Pages

Friday, November 30, 2012

Lutheranism is application; Calvinism seeks to understand

Given that a number of Lutherans are commenting here, I think it’s important to try and further the understanding between them and the rest of us “Reformed Radicals” (as they tend to regard non-Lutheran Protestantism) by looking at some of the differences between us.

And following some others, I believe that the difference between “application” and “understanding” is one of the simplest ways to describe the differences. It’s very largely the same theology that’s being discussed.


In comments below, Jim Pemberton gave one of the best summaries I’ve seen of where Luther fit into the overall Reformation:

There is certainly much to appreciate about Luther's key role in the Reformation, but he was a stepping stone. His own theology changed throughout his life. I find it interesting, indeed telling, that our idea of reformed theology today differs from his purpose of reforming the RCC in that he never wanted to break away from the RCC. He only wanted to reform the theology and he labored to reconcile much of the RCCs ecclesiology with what he was discovering under the idea of sola scriptura. But since the ecclesiology he was trying to reconcile was still a product of sola ecclesia, I wager he had more to reconcile than he ever got around to. Given another lifetime, he may have discovered this conflict and given the rest of his thinking over to sola scriptura.

Luther wasn’t in a mood to throw things out.

Lutheranism arose out of Martin Luther’s personal struggles, which, at their earliest, arose in answer to the question “how am I made right with God?”

Not long afterward, Luther’s theology seemed to evolve out of a pastoral desire to teach his followers “how should we then live?”

It was his experience in the monastery that he sought to “reform” in some way, and bring it to the common folk.

In another comment thread, the Lutheran writer Nathan Rinne described it this way:

We view justification differently. These differences exist not so much because Luther is hard to understand, but rather because justification as envisioned by Luther cannot be understood apart from its practical application,

In that regard, Luther’s Small Catechism (1529) for example is very personal. The admonition “the head of the family should teach [these things] in a simple way to his household” is repeated throughout the work.

* * *

On the other hand, Calvin famously began his Institutes with the following statement:

Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves.

He was seeking to understand.

His treatment through the four books of the Institutes then follows a systematic pattern, through: “The Knowledge of God the Creator”, “Knowledge of God the Redeemer in Christ”, “The Way in Which We Receive the Grace of Christ”, and book four, “External Means” and “The Society of Christ”.

Later Reformed theology tended to follow this pattern of stepping back and looking at the “big picture” of Christian theology in a logical and comprehensive way, following the general pattern of “prolegomena”, then “Theology proper” (the study of God, generally), creation, sin, Christ and redemption, and the church.

* * *

This comports nicely with a blog post from a while ago that described the major differences among the earliest churches of the Reformation as if “church tradition” were a “junk drawer”. It went like this:

We all have a “top dresser drawer” into which we throw everything that there's no other place for. Over time, it just gets full of all different kinds of things. In church history, “tradition” kind of filled up the way that drawer does. And there were four different ways that the Reformers dealt with that drawer.

The Lutherans went through the drawer, looking for things that weren't Biblical. Lutheranism took out the things that weren't biblical, but they left everything else in there.

The Reformed took the drawer and dumped everything out on the bed. Then they went through all that stuff, checked it over carefully, and put back the things that were Biblical.

The Anglicans opened the drawer and took out one thing, called "the Pope," and put back in one other thing, called "the Archbishop of Canterbury." (This was probably the least analogous parts of the metaphor, given the 39 articles and all.)

The Anabaptists took out the whole drawer, dumped everything in the trash, and lit the trash can on fire.

Luther didn’t want to throw anything out.

14 comments:

  1. Is the comment about Anabaptists really fair?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is an analogy that was used by Dr. Donald Fortson in a church history class at Reformed Theological Seminary. I got it from a tape. And generally, yes, I think it's fair: the Anabaptists really did try to discard church tradition and get back to the New Testament. And beyond that, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

      Delete
    2. David, No overall saying it was all Anabaptists who did that. Several groups were dong that which can be called Enthusiasts. Enthusiasts either deny any means of grace or that any saving grace is delivered, by God, through them. Calvin and later the Westminster divines and the continentals affirmed a saving grace which is not at all received through the means of Baptism and the Supper. This is clear departure from the promises contained in scripture. However, the Papacy and the Eastern Orthodox raise questions about the saving grace due to the emphasis on works.

      Delete
  2. John,

    A very thought-provoking post. I like the junk drawer analogy and think it describes the Lutheran pretty well.

