Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.–Martin Luther
Lutheran and Reformed traditions…
When I studied Reformation History in seminary, Dr. Frank James was always clear in defining the distinctions that arose during the Reformation. He was always careful to differentiate the various traditions. One clear distinction was the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. Calvin became the patron saint of Reformational theology, whereas Luther took another direction, thus establishing a Lutheran tradition that continues to this day.
What is unique about Lutheranism is its rigid divide between law and gospel, its understanding of the Eucharist (what some scholars call “consubstantiation,” though Lutherans generally do not like that language due to its philosophical connotations), and its two-kingdom model. The Reformed community has recognized that the disputes between Calvinists and Lutherans in the last four centuries are genuine disputes, in light of the vast theological differences between the two traditions. It must be stressed, however, that in some respects Reformational theology and Lutheran theology share some similar concerns. One can think of their opposition to the unsacramental theology of the Anabaptists, and the pernicious Roman doctrine of penance and purgatory. Though there are some similarities, some in the Reformed community have assumed that there is almost universal agreement between these two traditions. As a result, there has arisen a form of pan-confessionalism. Dr. Mark Garcia addresses pan-confessionalism in his article in the following manner:
…pan–confessional phenomenon is an effort to offer a theological response to problems or proposals from the perspective of what two or more confessional traditions hold in common, accenting areas of agreement and minimizing (and sometimes denying) areas of disagreement (see No Reformed Doctrine of Justification? by Mark Garcia).
Advocates of pan-confessionalism are more than willing to blur the differences of both traditions. The underlying motivation behind this desire for confessional unity is not catholicity (that would be a fine reason) but a distinct definition of justification. One defender of pan-confessionalism argued that to attempt to find any differences on the doctrine of justification in these traditions is highly questionable; another wrote that Lutheran and Reformed are in full agreement on justification and faith alone (No Reformed Doctrine of Justification? ). In a reactionary manner, these scholars–in order to fight the recent scholarship on Lutheran and Reformed differences on justification– have essentially abandoned Reformed formulations for Lutheran ones, thus undermining their own tradition they claim to cherish.
As examples of how Lutheranism has won the day in these circles, these scholars deny Christ’s active work through His church to subdue culture to the glory of the Father (this stems from the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms); they also deny the unity of law and gospel through Biblical revelation, hence not allowing “evangelical obedience” to be an integral part or even secondary necessity to saving faith.
While catholic creeds are essential unifying propositions of the Church universal, pan-confessionalism denies the existing differences of particular traditions, thus erasing lines that ought never to be erased.
Calvinism: A Comprehensive Worldview
Calvinism, from its earliest days, has expressed a comprehensive worldview. This does not mean that Calvinism has developed a distinctly Christian identity in every area; neither does it mean that the area Calvinism claims has been fully faithful to Biblical revelation. 
There has certainly been much abuse by those implementing Calvinism into certain areas of culture. Nevertheless, this does not change the thesis that an exhaustive worldview in a Calvinistic framework requires absolute Lordship in every area, though not every area is covered with absolute Lordship in a praxis (practical) sort of way. Finally, it is the proposition that only Calvinism offers a Biblical approach to the world, though its outworking may not always be as pristine as one may imagine.
Other systems of thought do not wish to make their worldviews comprehensive. Rather, they are satisfied with limiting their worldview to a particular manifestation of the kingdom, such as the church, or even worst, they equate the church with the kingdom. By doing so, they argue that only the church and its peculiar theology is to be transformed. This is the reason you will find many in this tradition seeking to diminish the influence of other churches in the world or they will condemn certain ecclesiastical practices.[1] They do this, not out of envy (though this may play a part in any tradition), but out of concern for purity. Denominations that adopt such attitude are generally small in membership. Some in fact, even pride in their size, because “smallness” equals “purer.”[2]
But what is the cause of this way of thinking?
