The comparisons between Calvinism and Lutheranism continue. One of the most recent comes from James Rogers, who teaches political science at Texas A&M. Rogers concedes that the average evangelical Protestant has a harder time with Lutheranism than Calvinism for a number of reasons.
First, Lutherans are ethnic (psst, so are Dutch Reformed, German Reformed, Scottish Presbyterians, Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, Huguenots, and English Puritans):
Many Lutheran churches began as “ethnic” churches, not even using English in worship. And memories of forced union with Reformed churches in Germany in the early nineteenth century (which prompted much Lutheran immigration to the U.S) also induced isolation from broader American Evangelical culture.
Then we have the problem that Lutherans don’t teach as well as Calvinists do. For starters, Luther didn’t write a systematic theology and Calvin did. But the Lutheran creeds are not as accessible as Reformed:
I think that most modern American Evangelical readers, attempting to read Lutheran confessional documents by himself or herself, will usually get lost more quickly, and give up sooner, than when reading the analogous Calvinist confessional texts.
But what about Luther’s Small Catechism? Luther’s Small Catechism present the opposite problem to our Evangelical seeker, it doesn’t provide enough perspective to engage him. Luther wrote the Small Catechism as the most basic introduction to the faith in an age of widespread ignorance among layfolk. It starts simply enough with the ten commands, “The First Commandment. ‘Thou shalt have no other gods.’ ‘What does this mean?’ ‘Answer. We should fear, love, and trust God above all thing.’”
While the Small Catechism is well suited for the purpose for which it was written, it is not well suited to our modal Evangelical seeker, who already has a passing knowledge of the Scriptures and is looking for deeper answers. While the Augsburg starts too far down the stream for our Evangelical autodidact, the Small Catechism, as it were, starts too early to engage the same person.
In contrast, the Shorter Catechism is highly memorable and even inspiring.
And then Lutheranism suffers from a sacramental bridge too far:
Lutherans believe that God works through the sacrament with the Word, and so God actually confers grace in and through baptism and the Supper. For Lutherans, it is God who works through these means, and not man. Therefore Christians really receive God’s forgiveness through Christ when we are united with Christ in baptism, and receive Jesus’ true body and the blood poured out for our forgiveness in the bread and wine that we receive.
While this may seem to be theological nit-picking, the differences create important differences in the spiritual and ecclesiastical experience of the average layfolk in the two traditions.
Philip Cary wrote several papers a few years back that helpfully contrast the general Evangelical/Protestant understanding of “sola fide” with the role of the sacraments in Luther’s understanding of “sola fide.” Cary characterizes the standard Protestant view of “sola fide” with this syllogism:
Major Premise: Whoever believes in Christ is saved.
Minor Premise: I believe in Christ.
Conclusion: I am saved.This syllogism implies what Cary calls this the requirement of “reflective faith.”
The hour I first believed, the moment when I can first say “I truly believe in Christ” is the moment of my salvation, of my conversion and turning from death to life. What matters is that moment of conversion, not the sacrament of baptism, because everything depends on my being able to say “I believe.” For only if I know that I truly believe can I confidently conclude: I am saved. . . .
In contrast, Luther’s “sola fide” for Cary is grounded not in the believer’s internal act of will, but in the work of Christ applied to “me” in baptism. Cary characterizes Luther’s syllogism this way:
Major premise: Christ told me, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
Minor premise: Christ never lies but only tells the truth.
Conclusion: I am baptized (i.e., I have new life in Christ).Cary observes that the “difference is subtle but makes a huge logical difference in the outcome.” First, Christ’s promise is spoken to me in baptism. It is “Christ who speaks the baptismal formula” through the mouth of the pastor (or the lay baptizer in the case of emergency). These words are spoken to “me in particular.”
I see Rogers/Cary’s point, sort of. But what exactly does Christ’s promise in baptism have to do with sola fide? Luther did believe, did he not, that faith was the instrument by which we receive Christ’s righteousness or the way we trust the promises of God. It is one thing for Christ to speak. It is another for that speaking to be true of me. One is the doctrine of Christ. The other is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (who regenerates for saving faith). So how Cary is addressing the significance of sola fide except in a couple of removed steps of theological reasoning, I don’t know.
