Martin Luther Was A Calvinist!

It's true! Luther was a full-blooded, limited atonement preachin', 5-point TULIP sniffin' Calvinist. Just read Bondage of the Will, that'll show ya.

Martin Luther, Calvinist

Plus, look at that beard! Calvinists all have beards. John Calvin had a long one. Heck, Doug Wilson has a good beard too. Even Charles Spurgeon had a beard. Luther must have been a Calvinist.

The Small Catechism is a Calvinist document, for sure. Look at these Calvinistic dogmas Luther lays down.

What does Baptism give or profit?--Answer.

 

It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

 

And then,

 

How can water do such great things?--Answer.

 

It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

 

And more Calvinist thought here...
 

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

 

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

 

And...
 

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?

 

That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

 

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?

 

It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

 

All of this stuff from the Small Catechism is exactly what Calvinism teaches.

 

But it's not. These teachings are considered damnable heresy by many Calvinists.

 

Martin Luther was definitely not a Calvinist.

 

If only he would have lived longer he would have been; they say.

Uh, no.

+Pax+

Faith in Faith?

Interesting topic, this. I do think, when we look at this topic of faith and sola fide, that Lutheranism differs from the rest of Protestantism, including Reformed Theology, Arminianism, and good old mainstream Evangelicalism (i.e. Baptists and Methodists of all stripes. Yes, I know that is a huge group with all sorts of different stances).

How exactly is Lutheranism different in this arena? To see that, we must look at how different camps view faith. Rest assured, we are very different. I hesitate to even use the word "Protestant" when I speak of Lutheranism. We're not really Protestant; we're Evangelical Catholics.

The Difference

In Protestantism of all stripes, the main premise is simply this: Everyone that believes in Christ is saved. (Jn 3:16, Ac 16:31, Ro 10:9-13)

In Lutheranism it is this: I baptize you in the Triune Name of God. (Mt 28:18-20)

Does this mean Lutheranism discounts belief in Christ? Far from it! Rather, Lutheranism sees faith as something that is in the Word of God and simply receives and recognizes what is true. Therefore, we are baptized and thus saved, and we had better not call God a liar. He has spoken it. It is so.

Does this mean that Protestantism discounts baptism? Well, no. But the grounds of assurance of salvation is ultimately rooted in faith, which is subjective, and not in baptism, which is objective.

Thus, we could look at this topic in a sort of logical format. In Protestantism, the major premise is that everyone who believes is saved. The Protestant is thus pushed to looking to himself. In other words, the Protestant will say something like: I believe. Therefore I am saved.

The Lutheran on the other hand will look outside of himself and may say something like: I am baptized. God put His Triune Name on me in Holy Baptism. God always tells the truth. Baptism now saves you. I receive this truth from God because the Word says so.

The biggest difference here is that for Protestants faith is a very introspective sort of thing. Don't get me wrong, there is a time and a place for introspection, for sure. That being said, in Protestantism, whereas faith may indeed look to the Word of God (e.g. Jo 3:16, Ro 10), it ultimately ends up asking itself if it is really faith. In other words, the Protestant always comes back to around to the question: How do I know I have really truly believed - and therefore am saved?

Lutherans, on the other hand, look to the promise of God given in Baptism. We know we believe not because we believe, but because Christ gave us Himself on the tree of Calvary and then in our Baptism. God does not lie. I was baptized, but more importantly, I AM baptized.

Summation

Ultimately the biggest difference we see here is in Sacramental efficacy. Some Protestants affirm that the Sacraments are effective (the Reformed), but stop short of saying that the Sacraments are always effective. We could use the example of the Eucharist here. In much of Protestantism, the Eucharist is nothing more than a bare memorial of pious remembrance. In Reformed Theology, the believer communes with Christ in faith, but the unbeliever receives only bread and wine. In Lutheranism, the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ given and shed for you, regardless of whether or not the person receiving it is a believer. Every partaker of the Eucharist receives Christ; in their mouth.

Lutheran Theology is very Sacramental, and hence, very objective when it comes to faith and salvation. We are saved (and know we are saved) because we are baptized into Christ, receive His true body and blood in our mouth for the forgiveness of sins, and are forgiven in Holy Absolution. In these ways, Christ is given to us.

