Arand at St. Louis picked this up and ran with it. This kind of righteousness of the law is a different thing from the perfect righteousness of Christ which we grasp by faith in his promise.
Adam, Thanks for the link and background, I will definitely delve into this. The two kinds of righteousness, before God and before man, make sense. What is strange to me is to relate these to justification and sanctification, respectively. But I need to read more. Thanks again. We must be absolutely clear what we mean by it. Sanctification is entirely and only the work of God. As Paul says in Gal. Pink does pretty well on this too. No way. The obedience of believers is entirely and only Christ Himself living in them.
Moreover, every single act of obedience a believer will ever render to God has already been predetermined Eph WCF And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of his good pleasure. I appreciate the post, Dr. And, away with the moralists! Do you think there are any important differences in the way the Reformed and Lutherans distinguish Law and Gospel?
If so, any reading you can recommend eg. The 16th and 17th century Reformed did not go out of their way to articulate strong differences with the Lutherans on this. My perception is that some? Lutherans are not as willing to say that.
The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect, stimulates and stirs it up. But it provides no remedy for it. However the gospel not only teaches us what is to be done, it also has the power of the Holy Spirit joined to it….
A statement of the law indicates the need for a perfect inherent righteousness, of eternal life given through the works of the law, of the sins which are contrary to the law and of the curse that is due them….
By contrast, a statement of the gospel speaks of Christ and his benefits, and of faith being fruitful in good works. This is the first lesson, to know the right way to the Kingdom of Heaven. That we should confess our sins, amend our lives, and then through faith in Christ we shall be saved.
How would you and Dr. Scaer speak of the law differently? If I recall, he had some statements in his book on Matthew which seemed to equate to Mosaic administration with grace. Scaer is probably my favorite living Confessional Lutheran theologian, however I was a little worried about these statements. It seems both unPauline and unLutheran. Is this what you are referring to? No, I was referring to the article linked.
That said, the Lutheran Liturgy does reflect a more biblical pattern of worship than the anti-Liturgical bias of the WCF. Are we not more biblical if we chant the Psalms and Canticles instead of singing paraphrases of them in meter?
Finally, of course, it is preferable for Reformed kids to learn the Heidelberg, which I prefer above Westminster. I would tend to agree with you in regards to drawing from the varying expressions of Calvinism in the Church- I dialog more with Calvinists than I do with Lutherans. Warfield, Meredith Kline and Gerhaardus Vos to name the major ones.
I can do this because I sit at a desk with a computer at it most of my work day. I still keep up with reading the Book of Concord and go to a few group studies of the Lutheran confessions a couple times a month. This, Cary believes, results in much Pastoral Counseling which really can cause an inward looking pietism. You might be right though George- I am not sure how some good Calvinistic theologians would respond to that. I know Robert Godfrey believes that he thought Calvin teaching and sermons gave the saints much confidence and strength in regards to their justification before a Holy God.
This is the major point I think Cary was making. Cary also brings up the predestination debate which he claims Luther would not enter into with others. To me it was a very illuminating article but like you George I would like to hear a Calvinistic response to it. One more point here- I think what I mentioned above goes to the core of the matter in regards to the imputation and the infusion debate. It seems to me that the Calvinistic scheme of Sola Fide would lead to a more infusion like stance in regards to sanctification some type of inward change takes place in us which is always almost impossible to measure.
We can somehow cooperate with the sanctification process because of the inward subjective change which takes place in us. We are always simultaneously saint and sinner in this life. This leads to a much different form of spirituality in regards to sanctification. Only by true faith in Jesus Christ; that is, although my conscience accuse me, that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them,and am still prone always to all evil; yet God without any merit of mine, of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never committed nor had any sin, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me; if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart.
I would refer you to the Cary article- he stated that there were subtle differences in how Luther and Calvin came to their conclusions about Sola Fide. I believe he stated that they looked at different promises in the scriptures. Calvin did not write the Heidelberg Catechism. I suppose scheme is the wrong word. What overall scriptures Luther and Calvin looked at were different when arriving at their complete doctrine on the matter.