But the payoff for Rogers, the way that evangelicals might find Lutheranism more appealing, is the way that experimental Calvinists have been attracting Protestants for over four centuries — that is, by really, really, really meaning it. Rogers is on to this when he concludes:
If Lutherans really believe what their theology says about Word and Sacrament, then I think they would be equally passionate about engaging other Christians: When Christians understand what Christ offers in the sacraments, that understanding, and what is actually received, changes their lives because they come into direct contact with the death and new life of Jesus.
That’s all you need to appeal to the young restless. Tell then that ideas (read doctrines) have consequences and that believing those ideas will change your life. Voila! You’re inflamed.
Old Life 
Good post Darryl. I see Luther in a line that includes Hus and Wycliffe, maybe a few other precursors to our tradition as protestants. It’s good to discuss our similarities, and differences, as you do here. Helpful for us learners..
LikeLike
I left Lutheranism for the Reformed side because of Consubstantiation, Baptismal regeneration, images and exclusive psalmody. But I am very grateful for being raised in the Lutheran tradition and it’s the closest to the Reformed side, so ya, there you go.
LikeLike
I wonder if there is another dynamic in play — assumed knowledge and admitted ignorance. For example, in evangelical circles “Reformed” is usually conflated with “Calvinist.” Many of the evangelicals I know believe that they largely, if not completely, understand what Reformed Christianity is — it is conservative and teaches predestination. On the other hand, Lutheranism is much more mysterious.
Evangelicals easily and often create Reformed theology in their own image, but have not yet done so for Lutheran theology (at least in my experience).
Evangelicals have a mangled understanding of confessionalism in general, whether Reformed or Lutheran. For the sake of confessional Lutherans everywhere, I hope Evangelicals continue in their admitted ignorance of Lutheranism — having a bunch of Evangelicals think they get Calvinism has not done any favors for Reformed confessionalism.
LikeLike
DGH- ” It is one thing for Christ to speak. It is another for that speaking to be true of me”
The Cary article, which has been linked here before, seems to be a good representation of Lutheran belief, even though he is an Anglican. He says the key belief is faith that God is not a liar, so that any promise Christ makes is true for you if it is true for anyone in the world. He distinguishes between faith in Christ’s words which are true unless God is a liar, and what he calls the Calvinist “faith in ( individualized) faith.”
I’m just an un-reformed Baptist, so all of this is above my pay grade.
LikeLike
Mad Hungarian, The, all true. But another possibility is one at entry point level: worship. Often Reformed and eeeevangelical places of worship look the same in most respects. But Lutheran worship looks Catholic and is enough to run off the eeeevangelical. Some confessional P&R have figured this out and have recovered a doxology that is not only Reformed according to Scripture but useful in reminding of the differences, i.e. if your local eeeevangelical describes your worship as “too Catholic,” you may be doing something right.
LikeLike
For me the distinction Carey draws is key to the difference between Lutheran and (broadly) Reformed Christianity. Theologically it may not seem that significant but “Does Christ ever lie?” and “Do I believe Christ?” are two extremely different questions to someone struggling with faith. Different enough for a Neo Calvinist like myself to wade into the strange world of Confessional Lutheranism.
LikeLike
Levi, but why look to baptism for Christ’s truth telling. Why not to a long reading from Scripture and a sermon? Just keeping it logocentric.
LikeLike
DGH- an article by Cary that is not linked in the First Things piece might provide you with more background on where he is coming from:
http://www.academia.edu/1693233/How_Faith_is_Not_a_Work
Your question to Levi is ding worthy
LikeLike
@Daryl,
I don’t think Lutherans draw a distinction between how the word preached works and how baptism works. Both receive their efficacy because they are the word of God.
I think the main difference between preaching and baptism for Lutherans is that baptism contains two things:
1. A personal address from God (“I baptize you…”) that is received through the water. So baptism is the equivalent of Jesus telling me “Today you will be with me in paradise”. It’s much more personal than a sermon directed at a congregation.
2. A promise from God that my sins are forgiven and I have the Holy Spirit in the act of baptism. A sermon can be rejected internally, subtly, & passively but to resist baptism I need to physically resist it.
This same sort of logic applies to the Lord’s Supper and Confession & Absolution.
I understand that these may seem like splitting hairs to some; but for me reminding myself “I have been baptized” was enough to check my “relevance” in at the door and endure all the idiosyncrasies of Lutheranism.
Like I said, this distinction comes into play at in of an existential dimension than theological. Maybe that’s hardly surprising looking at the personal differences between Luther and Calvin?