    Of course, when Jim Pemberton says "Given another lifetime, [Luther] may have discovered this conflict [of sola ecclesia] and given the rest of his thinking over to sola scriptura" Lutherans won't be happy with that formulation either. Nor with another thing that this post implies: Luther did not really seek to understand and Calvin did.

    The fact of the matter is that Luther did not believe in sola ecclesia in a wooden way. He spoke in his early writings about the Eastern church and the Roman church, churches that he firmly believed were meant to be in fellowship - full communion - with one another.

    So he believed in one church even as he acknowledged the realities on the ground. Even early on, I don't think he thought the Roman Church was the true church, which is one of the reasons he had the position on the papacy that he did in his earlier years.

    Lutherans would say that there is something fundamentally skewed with what Calvin sought to do in his all-encompassing systematic approach. The Lutheran approach is all about the proclamation of the Gospel to sinners, even as it surely seeks to understand, we would submit, in a more humble way, with reason in its proper place. Again, reading this paper by Philip Carey would be a great first step to increased understanding between us: http://www.academia.edu/185285/Why_Luther_is_not_Quite_Protestant_The_Logic_of_Faith_in_a_Sacramental_Promise

    Also, think this post - and the comments that follow - gets at some of key the differences: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/rc-convert-jason-stellmans-perception-of-lutheranism/

    Also, if I may humbly suggest, please consider subscribing to my meager blog and the blog of Jordan Cooper, "Just and Sinner". Both of us address the differences that we have with the Reformed (though I focus more on Rome), though not with some of the hostility I've seen in other quarters. Assuming there is really a desire to learn from our disagreements (its easy to fall prey to the temptation to imply that your opponent's arguments can't be right because of something stupid or mean-spirited they say).

    Thanks for the post, and God's blessings to you and others on this blog.

    +Nathan Rinne

    ps - if I could link to one more of my posts, in this one I try to give a "big picture" view of Luther's reforming work in the church: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/the-coming-vindication-of-martin-luther-summary-and-conclusion-part-v-of-v/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The Lutheran approach is all about the proclamation of the Gospel to sinners, even as it surely seeks to understand, we would submit, in a more humble way, with reason in its proper place."

      +Nathan Rinne, Lutherans say "Baptism is Gospel" and this is the Lutheran approach to sinners.

      Non-Lutheran Biblical Christians don't approach unregenerate sinners this way.

      Delete
  3. "I don't think he thought the Roman Church was the true church"

    should be

    "I don't think he thought the Roman Church was the [one] true church"

    Makes a big difference! I'm quite sure he thought it was a true manifestation of the one true church.

    +Nathan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Nathan

      Of course, when Jim Pemberton says "Given another lifetime, [Luther] may have discovered this conflict [of sola ecclesia] and given the rest of his thinking over to sola scriptura" Lutherans won't be happy with that formulation either. Nor with another thing that this post implies: Luther did not really seek to understand and Calvin did.

      I'm on record elsewhere as quoting Steven Ozment to the effect that Luther was the finest theologian of his age, and also "the tip of the spear" of the Reformation. I don't intend to imply that Luther didn't seek to understand. But in my limited interactions with Luther's works, it does seem to me that he was more in a mode to "respond-to-Monasticism-and-reform-devotional-practices-for-the-common-folk" than he was to think through a systematic theology. And he admits as much in the preface to his collected Latin works (which were collected and published during his lifetime, it seems).

      The fact of the matter is that Luther did not believe in sola ecclesia in a wooden way. He spoke in his early writings about the Eastern church and the Roman church, churches that he firmly believed were meant to be in fellowship - full communion - with one another.

      So he believed in one church even as he acknowledged the realities on the ground. Even early on, I don't think he thought the Roman Church was the true church, which is one of the reasons he had the position on the papacy that he did in his earlier years.


      Well, he obviously put a lot of stock in the official church, and retaining as much as could be retained. Calvin too argued for "one church", and I am sure we all have to acknowledge that there is "one church". How it functions is certainly something to explore.

      more to follow...

      Delete
    2. I've taken a look at your series on Luther and the papacy; I haven't gotten all the way through it, but I was hoping to mention it here and even comment on it.

      Lutherans would say that there is something fundamentally skewed with what Calvin sought to do in his all-encompassing systematic approach. The Lutheran approach is all about the proclamation of the Gospel to sinners, even as it surely seeks to understand, we would submit, in a more humble way, with reason in its proper place. Again, reading this paper by Philip Carey would be a great first step to increased understanding between us: http://www.academia.edu/185285/Why_Luther_is_not_Quite_Protestant_The_Logic_of_Faith_in_a_Sacramental_Promise


      It seems wrong to say that Calvin's systematic approach is "fundamentally skewed". All through the history of Christianity (Origen, Augustine, John of Damascus, Peter Lombard, Aquinas, and even Melanchthon, etc.) there were attempts to take a systematic approach. And especially at the time of the Reformation, there was a necessity to step back and systematize "what we believe" now that the old order had passed away.