This is what I meant by scheme. The scheme of Calvin turned into the assurance of salvation and perseverance of the saints language. The Lutherans never went that route. Does that make what I said more clear? Again, I would refer you to the article. Calvin did write at least two Catechisms. Mike Horton did a review of the hardback edition for Christianity Today that is available online at:. I believe questions — which are below can help us see that as Dr.
Clark continually speaks about the Reformed position as confessed today is the same position that was confessed by John Calvin:. As we understand the foundation on which faith ought to rest, it will be easy to extract from it a true definition of faith. It will. It may be defined — a sure and steadfast knowledge of the paternal goodwill of God toward us, as he declares in the gospel that for the sake of Christ he will be our Father and Savior.
Our mind is too rude to be able to comprehend the spiritual wisdom of God which is revealed to us by faith, and our hearts are too prone; either to diffidence or to a perverse confidence in ourselves or creatures, to rest in God of their own accord. But the Holy Spirit by his illumination makes us capable of understanding those things which would otherwise far exceed our capacity, and forms us to a firm persuasion, by sealing the promises of salvation on our hearts.
Could any one be found so perfect, he might justly be deemed righteous, but as we are all sinners, guilty before God in many ways, we must seek elsewhere for a worthiness which may reconcile us to him.
First, all the works which proceed from us, so as properly to be called our own, are vicious, and therefore they can do nothing but displease God, and be rejected by him. You say then that before we are born again and formed anew by the Spirit of God, we can do nothing but sin, just as a bad tree can only produce bad fruit? Matthew Altogether so. For whatever semblance works may have in the eyes of men:. Hence you conclude, that we cannot by any merits anticipate God or call forth his beneficence; or rather that all the works which we try or engage in, subject us to his anger and condemnation?
I understand so; and therefore mere mercy, without any respect to works, Titus , embraces and accepts us freely in Christ, by attributing his righteousness to us as if it were our own, and not imputing our sins to us. Because, while we embrace the promises of the gospel with sure heartfelt confidence, we in a manner obtain possession of the righteousness of which I speak.
This then is your meaning — that as righteousness is offered to us by the gospel, so we receive it by faith? But after we have once been embraced by God, are not the works which we do under the direction of his Holy Spirit accepted by him?
They please him, not however in virtue of their own worthiness, but as he liberally honors them with his favor. They are always mixed up with some defilement from the weakness of the flesh, and thereby vitiated. John Y, I have read the Cary paper a number of times, having had it constantly recommended to me in the blogosphere.
I can see why it is so popular with confessional Lutherans. Indeed its central point seems to be the importance of finding our security outside ourselves, not looking inwardly. But while there may be later elements of our Reformed tradition which might reasonably be accused of that, to see this as true of the entire tradition is grossly unfair.
This is a caricature of Calvin, I believe. I think a truer contrast would be between authentic, confessional Protestantism both Luther and Calvin versus subjective, pietistic religion. You raise imputation vs infusion.
Our inherent righteousness never comes into it. Actually, the Book of Concord talks about growth in the sanctified life. I have a hunch though I am no historian that this aversion to talk of progress in holiness might not have been characteristic of the early Lutherans.
That may be possible for a standard Protestant but it is a strange idea to a Reformed Christian. The Heidelberg Catechism Q21 lists knowledge and trust as elements of true faith. The Heidelberg Q65 provides further elaboration when it states that this faith has its origin in the operation of the Holy Spirit through the preached Word and is confirmed by the administration of the holy Sacraments. This Word and Sacrament is not found within, but comes to me without on a particular day and at a particular time that I did not appoint.
Further, in a gracious accommodation to my fallen nature, it comes to me weekly. For me then, as a Reformed reader, to be reflective is to reflect on Christ as He is presented to me in Word and Sacrament and to find my assurance there. The Reformed answer is to look for Christ, for all the promises are in Him. Where do I find Christ? Look for Him where He has promised to meet you.