LikeLike
Here’s the thing. There’s a more substantial and widespread record of bosom burning in self identified Presbyterian and Reformed communities in North America than in North American Lutheranism. Evangelicals conception of those effects is their conception of the object.
LikeLike
* this distinction comes into play in MORE of an existential dimension…
Sigh. Need to read before I hit “post”.
LikeLike
Last time you posted on Lutherans some dude was sucking back a little too much of grandpa’s after shave and making semi-threatening posts at 3:00 a.m. Hold onto your hat.
LikeLike
Dan, I have to read more of an Anglican explaining Lutheranism!?!
LikeLike
Levi, so you’re saying that Lutherans are individualists more than Reformed?
LikeLike
Dan H., that’s because Lutherans, to their credit, scared off the pietists.
LikeLike
I left Lutheranism for the Reformed side because of Consubstantiation, Baptismal regeneration, images and exclusive psalmody
Matt, those are damn good reasons. I take my hat off to you.
LikeLike
Erik, I hope that wasn’t me!
Levi, the life of the baptized by definition means existing in, living in, the Word of God; living hidden in Christ . The sermon and readings are as much “for you” as the body, blood, and water. We’re not looking for the highest proof here, the most concentrated forgiveness, but an overflowing cup of infinite mercy. “Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
Erdmann Neumeister (wrote lyrics for Bach) wrote a splendidly Lutheran hymn on baptism. Sometimes I cringe at English translations, but this one was well done. I think it summarizes well our theology.
http://musicalcatechesis.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/gods-own-child-i-gladly-say-it/
We sing it at all our children’s baptisms, including 10-day-old Paul’s this Sunday.
LikeLike
Katy,
It was not you.
Lutheran posts tend to draw people out of the woodwork who do not come here for any other type of post.
Kind of like a post that mentions “every square inch” will draw Dutch people from far and near.
Or a post that mentions “Jason and the Callers” will bring Bryan Cross here in roughly 2.5 seconds.
LikeLike
Some of us are engaged in trying to share what we heard (in Lutheranism). The great freedom that we know in Christ and His pure gospel.
It’s not popular. Never has been.
Of course, many Lutherans don’t get it. What else is new.
And then there’s the bugaboo about looking ‘Catholic’. That turns a lot of people off, even though our theology is radically different.
Oh well…
LikeLike
DGH- “Dan, I have to read more of an Anglican explaining Lutheranism!?!”
I know, I know, but the Lutherans themselves will eventually start talking about Objective v Subjective Justification, which is where, despite my best efforts to keep an open mind, they lose me completely.
LikeLike
Katy,
Congrats on Paul’s baptism! You made exactly the point I was trying to make: Baptism and the Supper aren’t separate from the Word.
Daryl,
That wasn’t the point I was trying to make but maybe your assessment is accurate? Certainly when it comes to salvation you don’t hear Lutherans talking in covenantal language like the reformed but in terms of God’s promises, delivered through word & sacrament and received through faith. The paradigms are a bit different.
Funny story: I first got turned on to Lutheran theology by a guy on your session, I believe? Carl Trueman. His lectures on Luther’s theology are maybe too compelling for a Presbyterian. 🙂
LikeLike
Can anyone (Lutheran or not) point me to examples of robust (and lengthy) Lutheran preaching? From my admittedly limited experience Reformed preaching kicks Lutheran preaching’s butt. The LCMS I have visited has disappointed me repeatedly in terms of rigor, lame use of cartoons and visual aids, and length. It’s a service that a lot of college kids attend, so maybe that’s the excuse, but it’s been a major disappointment. Part of the issue might be that it takes forever to serve communion so they might feel they lack for time.
I would imagine Rod Rosenbladt would preach a heck of a sermon, but he may be the exception.
LikeLike
Erik,
I don’t think preaching is as highly emphasized in Lutheran circles as with the Reformed. It’s more similar to what you’ll find in the Anglican & Catholic traditions. I think there’s historical and theological reasons for this. But if you think it’s worse than what passes in your average reformed church, I’m not so sure.
There are some excellent Lutheran preachers out there IMHO but they’re different than the reformed.
LikeLike
True, we confessional Reformed are more “logocentric” than our Lutheran brethren, but we share more in common with each other in terms of a high view of the sacraments as “visible words” than we do with non-Reformed evangelicals (most of whom believe in the “real absence” of Christ in the Supper and who tend to take a mere memorialist view). Baptistic evangelicals tend to view the sacraments as tokens of our devotion to God (what we do for God), whereas both Lutheran and Reformed view them as indicating what God does for us in Christ.