Any student of the Reformation history will conclude that Lutheranism has been highly influential in developing this thinking, even outside its own tradition. Lutheranism tends to be highly critical of a worldview thinking that goes beyond ecclesiology. It is not the influence and greatness of Luther that is in question, but rather his particular theology that excluded cultural engagement as a means of redeeming society. As Abraham Kuyper summarized:
Lutheranism restricted itself to an exclusively ecclesiastical and theological character, while Calvinism put its impress in and outside the Church upon every department of human life. Hence Lutheranism is nowhere spoken of as the creator of a peculiar life-form; even the name of “Lutheranism” is hardly ever mentioned; while students of history with increasing unanimity recognize Calvinism as the creator of a world of human life entirely its own.[3]
It is an explicit Calvinism that gives impetus to societal transformation, for catholicity, and for ecclesiastical purity. The church is only pure when it is not abandoning its covenantal responsibilities (Genesis 1:26-28; Matthew 5:14-16).
[1] Those who embrace a robust Calvinism will also condemn dangerous and compromising practices in various Christian churches, though the difference is, they will not make it their primary goal.
[2] This is not always the case, but case after case proves this rule. This is not to say that all small denominations hold to this position, but it is to say that small denominations who have been around for over 30-100 years share in an implicit anti-Calvinism in their worldview.
[3] Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1931. pg. 23.
The New Lutheran on the block
One of my dearest friends has become a Lutheran. Some weeks ago we discussed about our experiences and how God has led us to where we are. John and I went to college together, roomed together, and grew in our love for the Scriptures together, and soon we shall share a glorious beer together. It has been a joy to see the journey we have been through: From our legalistic days to the glories of the early church and the Reformation. Anyone who reads this blog with some frequency knows that I am not particularly fond of Lutheran theology, especially when it is adopted by Presbyterians, nevertheless, I now find myself in greater accord with my brother and sense a deeper historical alliance. Blessings to you John in your new journey.
John’s article on why he became a Lutheran is found here.
This is My Body: A Reformational Comparison of Calvin and Luther’s Sacramentology, Part VI CONCLUSION
Calvin and Luther had many things in common. Both believed firmly that the Eucharist was a means of grace. 1 The elements nourished the believer and prepared them for their labors in the Lord. Calvin says that the Eucharist is needful because of our “dullness.” Similarly, Luther opines by stating that the sacrament, like the Word of God Almighty, has been given and ordained so that our weak consciences may be encouraged to faith and love. This common bond ought to have unified these two and their respective followers.
Though there were substantial differences, Luther and Calvin understood that the words of Christ had to be taken seriously. Zwingli’s memorial view did not do justice to the words of Christ and the Roman Catholic position relied too much on Aristotelian categories. Luther and Calvin’s level of sacramental and Biblical seriousness ought to pervade the Church of Christ today. It is a futile attempt for the church to “succeed” 2 in every area, but fail to see the essence of the apostolic church. 3 Calvin listed the proper administration of the sacraments, along with the preaching of the Word and Church discipline as the three marks of the church. The church is an unhealthy body if it does not keep and administer that mark faithfully, for in the Lord’s Supper the children of the King sit at His royal table to experience the glories of that sovereign union the King has made with His people. To deny such a glorious banquet would be to deny His children the true assurance that they belong to the King. Children 4 come because they are needy; they come because they hear the great Shepherd’s call. Indeed, the Lord’s Table is for those who labor and are heavy laden, and Christ the Lord will give them rest.