Look for Him in Word and Sacrament. I think you are right in your assessment. I was once a Presbyterian and converted to Lutheranism. It was hard for me to make that decision simply because the Lutherans I had talked to simply would not listen to or try to understand my beliefs. They simply assumed I was saying something that was a horrible caricature of Reformed theology. At the same time, when I tried to find reformed answers to questions raised by Lutherans, I found they were simply not there.
The Reformed have not bothered to take the other side seriously either. The mere fact that so many Reformed publications call the Lutheran view of communion Consubstantiation shows they have done no research. Most Lutherans would probably quibble with your expression here and say that Christ, in His humanity is said to be somehow illocal rather than endorsing in any sense that he is ubiquitous though I am aware that some Lutherans have used that construction.
This issue comes up most obviously in their sacramentology but also in devotion where you will hear Lutherans say after Luther himself especially at Easter , that, in some mysterious sense, at Calvary, God died. This is very jarring to Reformed ears but properly understood is probably not heterodox. That said, my wife is Lutheran and I have learned a lot about them. I would like to be the kind of Reformed believer who has a firm grasp of confessional Lutheran orthodoxy but it can be difficult.
In some ways it is SO different. I recently had an email conversation with Dr. Dennis Ngien who denies divine impassibility, in which he states that he takes the Lutheran view. Historically, as Ngien conceded, the Chalcedon Definition makes it clear that when Christ suffered and died, he did so as ONE person in his human nature not divine nature. So the denial of divine impassibility is certainly unconfessional.
As the WCF says,. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions , immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, longsuffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.
What are we to make of it? Could someone more knowledgeable explain? I cannot say that I am familiar with how other Reformed exegetes have handled this problem, but my own understanding is that Christ is passible have passions just as he is mutable having grown from a baby to an adult etc , but all these are with regards to his human nature. That is, God does not change ad intra, but his dealings with us change ad extra. Divine impassibility God does not suffer is a catholic doctrine not just a Reformed doctrine.
Thus, if the person of Christ may be said to be illocal, then the either nature may be said to be illocal. The Reformed doctrine of the communicatio is that what may be said of a nature may be said of a person.
I gave an address to a large gathering of Lutheran ministers and theologians at Concordia Sem, Ft Wayne, IN some years back defending the doctrine of divine immutability God does not change , over against Open Theism. Divine impassibility is a corollary of divine immutability.
God does not suffer in se in himself. It is the anthropomorphite heresy to say that he does. Contra the rationalists, there are mysteries and paradoxes in the faith but none of them require us to affirm divine passibility or mutability. The Lutheran Christology, as I understand it, does create significant potential for error.
I am more conversant with the Reformed side and not much of the Lutheran view, thus I was wondering if Lutherans were really that way off, or rather that Ngien was not really presenting the confessional Lutheran view. Seems to me the idea of divine impassibility is a speculative philosophical concept, and requires a great deal of censorship of the Bible to make it work.
Deny divine impassibility, and divine immutability should consistently go as well. Passion and change mutability are ethical concepts in the Bible, and I think that the WCF is using them in that sense, not some frozen Aristotelian Thought Thinking Itself sense. Well, not really. Divine impassibility therefore does not make God into a totally uncaring Principle which is more of a caricature of Orthodoxy by people like the Open Theists.
It does not preclude the concept of procession from actuality to actuality. Qualified by appropirate via negativa of course. But what concerns me is that sometimes impassibility is taught to exclude emotions from God. Calling this divine emotion little more than accomodation or anthropomorphism seems rather silly.
If I may…for Lutherans, the idea that, at Calvary, God died is not as much a doctrinal assertion as a devotional one. It refers and points to the mysterium tremendum, the whole incarnation, in fact. That said, there does appear to be a significant divergence between how Reformed and Lutheran Christians look at this, so I am not trying to suggest that this is a distinction without a difference.
However, I remain a bit suspicious of judging the confession of another church by our own standards in this kind of categorical way.