Like the Lutheran, the Reformed stress the “Real Presence” of Christ in Word and Sacraments (which are are the Word in symbol form), although we differ on the mode of Christ’s Real Presence (physical vs. Spiritual) in the sacraments (especially the Supper). It is this gospel Word (coming to us in the Scriptures read and preached) which engenders justifying faith in Christ, so a proper view of the sacraments (Divine pledges which strengthen and confirm such faith) does not in any way threaten sola fide.
Heidelberg Catechism:
Q. 72. Is then the external baptism with water the washing away of sin itself?
A. Not at all; for the blood of Jesus Christ only, and the Holy Ghost cleanse us from all sin.
Q. 73. Why then doth the Holy Ghost call baptism “the washing of regeneration” and the “washing away of sins”?
A. God speaks thus not without great cause, to-wit, not only thereby to teach us that as the filth of the body is purged away by water, so our sins are removed by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ; but especially that by this divine pledge and sign He may assure us that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really as we are externally washed with water.
LikeLike
Levi – But if you think it’s worse than what passes in your average reformed church, I’m not so sure.
Erik – This is what I’m used to. It’s a really good sermon on baptism:
[audio src="https://ia600309.us.archive.org/28/items/February22014MorningSermon_201402/February%202%2C%202014%20-%20Morning%20Sermon.mp3" /]
LikeLike
There is a real problem with preaching in America in general. Erik, I know exactly the bad sermon you’re talking about, because we travel an hour one way to hear good preaching. Our city has 6-7 LCMS congregations, and bless their hearts, they are all bad.
Now, there is a definite style difference between a Lutheran homily (usually preaching directly on the Gospel reading, sometimes with reference to the OT or Epistle) and a Reformed sermon (to be fair I’ve mostly heard Reformed Baptist preaching, which in theory I always expect to be good, then am disappointed). I’ve head 3 or 4 Presbyterian (OPC) sermons, one was very good, the others were disorganized lectures on Creationism or some other favorite Conservative Christian (TM) topic. I heard Joel Beeke once–he was good, at least that particular sermon. I have heard the style difference explained as the Lutherans following the proclamatory style of Sunday Mass sermons, while Reformed preferred the longer weekday Matins, Sext, or Vespers sermons, which are more like lectures (they just moved them to Sundays). I do not know if this is true–I haven’t been able to find any documentation or articles on it, not that I’ve looked hard–but it’s an interesting explanation.
Where the Lutherans fell off the bandwagon (especially the American ones) is when we stopped stressing the “..and teaching them to observe all I commanded” part of the commission. There used to be an extended catechism time after Divine Service; I guess Sunday School suffices now. There often were Matins or Vespers (services w/o communion) offered throughout the week. Structured prayer times in the home were common. Again, it’s not either/or, it’s both/and. Lutherans should not stop the Sunday morning proclamation, but start learning from Reformed exegetical* preaching, and use it again in Bible class, during the week, etc.
Erik, I hope your daughter and son-in-law have found a good church.
*The Reformed obsession with exegesis can be silly in the wrong hands; I’ve heard a few untrained lay ministers’ doozies. Sometimes the text just says what it says.
LikeLike
Katy,
May this be an encouragement: when the reformed receive into full communion a baptized covenant son or daughter, we do not say, “It is so great that you are now professing your faith. We really never saw this coming. What a wonderful surprise!” Such enthusiasm betrays an extraordinary ministry where the youth’s profession taken as the first notice of grace.
The reformed say something like this: “Beloved in the Lord Jesus Christ, we thank our God for the grace that was given you, in that you have accepted God’s covenant promise that was signified and sealed unto you in your infancy by holy baptism. We ask you now to profess your faith publicly” (OPC DPW IV.B.1).
LikeLike
To Erik: Pastor Lassman of Messiah Lutheran in Seattle has some really good sermons – no visual aids, cartoons, etc.
http://www.messiahseattle.org/sermons
Lutheran spaz/discernment guy Chris Rosebrough of Fighting for the Faith often features Pastor Lassman’s sermons in the good sermons sections of his show.
LikeLike
Erik – have you ever visited Cornerstone Church in Ames? If so, your thoughts? There is some good preaching there, but admittedly from the evanjellyfish, more pietist standpoint. (I’m not attempting to re-start any Edwardian/pietist discussion, I promise. I’ve read more of the OL archives, and I’m now more duly informed on that topic.)