- See Stephen Nichols’ discussion on page 124 in Martin Luther: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought. [↩ back]
- The standards of “success” today are in total disagreement with God’s standards of “faithfulness,” which demands a holy reverence to His means of grace for the church. [↩ back]
- Acts 2:42 –And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. [↩ back]
- My reference to “children” refers to the church. “Children” is here used as in John’s address to the “dear children” in I John 2. Nevertheless, I believe that “covenant children” should be admitted to the table of the Lord. This topic is not the intent of this paper, though a logical consequence of it. [↩ back]
This is My Body: A Reformational Comparison Between Calvin and Luther’s Sacramentology, Part V
For Luther, Jesus’ words were simple and clear. And for those who would oppose its literal rendering he had strict condemnation. According to Luther’s crucial work on the words of Jesus called: “That these words of Christ, ‘This is my Body,’ Etc., stand firm against the fanatics,” 1 he argues vociferously against his opponents whom he calls “fanatics.” He writes: “Now you demand Scripture from us, dear fanatics? Here it is: ‘Take, eat, this is my body.’ Torment yourselves for now with this text; later you shall have more.” 2
Turning back to the matter of the ubiquity of Christ, what is Luther’s reasoning behind it? General reference is made to the fact that Christ is seated at the right hand of God. This would entail that he is in one place. But Luther contests this idea when he says that “the right hand of God is not a specific place in which a body must or may be, such as on a golden throne, but is the almighty power of God, which at one and the same time can be nowhere and yet must be everywhere. It cannot be at any one place, I say. For if it were at some specific place, it would have to be there in a circumscribed and determine and measured, for it is uncircumscribed and immeasurable, beyond and above all that is or may be.” 3 Luther goes on to give a more thorough defense of his position. Though there are legitimate responses to Luther, it must be acknowledged that he dedicated a substantial amount of his writings to answering them. 4 Further, like Calvin, Luther, too, saw a strong connection between Word and Sacrament. Hence, Christ was not alone in the Sacrament, but was accompanied by His word. Listen to Luther’s insightful words: “ For there stands God’s words, ‘This is my body,’ which grasp, comprehend, and give us physically the body of Christ; therefore the body of Christ must be useful through the Word. Indeed, even if it were true that Christ’s flesh were merely a piece of beef, and yet God’s Word were there bidding us to eat of it, it would nevertheless be useful on account of the Word.” 5 The Word is therefore in Luther’s view inseparable from the body.
As it has been stressed in so many ways, Martin Luther drew extensively from the words of institution given by our Lord in the Last Supper. If no other passage solved the matter appropriately, then according to Luther one need only turn to “This is my body.” There, he believed, was incontrovertible evidence that Christ’s body was truly present in the Eucharist. On the other hand, though Calvin was more sympathetic to Luther than Zwingli, he saw in Luther’s interpretation a fundamental error, namely a confusion of the natures of Christ. If Christ’s body was present in the Eucharist He could no longer be seated at the right hand of the Father as the exalted Lord. For Calvin, believers partook of the body of Christ by faith and in so doing they were elevated to the heavens. 6 Calvin believed that the saints enjoyed him in heaven whereas Luther saw it necessary that Christ’s words in the gospel meant that his physical body descended to the Eucharist. 7 Luther believed in a mystical union between the recipient and Christ himself, but Luther’s emphasis is that the believer can be sacramentally united to the body of Christ himself in the Eucharist.
- These long titles were common in the 16th century Reformation. One need only look through the myriad of titles Calvin had for his Institutes. I would favor a return to long titles as opposed to cliché titles given to modern books. With long titles you can give an exact demonstration of your intention throughout the book, whereas titles like “1984” by Orwell say nothing about the content of the book. [↩ back]
- Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works Volume 37 Word and Sacrament, Ed. Robert H. Fischer. Muhlenberg Press, Philadelphia, 1961, pg. 50. [↩ back]
- can be nowhere and yet must be everywhere. It cannot be at any one place, I say. For if it were at some specific place, it would have to be there in a circumscribed and determine and measured, for it is uncircumscribed and immeasurable, beyond and above all that is or may be.” [↩ back]
- The majority of Luther’s works are dedicated to responding to his opponents. The majority of his critiques are against the Roman Catholic apologists and Zwinglians. [↩ back]
- Ibid., pg. 134. [↩ back]
- Reference to Ephesians 2:6. [↩ back]
- Christ is in, with, and under the elements. This has traditionally been called: “Consubstantiation.” Though as Keith Mathison has pointed out, Lutherans prefer the language of “Sacramental Union.” [↩ back]
An Analysis of Luther’s Understanding of the Fruit of the Spirit and Its Implications for our Sanctification Part III
Interestingly, instead of relating “goodness” in Paul’s list as referring to a sort of benevolent human nature, Luther relates it to social matters. Once again the fruit of the Spirit are seen as outward manifestations of a new life. For Luther, “goodness” means to “help others in their necessity by giving, lending, and such other means.”[1] Evangelicalism at large has rejected the tremendous social dimensions of deeds of mercy to the poor and oppressed. Our response to the poor is not one of merit, but it is one that reflects the attitude of our Lord Jesus in the incarnation when He willingly gave up His riches for our misery and utter poverty. In the same manner, we ought to respond to the needy as Christ came for our needs.