Thanks for the information. I am asking this mainly in light of this post by Dr. If this is true of the Lutheran view, then it would seem that there may be another difference between Reformed and Lutheranism in the area of Christology. It strikes me that one characteristic of Luther and Lutheranism to a large degree after him is that he was and they generally are very fond of paradox and of the arresting image.
Sometimes this is good though. This kind of recalling the guts and bones of the incarnation can be useful. It also occurs to me that Lutherans have done well to maintain this curious view without ever falling into the heresy of open theism which it seems might be a danger. I was aware that the Lutheran view is not really the complete innovation many Reformed seem to think it was but has historical precedents. Thanks for the links! Hi Scott, thanks for writing this topic. However, I am still disappointed at times caricature still abounds within the Lutheran side.
As pointed out by one poster here, Calvin was alluded to subject justification more to the subjective side while Luther to the objective. While I noted that there were problems within the Reformed camp at certain century and also problems still persist today within certain Reformed community regarding the issue or assurance of salvation, the Heidelberg Catechism for example is very clear on the objectivity of our faith placed on Christ alone.
Work is the fruit of the Spirit wrought in us, and the only certain assurance we have is to continue to look to Christ.
While Todd has interacted with Kim Riddlebarger on one session on the differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism, and Kim did clarify the objectivity of looking to Christ for our salvation in regards to assurance, Todd has never seemed to have a corrected view, as demonstrated in his interaction with Cary later on.
Note, I am not putting down Todd here, he is a great guy. I think it could be just the nature of hosting programs whereby there are time limits where time needed for clarification is challenged.
Still, I wish he could have at least pointed out there are different views in the Reformed community and note the official confessional view on this matter since he has already interacted with Kim on the differences.
Baptism is a means of grace. What is the benefit of such eating and drinking? For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation. How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things? How, then, does the Sacrament impart such forgiveness of sins? These words, therefore, are the chief thing in the Sacrament. Now if this covenant did not exist, and God were not so merciful as to wink at our sins, there could be no sin so small but it would condemn us.
For the judgment of God can endure no sin. Therefore there is no greater comfort on earth than baptism. For it is through baptism that we come under the judgment of grace and mercy, which does not condemn our sins but drives them out by many trials.
There is a fine sentence of St. But so long as we do not give our consent to it or desire to remain in it, sin is so overruled by our baptism that it does not condemn us and is not harmful to us.
Rather it is daily being more and more destroyed in us until our death. Baptism leads us to a new life on earth; the bread guides us through death into eternal life. So entirely is this sacrament intended and instituted for a strengthening against death and an entrance into eternal life.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, p. Thank you Pastor Chet. I was wondering about the difference between Calvinism and Lutheranism. It does not sound Biblical to me. Am I wrong? Salvation certainly is not just for some, but available to all who will choose Christ.
John , 2 Peter We are justified by grace alone, faith alone and Scripture alone. For the sake of Christ, Who in His love for us laid down His precious life as a ransom to free us from the bondage of sin. It is not difficult, so trust in Him with a child-like faith and be Lutheran lol. God bless each of you. Only a few facts are inaccurate, but those facts are so wrong that your article seems completely inaccurate. Aaron it is obvious that you truly do not understand the differences between Luther and Calvin.
Luther did not believe in predestination in the way Calvin did. There is a huge difference in predestination and double predestination. Second to simplify the difference Luther understood Gods ability to see throughout time. That pesky all knowing attribute of God for predestination believers. There is s difference in God knowing and God picking who and who will not choose and have faith in Christ. Luther and Calvin when put on a chart may look as if they believe the same things but how they believe these things is totally different.
Now to suggest either is burning in Hell as you put it is absolutely false. For one not your call, but Gods. Both men no matter their theology believed in justification through Grace. They both I believe had faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That is Gods only requirement for salvation period. Even today the Catholic Church now agrees with this basis for salvation. Phil, the highest authority is God, and His Word the Bible is the truth.
Paul tells the Ephesians not that they had made a choice based on free will, but that God raised them from spiritual death. Where does Scripture tell us that we have free will? By all means let us differ theologically, but let us refrain from calling each other heretics or liars.