LikeLike
Here’s an example of style difference. A Lutheran pastor might read Augustine or Chrysostom on a Feast Sunday. A Reformed might alter it a bit and make it a prayer (and not for any sort of special observed Sunday, of course), but I don’t believe a Reformed congregation would accept these as sermons proper, even if they are doctrinally sound.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/12/25/the-first-christmas-sermon-ever-preached-2/
http://gottesdienstonline.blogspot.com/2012/12/more-christmas-sermon-hacks-augustine.html
(The reg’lar Lutheran folks in the pews might be weirded out by the poetry of the first, and the latinate symmetry of the second, but they wouldn’t say it’s not a sermon. And we don’t have a problem with pastors sometimes reading others’ sermons or reusing their own.)
Here are some good Lutheran preachers
David Petersen. I’ve sent a number of people his sermon on the Widow of Nain when they lose a loved one.
http://uaclutheran.com/blog/tag/widow-of-nain/ (sorry, couldn’t find an original recording without the review and commercials).
http://cyberstones.org/sermon/wedding-adriane-dorr-and-chris-heins/
Rick Stuckwisch. We were able to visit his church in South Bend while on our way to vacation in MI
http://sword-in-hat.blogspot.com/2013/07/this-great-mystery-is-of-christ.html
I think he posts all his sermons on that blog
Norman Nagel, sort of the touchstone of 20th century Lutheran preaching. You can find a lot of his sermons at http://logia.org/blogia/
LikeLike
Geoff and John H.,
Agree we have much in common! It is painful for me to have trouble talking about all these things with my (admittedly baptist, but strongly identifies as “Reformed”) mother-in-law.
(And agree with Chuckles that we should commend Matt for rejecting the Lutheran confessions for Reformed ones, since he does not believe the “Symbolic Books of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church are a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of
God.” We in the LCMS like honest people like that.)
LikeLike
Since you all want to spend all day reading about intra-Lutheran debates and discussions and controversies, Jordan Cooper had a great interview this week with a Prof. from CTSL talking about the uses of the law and antinomianism. (We’re not innocent, folks) Steve Martin, you’ll love it!
http://justandsinner.blogspot.com/2014/02/two-kinds-of-righteousness-with-dr-joel.html
LikeLike
Petros – Erik – have you ever visited Cornerstone Church in Ames? If so, your thoughts? There is some good preaching there, but admittedly from the evanjellyfish, more pietist standpoint. (I’m not attempting to re-start any Edwardian/pietist discussion, I promise. I’ve read more of the OL archives, and I’m now more duly informed on that topic.)
Erik – This is the milieu I come out of and in some ways am still in through co-workers. I spent my high school and college years being influenced by Tom Nesbitt at Grand Avenue Baptist Church and Troy Nesbitt/Pete Matthews through the Salt Company. Pete and I go back to the Calvary United Methodist Church when I was in junior high. I played basketball with Cornerstone guys for 20 years after college. I met my wife through the Salt Company (Cornerstone didn’t exist yet). We were members there for the first several years of marriage.
As far as evangelicals go, these are some of the best people you will ever meet. I can say nothing against them personally.
I have written on my blog of my concerns with their very nominal Calvinism. I don’t think it works. I would also say that the megachurch does not work well for me, but I realize others disagree. I let my younger daughter visit there occasionally and my older, married daughter has been involved in Salt Company Bible studies.
http://literatecomments.com/?s=mr.+miyagi&submit=Search
LikeLike
Erik – wow, it’s a small world. I’m glad you view them in high regard. I do, too. It’s part of the reason why some of the typical OL critiques of the evangelical world, while having legitimate points, often seem disproportionately negative. I’m tempered as I witness (in my own life, and others’) the blessing that flows from places like Cornerstone and the Salt company. I’ll sign off…not trying to high-jack this thread anymore. All the best.
LikeLike
Petros,
Most of the critiques that evangelicals get here, in my observation, is when they bump up against Reformed theology. Otherwise they mostly go unmentioned. There’s a cage phase when people become Reformed out of evangelicalism that they are pretty anti-evangelical, but most people move beyond that to Reformed intramural debates pretty quickly. Even the debates with the Callers here have a Reformed angle since they used to be Reformed and they specifically target Reformed people.
