“Perhaps most striking is the difference in emphasis on justification between Luther and Lutheranism on the hand and Reformed theology on the other. For the former, justification is central to the whole of theology. It is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. It functions as a kind of critical methodological tool by which any aspect of theology, or theology as a whole is to be judged….However, there is hardly an instance in Reformed theology placing justification in the center. Not that Reformed theology opposed justification by faith alone, or salvation by pure grace. On the contrary, they saw salvation in its entirety as a display of the sovereign and free mercy of God. The explanation lay in the fact that, for Reformed theology, everything took place to advance the glory of God. Thus the chief purpose of theology and of the whole of life was not the rescue of humanity but the glory of God. The focus was theocentric rather than soteriological. Even in the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), where soteriological concerns are more prominent (one of its authors, Zacharias Ursinus [1533-1587] was formerly a Lutheran) the famous first question ‘What is your only comfort in life and death?’ is answered w/ reference to the action of the Trinity, beginning, ‘I am not my own but belong… to my faithful savior Jesus Christ.
Following from this was an attempt by Reformed theology to grasp the unity of creation and redemption. The whole of life was seen in the embrace of God’s revelatory purpose. With the covenant at its heart, the whole of life was to display God’s glory. Naturally, that included at its heart the restoration of sinners to fellowship w/ God. It also entailed, however the reconstitution of both civil and ecclesiastical affairs. Lutheranism, in contrast, showed less developed interest in the application of the gospel to political life and focused more narrowly on soteriology. Possibly this stemmed from Luther enjoying the patronage of his Elector, which freed him from having to safeguard the Reformation in a political sense in quite the same way as his Reformed counterparts. The net result was that while for Lutheranism justification by faith was the heart of theology, for the Reformed theologians it was subordinate to an overarching sense of the centrality of God and his covenant. Yet, for both, the underlying concern for the gratuitous nature of salvation, its objective reality extra nos, was the same.
Robert Letham
The Work of Christ — pg. 189-190
Another way to put the differences between Lutheranism and Reformed worldviews is that for Lutheranism salvation is for man and terminates on man, individually considered while for Reformed thought salvation is for God and serves the terminating end of a renewed cosmos dripping and saturated with God’s glory. For Lutheranism the teleology is man atoned for, whereas for Reformed thought the teleology includes but doesn’t end with man atoned for. For Reformed thought the teleology is the atonement as well as all the totality of corresponding and inevitable consequences that the atonement brings upon men who have been atoned for. Atonement for individual men is not the end product of Christ’s work. Atonement is the beginning and creating point of enlisting men into the cause of cosmic renewal for the glory of God. Men are not atoned for and saved for the sake of being atoned for and saved. Men are atoned for and saved to be put on a mission to take captive every thought and take dominion over every crevice of the cosmos to make all thoughts and all crevices obedient to King Christ. In Reformed thought, classical Lutheran thought is provincial and anthropocentric and is far to horizontally circumscribed and vertically nugatory.
Straight thinking Reformed folk don’t doubt that real live honest to goodness Lutherans or wanna-be Escondido Reformed Lutherans are part of God’s elect Church. We just think that their theology leaves them developmentally disabled — much like a child who has a rare disease that does not allow them to ever grow up.
Letham, says that the focus of Lutherans is soteriological while the focus of Reformed is theocentric. I think Letham is being diplomatic and kind there. In point of fact both theologies are focused on soteriology. The difference is that that Lutheranism focuses on a soteriology that has a anthropological terminal point whereas Reformed thought focuses on a soteriology that has a theological terminal point.
Clearly, in light of what Letham writes, the Reformed church is being invaded by Lutheran theology body snatchers. Clearly, there has been some cross breeding and pollination that is giving some flavors of the Reformed church a hybrid feel about it.
Let the Reformed church be the Reformed church!
Pastor,
I have heard this charge from Reformed brothers in Christ many times, but I don’t generally respond, since I think it’s on the same level as the common Lutheran charge of “rationalism” leveled at the Reformed. I do want to respond with two points, this time, though:
1. I’ll start with man, since that’s what Lutherans are accused of doing. Lutheran reluctance to redeem “every square inch” is based on a mistrust of even redeemed man’s best intentions. How do I truly know God’s will for the state of the arts? The one who has very explicitly been given dominion is the Second Adam, who rules over all. That’s how humanity has already reclaimed all of God’s creation, but Jesus Christ has not yet brought me with all the saints to judge the world on Judgment Day. Until then, my flesh clings to me, so the saints should pray, “Deliver me also from my hidden faults.”
2. Theologically, Lutherans distinguish between the hidden God and the revealed God, and this is often summed up as a theology of the cross. God chose to reveal himself and his purposes in his Son, Jesus Christ. I can say that Jesus Christ clearly desires that I should do good works, loving God and my neighbor as myself. Christ on the other hand has not revealed his clear will for “every square inch” so I can’t confidently claim that I’m taking it back for him. Lacking definite marching orders, I shouldn’t go marching.
Every blessing in Christ to you,
Adam
Adam,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
1.) Mistrust of redeemed mans best intentions, if consistently followed through with should keep you from any good work since no good works are completed with pure intentions.
2.) You have no problem with your best intentions in not redeeming every square inch. Why are your best intentions in not doing anything better than my best intentions in seeking to redeem every square inch?
3.) On the Arts
Do you deny that there is a divine objective standard for beauty? Now, granted, the arts are probably a realm that we would need to allow more flexibility then other realms but to say that the post modern music of John Cage is as pleasing to God as the Music of Beethoven, Bach or John Phillips Sousa is curious.
3.) I would say that your eschatology is more “not yet” than it is “now.” The Kingdom has come and because the Kingdom has come we can expect the present ruling Kingdom to increasingly manifest His Kingdom in all the earth.
4.) The saints should pray, “Deliver me from my hidden faults,” while at the same time praying that the mustard tree of the Kingdom would keep growing and that the leaven of the Kingdom would keep moving through the whole loaf.
5.) Scriptures make it clear in many many areas beyond personal ethics what good works look like. Respectfully, all that you write in number 2 strikes one as using pietism to justify quietism.
Where we have definite marching orders — and they are many — we should march.
I trust that together we will grow up into the mind of the Christ,