Who gave these guys the authority to come up with their theories. Who decided on Sola Scriptura. The Catholics make the most sense. The Bible is filled with discrepancies, and makes no sense a good bit of the time. Much more involvement in the Church. Everybody tries to tear Catholicism apart, but the Bible has a lot more tearing to do.
Catholicism has been a growing religion. The Bible goes nowhere, and leaves itself open to quacks. Many of the teachings are such made up rubbish.
The Catholics put the Bible together. This is why they have a catechism. Something as complex as a religion needs putting a lot of heads together. A poorly written book with contradictions galore needs alot of highly intelligent guys sorting thru the mess. In Christ, in Christ, that is the theme of Ephesians 1 through 3. So the passage of scripture that you are referencing has this in mind. I would argue that even this book tells you in Ephesians that when you believed you were sealed , in him, with the Holy Spirit of promise.
Romans chapter 11 tells you but the Jews were cut off and you were grafted in, why? It tells you that you were grafted in because of belief, so you are united to Christ through faith. Therefore at the heart of Ephesians chapter 2 which you were referencing it cannot be forgotten or dismissed that faith is the means by which we are united to the person and work of Jesus who is the means of our spiritual life.
Now I truly only bring this up for one reason and it is not necessarily to correct you but to those who will take the time to read this entire strand of messages what you will find is these dogmatic stands that we take theologically because we believe our theology to be the highest of all highs and they simply are not.
It was wisely stated in a message above in this message strand that a house divided cannot stand. It is a dangerous naivety that I would flee from if I were you. Quite amazing though however how long a conversation can go on. In the end however even if there was a misrepresentation a fax with respect to John Calvin and Martin Luther in Aaron original comments which I believe there were. I want to believe the best about Aaron and while I believe we should offer the correction we should do it in love.
While it is good to discuss theology and the truths of the holy word of God, if we do not offer the grace of Doctrine then let us not try to discuss the doctrines of Grace, or the men that espouse them because brethren until we learn to love we are afar off from these deep Waters of discussion.
God bless I love you all. The Book of Concord is a general reference to the Confessional documents of the Reformation which were collected and published together in It is a very important collection of documents for Lutherans. Since , all Lutherans, in order to be Lutherans, have unqualifiedly subscribed to the contents of this Book as their Christian confession. It was originally published in German, and shortly thereafter, a Latin edition was published, and since that time, many editions have appeared in many languages.
In America, several English editions have been published. In , Rev. This is interesting to note, as the Henkel's and the Tenessee Synod are essentially the progenitors of the Confessional Lutheran movement in America.
Continued in next comment Continued from previous comment. In , Henry E. Jacobs also a prominent figure in the Confessional movement of 19th Century America, along with C. Krauth published his English translation of The Book of Concord -- which was reprinted by the Johann Gerhard Institute in , but does not appear to be readily available from them any longer -- though print-on-demand paperback reprints still appear to be available from Amazon. Shortly thereafter, in , an updated English edition, based on Jacob's edition, was published by the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, which also included the original German and Latin editions along with a lengthly analysis of the historical context of the times in which the Lutheran Confessional documents were written.
It was called Concordia Triglotta. The English text of the Triglotta , alone, can be purchased from Repristination Press , and it is also available online for free, at bookofconcord. Since , the text of the Triglotta has essentially remained the standard edition, especially among theologians, though a fresh translation by Theodore Tappert was published in by Augsburg-Fortress Press. Still available , one will find that this edition is quoted very frequently by Lutheran pastors and theologians of the past generation, as well.
It appears to have overtaken Tappert, but, among confessional Lutherans, has yet to displace the Triglotta. This edition is an updated English edition based on the English text found in the Triglotta , and also includes very useful Historical Introductions.
Published by Concordia Publishing House in , it is seems to be primarily intended for the benefit of the lay reader. Personally, while I have all of these editions except Kolb-Wengert, I almost never use the Tappert edition. Though the Triglotta is still the standard, for research I find that I have my nose in the Jacobs edition more often than not -- though I still quote the Triglotta in my writing.