We are kind of like graduate school for evangelicals. Just as most people won’t go from their B.A. on to a Ph.D., most evangelicals will be happy to stay put. Some will come over, though. We have at least 4 families with past Cornerstone ties at my small Reformed church.
LikeLike
My #1 critique of evangelicalism is that there is just not that much there, there. You are perpetually at square one theologically. You come in, learn the basics, and then the focus shifts to you bringing someone else in to learn the basics. It’s great for getting people in, but not so great for helping people become mature in terms of theological knowledge and depth.
It’s kind of like multilevel marketing in the church realm. The focus is always on recruiting.
LikeLike
An evangelical will protest, “But we have all kinds of opportunities for people to learn and take on leadership roles.”
The problem is, as long as you are unwilling to take sides in potentially divisive theological debates (like predestination, or the regulative principle of worship, or a distinctive church polity, or infant baptism) for fear of ruffling feathers and losing broad appeal, you’ve already surrendered. I attended a Reformed Church in America service a few years ago when they were doing baby dedications and baptisms at the same time on the same stage!
Better a robust confessionalism that isn’t looking to please people.
LikeLike
Erik – broadly speaking, I agree with your characterization. (Yet, there are many evangelical churches with more robust teaching ministries, along with satellite opportunities to get seminary level training.) My #1 critique of many of the more staid P & R, or Lutheran, churches is that there appears to be a lot of dead orthodoxy, somewhat similar to the phenomena of apathetic cradle Catholics (not similar doctrinally, of course). If I could be a cafeteria Christian, I’d pick the best of the doctrinal confessions and liturgical traditions of the P&R world, and mix it with the vibrancy and outreach of the evangelical world. How’s that for being syncretistic!
LikeLike
DGH,
that’s because Lutherans, to their credit, scared off the pietists.
And the pietists, filled with a holy fury deeper than a woman scorned proceeded to unleash wreckage on European and American Prostestantism like Godzilla through Tokyo. Oh yeah, and nurtured fine minds like Kant. The common thread between all pietists – the inability to acknowledge any reality beyond their own peculiar experience of it – and for the most extreme reality beyond the mind is fundamentally unknowable (until they step in front of a speeding train and are met with the harsh reality of extra-mental/experiential objects). At least Kant never gained an inroads into Reformed Christianity… oh wait, enter hard-core VanTillians and a boatload of unwitting theonomists.
We confessionalists have a world of our own issues, but the ability to acknowledge and deal in reality doesn’t appear to be one of them.
LikeLike
Jed, I can’t bring up golf (sniff) anymore, but 2k blogs are still kosher with movies, right, yo?
LikeLike
Petros,
What P&R churches have you been involved in and for how long?
LikeLike
Erik – I’ve not been involved with them, for the reasons mentioned. My critique comment was based mostly on people I know who grew up in P&R or Lutheran churches who never came to personal faith in Christ until they met some evangelicals, some random personal visits to churches, knowing a bunch of disinterested cradle P&R and Lutheran types, and other anecdotal reports by friends, Having said that, my kids went to a good, evangelically inclined PCA church during their college days, while also being very active in Navigator and Campus Crusade ministries.
LikeLike
See here for an even handed treatment of issues facing confessional presbyterians, and how we work through our problems.
I concur with Jed here. And I promise I won’t bring up his mad golf skills.
LikeLike
Petros,
I would be wary of anecdotal evidence. I can show you Catholics who have been Protestants, Protestants who have been Catholics, Lutherans who have been evangelicals, evangelicals who have been Lutherans, and on and on an on.
Spend a month in a conservative P&R church going to morning service, Sunday school, evening service, and midweek Bible study and report back to me.
That’s not to say you still might not encounter a dud or remain unconvinced.
I’m 44 and I spent all but the past 9 years in evangelicalism — in five different churches — so I have a relatively good sample size from which to make personal observations.
LikeLike
I’m probably spoiled by my pastor, too. He’s one of the sharpest guys I’ve ever met – inside the church or out.
LikeLike
Jason Loh :
December 26, 2013 at 11:53 pm
being told—We don’t believe, as the Calvinists do, that the atonement is limited to a short list of people Jesus had in mind while on the cross, or that such active intentionality is what atones. Jesus died for the human race in that He died as a human being….
Jason—Jesus did not die as a human being. He died as God the Son. Yes, Jesus is human but he is not a human person but divine person. Nature doesn’t do anything; person does….The term “Christ present in faith” is a problematic term since when Christ is present, He present as the Incarnate One – since the Flesh is never apart from the Word. Whether faith is defined in terms of Lutheran Orthodoxy or faith refers to the entire person , Christ can only be present extra nos.