Paul concludes with faith, meekness, and temperance. By “faith” he is not referring to faith in Christ, rather as Luther says it refers to “sincerity of one man towards another.” So, he concludes it is when “one man gives credit to one another.”[2] Meekness and temperance follow this faith. Luther summarizes by stating that meekness is when the Christian in his sanctification overcomes the provocation of men. Paul ends his list with “temperance.” Here it is noteworthy that this feature concludes the list. When one lives by the flesh, his sense of moderation is lost. He abuses all things that were meant to bring him pleasure. Instead of faithfulness he is unfaithful; instead of sobriety, he is drunk and so on. Temperance according to Luther is “modesty in the whole life of man.”[3] This is the essence of true spirituality. Our sanctification is marked by the fruit of the Spirit. This is what John Murray has called: “Progressive Sanctification.”[4] It begins at conversion and progresses to the end of our lives or at the coming of our Lord at the Consummation of all things.[5]
Brief Analysis of Luther and our Sanctification
Luther does not understand the fruit of the Spirit as mere individual expressions. He sees them always in relation to other believers. So in the same manner it is right to underscore this pertinent concern in Luther. We are sanctified and being sanctified by the work of the Spirit. This present work is a life-long process that requires a determined commitment to submit before the authority of Christ and live by His holy precepts. As the Psalmist so gladly remarks, “Happy is the man who does not walk in the council of the ungodly; but his delight is in the law of the Lord and in His law he meditates day and night (Psalm 1:1).” He who loves the church of Christ will also love Christ’s people and by constant reminder of God’s grace in their lives will manifest the grandeur of the fruit of Spirit. Soli Deo Gloria
[1] Luther, 380.
[4] Murray, John, Redemption-Accomplished and Applied, (Grand Rapids, MI, 1955).
[5] Philippians 1:6.
An Analysis of Luther’s Understanding of the Fruit of the Spirit and Its Implications for our Sanctification Part II
Before we enter into an analysis of Luther’s view of the Fruit of the Spirit, it is important to quote Paul in Galatians. Galatians 5:22-23 reads: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such there is no law.[1] Here we find the initiation of Paul’s thoughts of what actually means to live in, by, and through the Spirit. In the previous chapters he has deliberated much of his time on the warring of the flesh and the spirit. Now without further hesitation the apostle brings to his readers what it actually means to walk in the spirit. Similarly to I Corinthians 13, Paul begins this section by listing love as the first of all attributes. Love is the central and principal fashion which believers reveal their new life in Christ Jesus. Paul does not mention love out of coincidence. Rather, as Luther so clearly states, “It might have been enough to have said ‘love,’ and no more; for love extends itself into all the fruits of the Spirit. And in I Corinthians, Paul attributes to love all the fruits which are done in the Spirit…”[2] Love therefore, is the primary language or context in which Paul sets his argument for what it means to live a new life or a sanctified life.[3]
In the context of love, Paul sees “joy” as a consequential display of Christ-likeness. Luther’s comments here are reflective of his passion. He writes concerning joy that it is “the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride, that is to say, sweet cogitations of Christ, wholesome exhortations, pleasant songs or psalms, praises and thanksgiving, whereby the godly do instruct, stir up, and refresh one another.”[4] Unlike modern expressions of joy,[5] Luther sees the fruit of the Spirit as integral in corporate worship. Joy is never devoid of community life and therefore should serve as a means of encouragement to one another. It appears here that Paul is not in any way bringing a new concept to the attention of the reader, but rather borrowing profusely Davidic language from the Psalms that speak of rejoicing and adoration. A conspicuous application of such a text relates itself to worship. Normally our joy is not tied to our worship of God.