However, for general and or devotional reading in the Book of Concord , I highly recommend Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions , especially for the average lay reader. If you are going to buy a copy, however, I would make sure to get the Second Edition. There were some problems with the First Edition mostly in the footnotes, as I recall. This shouldn't be a problem if you buy it new, but if you buy one used, avoid the First Edition.
Hope this helps! Douglas Lindee. Very informative read. Doctrine is so important. Lack of doctrine teaching is so prevalent. If our churches continue to base their doctrine on human reasoning and human understanding instead of the written word,Gods Grace and promise of Salvation through FAITH in Death and Resurrection of our Savior Jesus Christ the "church" will not grow. Ask yourself. Just exactly where has human reasoning got us? The Holy Scriptures has survived and that is no accident.
Those who walked and witnessed Christ and the resurrection spread the word through a small world of the time and sent a tidal wave of faith throughout the world today that has survived and is true! Think about it, how many Apostles died a brutal death for their faith? Nearly all of them. Every one could have turned their back, denied Christ, and walked away. According to human understanding But WE DO. Therefore everything else in the bible that is "hard to believe" as humans we must believe.
Just because it was written in the bible? Because if you try to encompass scripture into human reasoning No Miracles of Christ, no fulfillment of the old testament scriptures of Christ's arrival?
Just to name a few. I agree. I cant understand it. But I do believe it! You know too I don't pretend to understand that either. Post a Comment Comments will be accepted or rejected based on the sound Christian judgment of the moderators.
Since anonymous comments are not allowed on this blog, please sign your full name at the bottom of every comment, unless it already appears in your identity profile. Note: Intrepid Lutherans cannot endorse all the content found at the following links, and expects that the visitor accessing them will exercise mature Berean judgment in assessing and making use of them.
The following response was a little too long to post as a comment This is what we mean, therefore, when we qualify ourselves as confessional Lutherans, as those who subscribe to and meticulously affirm the teachings of Scripture as expressed in the Book of Concord.
That this unity, due to our own fallibility, is imperfect, we all admit — which is why, though we take such confessions at face value, we do not rest secure in them but continually examine and affirm our doctrines according to the teachings of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, and evaluate our practices relative to them.
This is also why we are diligent to point out to our brothers when we detect that their doctrine or practice may be straying from our mutual confession, in order to call them to repentance or to have ourselves corrected that we may continue to enjoy our unity and to work together for the Truth.
This latter point, is the primary reason our blog exists. Though none of the issues prompting him to leave the WELS impact the content of this essay, given the frequency with which this essay is visited each week, it may nevertheless be of interest to the reader to know what those issues were. Those issues were explained in a letter to his former congregation that was made public on this blog: What do you do with a Certified Letter? Here is one idea The Reformed confession with the widest subscription is the Westminster Confession , although there are quite a number of other historical confessions that are important among the Reformed, including the Belgic Confession Dutch Reformed and the Gallic Confession , all of which would be strongly identified with the teachings of Calvinism.
Although there seems to be a growing confessional movement among some Reformed Calvinists, for the most part, we see Reformed teaching as a continuum between Reformed Calvinism and Reformed Arminianism — and this is especially the case in modern American Evangelicalism, which, due to its inherent ecumenism, tends to broadly yet non-specifically identify with Reformed teaching. Anyway, I checked out the church body you are a member of — the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church ARP — and according to your doctrinal statements , your church body confesses the Westminster Confession , placing you square within a Calvinist confession.
Another document, entitled, What the Bible and Lutherans Teach is a positive description of the doctrines that all confessional Lutherans, and many other Christians, agree on. Unfortunately, neither of these documents appear to be available from the WELS website in PDF format anymore, so these web documents will have to suffice for the purposes of comparison with the PDF your church body provides.
Given the availability of these documents, what I am not going to do is walk through them line by line since I am sure that you are fully capable of doing so.
0コメント