The Core Difference Between the Lutheran and Reformed Traditions

This is a discussion on the Lutheran and Reformed traditions in which I identify where I see the most essential difference between the traditions.

[leeenk]

I went from Roman catholic to Lutheran. I suppose if i were to see any other branch of Christianity being feasible, it be the reformed. In my opinion we're fairly close, but its the understanding of Christology, baptism, and the Lords supper (especially from the church fathers) that keeps me Lutheran.

[seanmoore]

These videos where you directly contrast Lutheran and Reformed beliefs have been extremely helpful.

[lc-mschristian]

As an EX Reformed (Presbyterian) Calvinist and now a Confessiona, l Evangelical, Unaltered Augsburg Confession believing Lutheran I agree this as the main central difference between the two Reformed Churches which are truly worlds apart of each other. Thank you and God's peace be with you.

[ctdprather]

As a guy in the FV camp, I can actually appreciate Calvin and Luther, learning from both, without confusion or embarrassment. Appreciate the vid Cooper.

[philpockras]

Thanks for this. Clear and honest, while being respectful and brotherly. While I am confessionally Reformed, and affirm every point of divergence from confessional Lutheranism, I have the utmost respect for those who honestly hold to the Book of Concord, and rejoice where we concur in our understanding of Holy Scripture.

[pierrebassel]

Re-watching this podcast during the reformation anniversary is something else❤

[gatekeeper]

It is so refreshing to hear somebody accurately contrasting an opponents position. Rare thing in these times.

[RealSnailD]

I asked God to give me wisdom about what he meant when he said ‘my body and, my blood’. God be praised, finally I understand the simplicity of the means of Grace! And i say amen and that you Jesus!!

[Robofish]

Thank you Dr. Cooper! This is definitely one of my most favorite videos you have done! I learned so much about the difference between Reformed and Lutheran thinking. When I was a teenager I had reformed seminarians tutor me and they always pushed the Westminster Confession of faith at me and I had no idea what they were talking about. It was like listening to your cousin tell you about his home life, and you were confused because even though you were related your home experiences were very different.

[jordantsak]

Jordan, put subtitles. There is an international audience that want to follow any word with accuracy. Thank you.

[OnBelayClimbOn]

I had to go full stop when you mentioned Mercersburg theology; unless you're in the RCUS I didn't know that anyone even knew about this. Dr. Jordan, you are a true and loving scholar. I appreciate this series because it's really helping me understand and appreciate Lutheran theology as I never have before; and yes I am in the RCUS. Also the reading you did from Herman Bavinck was extremely helpful. Keep up that great work!

[donatist]

Dr. Cooper, I'm one of those fuzzy boundary Anglicans and I thoroughly enjoy your videos; we think alike on many issues besides social ones. This video was a bit of a struggle... 20 minutes into a discussion of Reformed teaching before Calvinism came up?? As far as I am concerned Calvinism is right up there with Mormonism and Islam on the hierarchy of Great Departures from Authentic Christianity. But by the end of the video I was literally cheering you on as you discussed the meaning of the sacraments in each tradition. Quite a crescendo to end the performance!

[dallasbrat]

Thank your for your online discussions. I am going to a LCMS church this Sunday in part to your channel discussions😊

[bmstellar]

Good stuff Dr Cooper. Again I could listen to this all day. I appreciate your hard work and providing this info for us lay people.

[johnwilhelm]

Really appreciate your presentations! Thanks!

[jrhemmerich]

This was so very helpful. I come from the more low church reformed Baptist view on this issue. But recently have come to understand the difference between a pure memorialist (Zwinglian) view and the spiritual presence view (via Dr. Ortlund). The spiritual presence view seems more consistent with Jn. 6. But progressing more into the distinctions between Reformed and Lutheran views on real presence has been a bit of work. And this was super helpful in flushing these issues out. It was simple to distinguish between the Reformed and Roman Catholic view because, taking the view that subjective faith, when united with the taking of the elements, in the act of repentance, and thanksgiving toward God, is what makes Christ present. The denial of ex opere operato, and the objective transformation of the elements by the words spoken over it, while maintaining a true invitation to Christ by the words spoken over the elements seemed to be the basic distinction. Your thoughts on this complicate matters a bit.