LikeLike
Jason Loh
December 26, 2013 at 10:50 pm
Union is not the basis of the imputation. The imputation *is* the union. Imputation joins us to Christ – we are incorporated into Christ, we are in Christ by imputation. Thus, imputation is the *effective legal* (for sake of Lutheran Orthodoxy) Word.
Where the Word is, there the Flesh is also. “Indwelling” is an inappropriate term since it contradicts the extra nos character of union.
We reject gratia infusa (not because it proposes ontological change but) because it makes justification depend on our cooperation with that ontological change
LikeLike
Dr. Jack Kilcrease
December 17, 2013 at 10:25 am
There is a mystical union and that mystical union does not compete with forensic justification. This is rather different than saying that mystical union is the basis of forensic justification….God’s forensic judgment is prior to and is the reason for union…Why would God give mystical union if God had not already made a particular judgment about the person? God’s act of doing something for us (i.e. giving mystical union) presupposes his decision about us… Justification is to be located in the word of absolution
LikeLike
Click to access clarkiustitiaimputatachristi.pdf
Dr. Jack Kilcrease
December 19, 2013 at 8:51 am
“ What is at stake is the issue of whether the forensic justification is first and therefore brings about mystical union, or as the Finns and Osiander contend, union comes first, so God’s forensic imputation responds to the union… saying that union with Christ is a reality in faith is different than saying it is prior to forensic justification or that forensic justification is based on it. ..Does our faith rest in our mystical union or in the forensic judgment of absolution?
LikeLike
I think I missed those posts by Jason Loh but is not the first post confusing the two natures of Christ? And what about the ontological change? That infusion stuff drives me crazy. That is what I like about Lutheran theology- they reject the “indwelling” and all the confusion about the Holy Spirit and sanctification that is the result of the concept of indwelling. And, if Loh is accurate, Lutheran Orthodoxy regards union with Christ as “effectively legal” instead of placing the emphasis on the “spiritual” union caused by the regenerating indwelling of the Spirit. But I may be misinterpreting.
LikeLike
John, Jason is in the small minority among Lutherans, regarded as more Reformed than Lutheran by many Lutherans. In kind of the same way, that Ed Boehl and Mike Horton (Westminster California) are regarded as more Lutheran than Reformed by Mark Garicia, Bill Evans, Deyoung, Jones etc.
Jason even teaches a definite and just atonement for the elect alone, so that salvation is not conditioned on the sinner rejecting grace. Persevering faith is a gift to the elect by Christ’s righteousness purchased for them and imputed in time to them.
Jason Loh
December 20, 2013 at 12:56 am
*Ontological union,* must necessarily presuppose that “infused” grace takes precedent and priority over imputed grace. How is this compatible with the *eschatological* character of the external Word which forgives sins by sheer declaration?
LikeLike
What does “unconditional” mean to a Lutheran? It does NOT mean unconditional election. It does NOT mean that all justified persons will remain justified before God.
Forde—”By killing Jesus, sinful humanity comes to recognize its bondage. In rejecting Jesus and his mercy, humanity is truly made conscious of its root-sin of opposition to God’s grace. God allows himself to be killed by us, in order to makes it plain that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” .”
mcmark: If justification is by water and preaching and sacramental presence and indwelling, then Lutherans can’t be bothered with “rationalistic” explanations about Christ’s death to satisfy God’s wrath and law or the question of whose sins are propitiated. .
Reformed people who think they are about the same as Lutherans share a low anthropology— fallen humanity’s sin of self-justification and opposition to God’s grace. But Lutherans do not agree about how Christ’s death is the grace which satisfied God’s law and brought in a righteousness.
Forde ultimately promotes a “sacramental experimentalism”. For Forde, the “ theology of the cross” has becomes a new law which shows us that we need to die and be re-created as new persons of faith. In that we are made conscious of our sin by the death of Jesus, we die in OUR EXPERIENCE.
Forde’s idea is that God is “satisfied” not by Jesus’ death, but by our own death –which is defined as OUR EXPERIENCE of passive trust brought about by preaching and sacramental (personal) announcements..
LikeLike
Erik, when did the RCA become E-Free (where paedobaptism and credobaptism co-exist)?
LikeLike
Petros, dead orthodoxy is an oxymoron. Like “deafening silence,” “dry ice,” or “safe bet.”