Protestant Theology is not Sacramental, and hence, very subjective when it comes to faith and salvation. They are saved (and know they are saved) because they believe in Christ.

Hopefully this is helpful. It's a very rough sketch of the topic and volumes could be written about it. But this, as I see it, it a pretty accurate summary.

+Grace and Peace+

So You Wanna Tick Off A Confessional Lootran, Eh?

Top 10 ways to get under the skin of a Confessional Lutheran.

10. Tell them that oyster crackers and grape juice is communion.

Jesus used unleavened bread and wine, not oyster crackers and Welch's. We are foolish, foolish, foolish, to change the elements that Christ used. And by the way, we come to the altar to receive Christ, not sit in our pews and see if we're holy enough to actually partake.

9. Associate us with the ELCA.

The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) is the largest church body in the United State that bears the name Lutheran. Problem is, they're not Lutheran, like at all. The ELCA is theologically liberal, and we cringe when they use the name Lutheran. They don't stand for anything that Lutherans have stood for throughout history.

8. Tell us that modern day Lutherans are really synergistic Philippists.

Ah, no. We already had this controversy back in the day between the Gnesio Lutherans and the Philippists (named for Philip Melanchthon, who sadly compromised a lot in his later years). The Formula of Concord solves all of this. We're monergists in the purest sense of the term.

7. Tell us that Baptism is just a work of obedience.

Go ahead, try telling us that. You'll probably end up getting about 20 Scriptures in response.

6. Tell us that Martin Luther wouldn't be a Lutheran if he were alive today.

Do you even Small Catechism, yo?

5. Tell us that we're really no different than Roman Catholics.

Well, we are. That's kinda why Luther got excommunicated by Rome. We have much in common with them, that is true. But we differ on some very big issues. Like the Gospel.

4. Tell us that Luther was really a Calvinist.

This one is common. The Reformed want to claim Luther. Too bad he flatly rejected much of Reformed doctrine, such as limited atonement, "spiritual" presence only in the Eucharist, and the denial of baptismal regeneration. He also later in life rejected double predestination. Luther was definitely not a Calvinist. Monergist does not equal Calvinist. Sorry, but Luther thinks you're heretics.

3. Deny the Real Bodily Presence.

Oh boy. You don't even wanna go there. This (the bread) IS (is, is, IS) MY (Christ's) Body. Jesus hath spoken. Nuff said.

2. Tell us that we deny sola gratia (grace alone) and sola fide (faith alone) because of our sacramentalism.

Wait a second. We LIKE those terms. Of course, when one sees baptism and communion as works of obedience, then they get the means of grace wrong. Are they even listening? WE LIKE THOSE THINGS! WE BELIEVE THEM! Baptism and the Eucharist are gracious, not works.

And the number 1 way to tick off a Confessional Lutheran...

1. Call me a Pietist.

Do it. I'll sin in response.

Given for You. Shed for You.

An Maundy Thursday is upon us, a post on the Lord's Supper is in order.

The Gospel According to St. Luke states,

St. Luke 22:19-20: And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."

Here is Christ instituting the Lord's Supper. The two statements of Christ are of paramount importance here. In times past, the debates on the Lord's Supper have been legendary. During the time of the Reformation, the Marburg Colloquy between Luther and Zwingli was a monumental event. Luther and Zwingli could not agree upon the Lord's Supper, with Luther affirming the Real Presence and Zwingli denying it. Later on, Swiss Reformer John Calvin tried to concoct a via media between the two camps and bring union, affirming a spiritual presence where the elect believers are lifted in faith to heaven where the Holy Spirit delivers Christ to them. Lutherans rejected Calvin's formula, since it is a rejection of the Real Presence.

Anyhow, all of these discussions proved to show us one simple thing: there is no via media between the est (is) and the significat (signifies). Rightly, our Lutheran churches are not in communion with the Reformed churches, and this is mainly due to their denial of the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper. There are other reasons, but that is a big one.