The issue as I previously understood it, was about the mode of presence--about where Christ was, in his body in heaven and thus in the elements by the Spirit, which seemed a decent enough explanation (though most Calvinists today would want to defend the "extra" in our Christological understandings, which might be an internal point of tension, that runs against the Calvinist argument at this point, but that's just a passing thought). But your connection of this issue to the universal offer of Christ for salvation helps me see why this is more significant an issue. I am also a sort of 6-point Calvinist, in so far as I believe that God's has a dual intention to offer Jesus universally as a provision for all, but also an intent to make this effective for the elect. I would agree with the Lutheran against double predestination in the affirmative sense, because I'm convinced that God ordained to give man the power of real agency, and that man irrevocably falls into sin by his own fault (which is the source of his reprobation), while some are saved out of this state by God's positive redemptive election. I think this is technically called infralapsarianism, I'm not sure if this is exactly the same as the Lutheran denial of double predestination. I've seen some reformed insist that supra and infra are both double predestinarian, but that's not clear to me, as it seems that it is the way in which God ordains sin, whether permissively through the free agency of man, or by direct decree of sinful actions, which is the very question at issue (RC Sproul, Sr. would be an advocate of the infralapsarian view as I understand it). To say the mere logic of election to salvation is also the active cause of determining a person to condemnation, seems to narrow a definition of double predestination, as the dispute is not over the logical polarity of the decision of election to salvation, but is over the "immediate cause" of a sinful will in man (God or man?), which is the root of his reprobation/condemnation.

So, when you connect the objective presence of Christ in the Eucharist, to the universal offer of Christ, that perks my interest. I can see the systematic relation between those things. What I wonder is how systematically one should tie the eucharist to the soteriological process as a whole. Is the offer and call to the table of Christ made to the church or to the world? It seems that the call to believe upon him was made to the world in Jn. 6, and that the world was told the implications of this was a spiritual feasting upon Christ's person as the source of life (which, because of their hard hearts, was a stumbling stone for them). But on the other hand, the eucharist itself was offered by Christ in the upper room only to those that had outwardly responded to this call and been baptized, and so were already believers. So I wonder whether we should use the doctrine of the universal offer of salvation in Christ, and his death for all, as a reason for believing in the objective presence of Christ in the elements apart from faith? Is the sacrament the universal offer, which his death was, or is it the particular application of it to those that repent and remember that universal offer? (Spurgeon is a Calvinistic Baptist that would also accept the universal offer of salvation in Christ).

Regarding systematic consistency, it is also interesting that Bavinck argues (I think in Vol. 4) against salvation through general revelation based upon an insistence of the Spirit working through the means of grace found in the scriptures. So, it seems on the issue of scripture he argues more like a Lutheran on the means of grace. Again, systematic consistency?

You raise an interesting point about assurance and whether that should relate to faith or to baptism. But I'm not sure I see the logic of this. Don't Lutherans insist upon the possibility of falling away? And the Calvinist would rather say that the person's faith was not real. In both cases the baptism does not necessitate assurance of salvation (though for different reasons). So, assurance does not seem like it should dictate our view of what role baptism plays in regeneration.

That was too long a comment, but your explanation of this issue was great and gives me a lot more to think about.

[bjw]

You should do this with Methodists, Wesleyan theology as well.

[cwstreeper]

This video was very helpful to me. Thank you.

[doxyl]

This was extremely helpful as a Reformed person considering Lutheranism. I just finished The Great Divide and found it very helpful (especially how you consistently represent Reformed theology fairly and knowledgeably). I still don't get the assurance thing, though. I don't understand how Calvin's idea of Christ being the 'mirror of our election' is not just as assuring. I looked in The Great Divide and you do have a footnote on this topic in Calvin but I don't think you deal with it and just criticise it for making election a central soteriological category (which I agree with you on, but it didn't really help with my question unless you were making a greater point I don't understand).

Excellent video!

[BillWalkerWarren]

Good video. I really enjoy exploring the differences and commonality of our traditions. I do believe brothers and sisters in Christ of the Reformed and Lutheran traditions should take the time to talk even though we don’t agree on some key issues. Honestly it’s boring to talk to folks about something we both agree on. Also it’s a recipe for theological and spiritual stagnation. We both grow in defending our beliefs and perhaps learn something along the way .
Great job !
Blessings
Your brother is Christ