LikeLike
Zrim – Erik, when did the RCA become E-Free (where paedobaptism and credobaptism co-exist)?
Erik – When they figured out it could put butts in the seats and sell lattes from the coffee bar, yo.
Flat out liberalism wasn’t selling so well.
The pastor is actually a guy I went to college with. Nice guy.
LikeLike
McMark says: “Forde ultimately promotes a “sacramental experimentalism”. For Forde, the “ theology of the cross” has becomes a new law which shows us that we need to die and be re-created as new persons of faith. In that we are made conscious of our sin by the death of Jesus, we die in OUR EXPERIENCE.
Forde’s idea is that God is “satisfied” not by Jesus’ death, but by our own death –which is defined as OUR EXPERIENCE of passive trust brought about by preaching and sacramental (personal) announcements.
John Y: That almost sounds like the Arminian concept of surrender of the will. Until you die to self and take up your cross and follow Christ your religion is vain and useless. And then they go to the book of James and hound on faith without works is dead. I have as much of a hard time with surrender as I do with “ontological change” and infusion of righteousness (or inward renewal). Inward renewal is a much easier pill to swallow when it is the result of the declaration of justification and grounded in legal union.
There might be a place for the word surrender too in the context of the legal. I read the book of Romans now as exclusively about legal union with Christ. There is nothing about sanctification in the book of Romans. Paul even does not use the word sanctification in Romans chapter 8 when listing the ordo salutis. I think that is significant.
Do you think Luther would have agreed with Forde in that subtle shift in the meaning of death to self in our experience? The Lutheran concept of the atonement is also a subtle shift in meaning. Lutheran doctrine is by no means rational and they gloat about that. Meeting the wrath of a Lutheran is like meeting the wrath of a “fully surrendered” Arminian, ie. not a pleasant experience.
LikeLike
No, my friend John, Luther did not deny the wrath of God. And many Lutherans today do NOT agree with Forde in denying that God ever had wrath.
And Romans 6 DOES have the word “sanctification”, twice in one section of Romans 6.
17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to SANCTIFICATION.
Romans 6: 20 For when you WERE slaves of sin, you WERE free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what FRUIT were you getting at that time from the things of which you are NOW ASHAMED? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to SANCTIFICATION and its end, the life of the age to come….”
This is not an easy text, and I think most people fail to understand the relationship of chapter 6 to chapter 5 and the two headships, but it remains a contested question about what this word “sanctification” (holy) means in this section. The most careful study of the question I have read is by David Peterson in a book titled Possessed By God (Eerdmans, 1995).
No question that the word “sanctification” is in the text, but there needs to be a discussion about what the word means here, and how the word is used (or not) in other biblical texts. But calling Lutherans “Arminians” is not going to help any of us to do the necessary thinking.
One more thing, John, on the order. I know you were probably think of order in Romans 8:28-30 but don’t forget that “predestined to be conformed to the image” is in that text. And there is “order” also in the verses above from Romans 6. God does not do everything all at once. God uses means.
slaves to righteousness (justified?)
leading to
“sanctification”
fruit you get
leads to
“sanctification”
and its end
the life of the age to come
LikeLike
That was helpful, Mark. The sanctification that Paul talks about in Romans chapter 6 is missing talk about infusion or inward renewal. That was the main point I was trying to get at. My bad for saying that Paul did not talk about sanctification in Romans. I was referring to Romans 8 where the word sanctification is missing in the ordo there. Romans 8 is a summary of the first 7 chapters and for some reason Paul does not find it necessary to say anything about sanctification in that summary. Where I spent the last 10 weeks all of the talk was about inward renewal and transformation with no talk of election, predestination, imputation, effectual call or justification.
My bad also for pinning labels on Lutherans, Reformed, and even Arminians. It takes a lot of inquiry before determining what “standard of teaching” someone has committed themselves too and whether they are believing the true Gospel or not. We all easily get led astray by false doctrine.
LikeLike
“And many Lutherans today do NOT agree with Forde in denying that God ever had wrath.”
Thanks, Mark. Many Lutheran pastors are publicly rejecting a lot of Forde’s false doctrines (and don’t forget Elert) He has had an unfortunate influence in our seminaries. (However, Forde’s Reflections on the Heidelberg Disputation was helpful to me)
Discussions regarding these men, and sanctification, etc., have been all over the Lutheran blogosphere over the last few years.
LikeLike