In the text from St. Luke, we find two statements of Christ. The sacramentarians interpret the passage to say that the bread and wine are symbols of Christ's body and blood; not the true body and blood of Christ. When we look at Christ's statements, we see that these statements are interpreted as follows:

This is My body [symbolic] which is given for you [literal]; do this in remembrance of Me

This cup is the new covenant in My blood [symbolic], which is shed for you [literal]

Herein lies a big problem in sacramentarian interpretation: If this is just a symbol of Christ's body and blood, but it is literally given and shed for you, one has to prove on what basis they can separate the statements of Christ in a half literal and half symbolic manner.

In other words, if this is NOT Christ's body and blood, what confidence can you have that this is given and shed for you? Ironically, in Reformed Theology, Christ's Body and Blood might not have been given and shed for you due to the dogma of limited atonement. Why then can't the entire statements be symbolic only? That would actually make more sense of the sentence in sacramentarian interpretation. If the first clause is symbolic (This is My Body), then the entire statement should be symbolic in nature (This is My Body which is given for you).

To hold to a symbolic interpretation of the Lord's Supper demands that a person also hold to a symbolic interpretation of "given for you" and "shed for you" within the same statements. One would have to prove that is the case.

It makes much more sense to simply cling to the clear words of Scripture here. This is My Body, which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.

Literally. This is My Body (literally) which is given for you (literally); do this in remembrance of Me (literally).

+Grace and Peace+

Sasse on Luther and Zwingli

I wrote a blog a couple days ago where I insinuated that the Sacramentarian (Real Presence deniers and deniers of Baptismal Regeneration) churches separate the Sacraments from the Gospel and thereby deny the promises given within.

Directly Proportional Sacramentology

So, to clarify what I have written, I am going to call on Hermann Sasse. He explains it better than me. I quote from Sasse's stellar work on the Marburg Colloquy, entitled This is My Body.

"How then, is it to be explained that he [Zwingli] was prepared to recognize Luther as a brother in the faith, in spite of what he regarded as Luther's grave error? The answer is that for him the Sacrament. and the doctrine on the Sacrament, did not belong to those essentials of the Christian faith concerning which there must be unity within the church. In contradistinction to Luther, the understanding of the Gospel on which there must be unanimity is independent of the understanding of the Lord's Supper and of the Sacraments in general. The Sacrament for Zwingli is not part and parcel of the Gospel; it is an ordinance of Christ, to be performed by Christians. This performance may have some effect on the soul of the faithful, insofar as the 'sign' makes the Word of the Gospel clearer. But the Sacraments can never be means of grace in the strict sense. They only signify the grace which has been given without them, as he puts it Art. 7 of his Fidei Ratio:

'I believe, indeed, I know, that all the sacraments are so far from conferring grace that they do not even convey or distribute it.'

That the Sacrament is also a sign has never been denied by Luther and the Lutheran church, as it is the conviction also of Roman doctrine. The question is only whether, according to Scripture, it is not more.

 

Here lies the deepest reason for the differing attitudes of Luther and Zwingli, not only toward the Sacrament as such, but also toward the doctrine, that is, the understanding of the Sacrament. If the Sacrament, though performed by man, is an act of God, and if this act is more than a sign, namely, and instrument by which God gives something, then the denial of this character of the Sacrament is ...nothing less than a destruction of the Sacrament. The Sacrament is either a means by which God gives His grace, or it is no Sacrament at all - at least, not in the sense in which the church for 1500 years, since the days of the apostles, had understood the Sacrament. Nothing can conceal the difference between churches for which the Sacraments are instruments of divine grace and churches which deny this." (Hermann Sasse, This is My Body, Adelaide: Lutheran Publishing House, p. 228-229)

 

As I posited in the aforementioned blog, one's view of the Sacraments determines their importance. Hence, Zwingli could unite with Luther despite their differing views on the Sacrament of the Altar, but Luther could not. For Zwingli, it was not Gospel and was secondary in a sense. For Luther, the Lord's Supper is pure Gospel and to misunderstand it is to have a misunderstanding somewhere along the line in your understanding of the Gospel. Therefore, Luther and Zwingli left Marburg as opponents on some level and not as united brothers.

+Pax+