The concepts of peace and patience seem to be united in Paul’s writings. Once again Luther writes that the peace spoken of in Galatians has both a theocentric focus and anthropocentric focus. To be at peace with one another is to strengthen the body by bearing one another’s burden. Luther summarizes by saying that when the devil cannot overcome his prey, he attempts to stretch their patience, thereby conquering many. Godly patience with one another and a peaceful expectation that God will right the wrongs is a desirable trait in the life of the believer.
Following that same pattern, it is not unlikely that Paul would use one of our Lord’s most cherished features: gentleness. As we are to imitate our Lord, the triune God sanctifies us by our gentleness. As Luther comments so eloquently, “Christians must not be sharp and bitter, but gentle, mild, courteous and fair spoken, and as such as make others to delight in their company.”[6] The newness of life[7] involves a change of demeanor. Further, it changes our hostile spirits into a child-like spirit that answers with graciousness[8] instead of bitterness and contempt.
[1] New International Version
[2] Luther, 378.
[3] As mentioned earlier there are other such lists in the New Testament (I Peter), but Paul’s focus here is concise and to the point, therefore worthy of consideration.
[4] Ibid., 378.
[5] Charismatic demonstrations of joy tend to be individualistic and anti -community.
[6] Luther, 379.
[7] II Corinthians 5:17 speaks of a “new creation.”
[8] I Peter 3:15.
An Analysis of Luther’s Understanding of the Fruit of the Spirit and Its Implications for our Sanctification Part I
Professor Sinclair Ferguson has said that “All the energy of the Trinity for our salvation has been focused on transforming us into Christ-likeness.”[1] Christ-likeness is our greatest goal in this present existence. Far from the existentialist who desires to live for the now, Christian religion is best understood when past, present, and future are joined in their pursuit of the one aim, being like our Lord. In the Scriptures we find a host of passages that seek to give guidance to the Christian in his pursuit of Christ-likeness (see Matthew 5-7, I Corinthians 13, etc.). Nevertheless, no one passage so clearly defines for us what Christ-likeness looks like than Paul’s description in Galatians 5:22-23.
Paul has already dealt with the barbaric nature of fleshly pursuit and he now finds it significant to contrast the life of “flesh” with the life of the “Spirit.” It is in this section where the German Reformer Martin Luther is very helpful in deciphering and enabling the reader to grasp such profound descriptions.[2] This portion of Scripture is commonly known as the “Fruit of the Spirit.” Here “fruit” is singular because it represents a unit, not a variety of manifestations at different times. Paul here advocates that when the Spirit grants new life to the unbeliever, he (the new believer) receives the fruit of the Spirit. These nine fruits serve as a profound demonstration that God has in mercy granted the sinner a new life in which the fruit are its proof. Luther in contrasting the fruit of the Spirit with the “fruit” of the flesh says that the fruit of the Spirit are “excellent fruits…for they that have them give glory to God and with the same do allure and provoke others to embrace the doctrine and faith of Christ.”[3]
[1] Professor Sinclair Ferguson’s lectures on Sanctification; also see his book The Christian Life.
[2] For further reference also see Video Series entitled: Developing Christian Character by R.C. Sproul.
[3] Luther’s Commentary on Galatians, Modern English Edition. Published by Fleming H. Revell; A division of Baker Book House Co. Grand Rapids, MI, 1988), p.378.