass Luther in sharp and unqualified assertion of it: and it was not Calvin but Melanchthon who gave it a formal place in his primary scientific statement of the elements of the Protestant faith. . . . Just as little can the doctrine of justification by faith be represented as specifically Lutheran. Not merely has it from the beginning been a substantial element in the Reformed faith, but it is only among the Reformed that it has retained or can retain its purity, free from the tendency to become a doctrine of justification on account of faith. . . . Here, too, the difference between the two types of Protestantism is one of degree, not of kind . . . .
Lutheranism, the product of a poignant sense of sin, born from the throes of a guilt-burdened soul which can not be stilled until it finds peace in God’s decree of justification, is apt to rest in this peace; while Calvinism, the product of an overwhelming vision of God, born from the reflection in the heart of man of the majesty of a God who will not give His glory to another, can not pause until it places the scheme of salvation itself in relation to a complete world-view, in which it becomes subsidiary to the glory of the Lord God Almighty. Calvinism asks with Lutheranism, indeed, that most poignant of all questions, What shall I do to be saved? and answers it as Lutheranism answers it. But the great question which presses upon it is, How shall God be glorified? It is the contemplation of God and zeal for His honor which in it draws out the emotions and absorbs endeavor; and the end of human as of all other existence, of salvation as of all other attainment, is to it the glory of the Lord of all. Full justice is done in it to the scheme of redemption and the experience of salvation, because full justice is done in it to religion itself which underlies these elements of it. It begins, it centers, 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. (The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Vol. 5, pp. 357-58)
Granted, the worldview rhetoric is not the most appealing, but we try to serve red meat occasionally here at Old Life to the tried and true transformationalists.
Old Life 
It saddens me that the Reformed sometimes speak as if JBF is not central to us, when the “forgiveness of sins” is clearly the Gospel of the NT. It was the main point of the Reformation!
I personally have benefited much from Lutheran writings concerning JBF. But it does seem their upholding of the central article has come at the expense of saying little about ongoing sanctification. The Reformed tradition clearly upholds the “double benefit” while (at its best) emphasizing the theological priority of justification. Without the latter, we all know the dangers.
I was interested by the point that it is only with the Reformed that JBF can avoid becoming justification on account of faith. I presume Warfield is referring to Lutherans who see faith as man’s work. But the Missouri Synod affirmed (at the time of the Election Controversy) unconditional election and faith as God’s free gift (though perhaps not all Lutherans are happy to affirm this). Interestingly, modern-day Lutherans seem to be so keen to avoid the implication that our faith contributes to justification, that they talk of the whole world being “objectively” justified already at the Cross, our “subjective” justification in faith being our acceptance of this fact. You won’t find such language in the Lutheran confessions though.
LikeLike
After reading this little snippet I now KNOW that I’ve got to start reading Warfield. Good stuff.
BTW, Stephen nailed it exactly with his comments about the Lutherans and their view of faith. ‘Course, there are Lutherans out there who see everything as justification by works and parade them in the name of “social justice” – the ELCA.
LikeLike
I am really not in the mood to debate but I do see Calvinists and Lutherans veering from one another in Luther’s third great theological breakthrough which distanced him from the medieval Church of his time. Luther’s first great breakthrough was his reading the scriptures with the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. His second breakthrough was the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone on the account of Christ alone for God’s glory alone. Implied in this was his belief in sola Scriptura. The most least known and written about breakthrough was his thinking on repentance and how it developed between his beginning days at Wittenberg and his more mature thought in the mid and late 1520’s. The Lutheran pastor Kory Mass, who teaches at Concordia College in Irvine, California (with Rod Rosenbladt I believe), wrote an excellent article on this which can be accessed at Rob Rosenbladt’s sons website. I forget the name of the site now but will find it if anyone is interested. It is this thinking on repentance which was integral in the development of his sacramental theology. It is here where the Lutherans and Calvinists had their most severe arguments. Sanctification is an issue too but I do not see it as a severe problem as the sacramental issues. A lot of Calvinists I know agree with Luther on keeping justification as the priority when talking about sanctification. So, the sanctification issues have been debating heavily on this site but the sacramental issues have not. I think the sacramental issues can only be debated properly by analyzing Luther’s thinking on repentance and how it developed over the coarse of about 10 to 15 years. Mass’s paper is a good place to start.
LikeLike