      It's certainly good to proclaim "the Gospel to sinners", but there is a point at which most people are going to ask questions like "why?" and "how?", and having those answers, to the best of one's ability, certainly seems to move one out of the "milk" of the basics and into some of the meat.

      And as for "humility", I'll guess you're talking about the approach that "the Lutheran tradition" seems to take compared with the body of God's revelation, compared with Calvin's approach, which wants to dive in deeper, because in interactions that I've had with Lutherans, there seems to be a kind of superiority complex among them.

      But God has revealed himself in his Word, and we may, like the Bereans "search the Scriptures". That only seems like a good thing. And Calvin was very clear that we are not to get into speculative areas, not to go beyond what is written. But with what is written, we have been given a tremendous gift, and it does not seem skewed in any way to dive right in.

      I've listed both your blog and Jordan Cooper's on my Reformation500 blog, which I hope to use to explore some of these issues in more detail. As I mentioned, I've been intending to work through your series on Luther and the papacy. I have Hendrix's book, and I've referred to it, though I haven't read it completely.

      "I don't think he thought the Roman Church was the [one] true church"

      Calvin was pretty clear that the papacy had soiled every good thing that may have existed in the Roman church. I think that is more true today than it was in Calvin's day.

      I'm at work and don't have time to really follow up with this, but I'm looking forward to more interactions with you in the future.

      Delete
    3. John,

      Again, a pleasure talking with you.

      "[Luther's approach was more a] "respond-to-Monasticism-and-reform-devotional-practices-for-the-common-folk" than he was to think through a systematic theology."

      Yes. No, we do need to be somewhat systematic, of course. Here I point not to Melanchton (who started out well, but did not end well), but to men like Flacius (laying the groundwork for a systematic re-visioning of ecclesiology) and Chemnitz and Gerhard (great sytematizers).

      The difference, I think, can be summed up in Gerhard Forde's statement that "theology is for proclamation". I think he nails it there, despite other concerns I have for things he says. Lutherans are not first and foremost "system-builders", where a tight and strictly logical theological system is not only the goal, but necessary? I understand that you said Calvin did not think we should speculate, but from our perspective, this is endemic in Calvinism. The mental maps must be tight, utterly coherent, non-contradictory, etc.... according to strict reason and logic.

      I don't know if you know of Pastor Fisk, but here, whatever its flaws, is a popularizing of this polemic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTUUfaLtKss

      I don't want to give up an aura of intellectual superiority - that is for sure. I'm sure both of us feel (and think!) very strongly about our positions.

      Great talking with you. Yes, more in the future...

      Rhology,

      What does "FIRE" mean?

      +Nathan

      Delete
  4. That junk drawer analogy is as hilarious as it is effective for elucidating the different Reformation movements. I'm still wiping the coffee off my proverbial monitor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim: real coffee, proverbial monitor?

      Delete
    2. That's one of those question where you can either use hermeneutics to figure it out or I can commission a line of successors to explain it infallibly a few centuries from now.

      If hermeneutics, lets see...

      Genre: a comment on a blog post.

      Author: presumably a fellow named Jim Pemberton. There were several people named Jim Pemberton around that time, but we have no proof it was any of those so it was probably faked. That's the liberal argument at least.

      Context: A blog article about Martin Luther and the Reformation written by John Bugay and referencing some earlier work of this fictitious Jim Pemberton. John is known to us and is to be feared.

      Interpretation/Commentary: We have no record otherwise, but given that John read Jim's comment as literal, we should too. And thus we conclude that Martin Luther was concerned that the Reformation would wipe out the coffee trade to Germany at the time so he was monitoring the situation. Although, since the word "proverbial" in the original English was used here, Martin Luther apparently had some higher meaning in mind which Jim Pemberton had some information about. His audience would have apparently understood this, but the meaning is lost to us today, although a few rogue interpreters suggest that an obscure meme was at play. The magisterium of the Holy Carolina Church claims it meant that wiping coffee is necessary for all clean monitors and we must say ten "Hail Dells" to the holy motherboard of we fail to do this lest we be logged off permanently, or spend an indefinite period of time repairing the Master Boot Record.

      Delete
    3. Jim, you had me spitting the proverbial coffee with this one!

      :-)

      Delete