The Core Difference Between the Lutheran and Reformed Traditions 

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!!

I'm Lutheran. Although I hold slightly different views on Justification, Faith and works, I resonate with Lutheranism's doctrines of Baptism and Holy Communion. They bring me comfort and hope.

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!

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.

Warfield’s accusation of sacerdotalism probably has as much to do with the fact that the ‘means of grace’ require a minister conveying them - if the ‘means of grace’ were simply abstract things that (although standing between Christ and the sinner) did not involve a third human-party, they would take no shots at it. The fact of the matter is, his accusation is on-point and far from a criticism, we Lutherans need to regain our understanding that the office of the ministry is indeed a mediatorial role - for of course, it is Christ’s office! Something the Calvinists will never embrace. Enough with this Pietistic fear of Reformed accusations of ‘sacramentalism’ or ‘sacerdotalism’; we should embrace these these insults as badges of honor - we Lutherans are Evangelical CATHOLIC Christians, not Reformed Protestants. So when they hurl these and like insults at us, they are confessing that we are not of the same cloth - let’s do the same rather than hide from our differences.

Really appreciate your presentations! Thanks!

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

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!

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.

Thank you for getting me back to my Lutheran roots. When from anti-god to Reformed to Church of Christ to Acts 39. Luther got it most right.

This video was very helpful to me. Thank you.

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

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.

Very great and informative video!

Finally, as usual an excellent video. And a model of charity and reasonableness on RU-vid.

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

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!

Your comment on Warfield and Hodges on Means of Grace vs immediate Regenerating Work of the Holy Spirit seems correct to me in terms of the Lutheran vs Reformed difference in that respect. It also reaffirms that I still consider myself Reformed!

This is a really good podcast.

The differences were and still are a matter of Christology.

This is gold. Thanks Coop!

This was a good video , tackling the Lord,s Supper is a tough one. I'am a bapitized and confirmed Anglican who has being going to a vibrant Baptist Church for the last ten years. I have seen at the grass roots level the differences between the two traditions. The sacraments are not a important part of the Baptist system. I saw a full immersion Baptism today at church. The person was very moved and sincere in her testimony of having it done. The pastor made the point that the Baptism had no bearing on her salvation.. The Lutheran view is different as the video states. I like the Lutheran view that the sacraments are an objective means of Grace. The Lord's Supper is done one a month without any liturgy to it. The Anglicans do it every week with liturgy. I enjoy your videos and Rev. Bryan Wolfmeuller's as well. I have a couple of your books and his as too. I 'am enjoying learning about the Lutheran theology and I find it more comforting than the other Protestant traditions. Good effort on explaining of the Lord's Supper. I felt you were a little frustrated in trying to do it. It is the one Doctrine that would keep me from being a Lutheran. I have read different Lutheran sources on it and it does not click for me . I have come the conclusion that it has to be spiritually discerned to get it and rational thought won't help me on this one. Keep true to your Closed Communion stance. Your case for it was very well done and I would not partake in Communion if I was attending a Lutheran service.

At the 52:20 mark I think you find where the two traditions can have a conversation. Calvin - faith allows the believer to partake and communion in and with Christ. Luther- Christ is objectively present but faith allows the benefit of and reception of the grace. In the Lutheran view then , though Christ is present , one cannot access the fullness without the faith of the believer. It’s like trying to drink a cup with a lid without a straw . The liquid is there truly but you can really get to it without a straw. Whereas Calvin would say the liquid becomes a reality once the straw is used. In the end however in both case the person drinks with a straw.

This is a story from my personal experience, the first time I encounter a high view of communion was in a local Presbyterian church, it wasn't closed communion but at least they practiced a 'protected' communion. Later I visited a local Lutheran church, were they practiced open communion, everybody was welcomed to participate, regardless of their public confession of faith (or lack of it). Sad but true.

I'm trying to better understand. Around the 53 minute mark. Faith receives the benefits from the sacraments. Would that mean that assurance of salvation would sound like "I know I'm saved because I received the sacraments and haven't rejected Christ?" I'm not trying to misrepresent, just trying to better understand. Thank you.

Yeah Anglicans have always been a huge tent even before the Oxford movement. Quite a few high churchers called the table the altar including people like Archbishop William Laud. These people generally had a much more sacrament focused theology and practice than everyone else and were closer to Lutherans in areas like predestination too. Some in the high church party even adhered to an alternate (39 articles compliant) Eucharistic theory called “Viritualism” which focuses on the elements and an objective efficacy of the Eucharist. For them the difference between Lutherans and Reformed really is the mode of presence.

Excellent presentation. Not to mention i love the mantastic beard. 😂 God bless.

Just ordered A Summary of the Christen Faith and Walther's Law and Gospel.

Dr. Jordan B. Cooper, much respect to you, but I must say that you don't fully understand the nuances of Reformed Eucharistic Theology. First off, there are actually three camps in this regard within the Reformed tradition; that being of "symbolic instrumentalism" (Calvin's camp), "symbolic parallelism" (Bullinger's camp), and "symbolic memorialism" (Zwingli's camp). [A. B. Gerrish, the lord's supper in the reformed confessions] The first two overlap significantly (even to the point where they are often lumped together), and are both only similar to the third camp in terms of the terminology used--the first and second camp, often use the same terminology and phrasing as the third camp, but mean it in a completely different way. The first two camps are the majority positions in classical reformed theology, and the third camp is only now becoming more prevalent (especially among the laity) via influence from low-church denominations that are culturally more common in countries like America. Where the first two camps overlap, is in the following: "The blessed Eucharist is a sign and seal of the covenant, in which the body and blood of Christ is spiritually present through the sacramental union of the sign (the bread, and the wine) and the thing signified (the body and blood of Christ), which are united from the consecration by the Word. All who partake of the elements are given both the sign and the thing signified, but the thing signified is only received through faith. In the reception of the things signified, the true body and blood of Christ are spiritually communicated to us by the Holy Spirit, in which we receive the remission of sins and the nourishment for our souls. Those who partake of the elements in an unworthy manner--either of unrepentance or unbelief--do not receive the things signified, but rather drink and eat condemnation on themselves." (note, I am not a theologian, so it is possible that my wording is not entirely accurate, but I did try to be as accurate as possible) Where those two camps diverge is that in the former, is that the thing signified is received through the elements, and in the latter, the thing signified is received simultaneously with the elements-the latter is slightly closer to the third camp as it does not tie the thing signified to the sign as much as the first camp does; essentially, the view in the first camp is that God works through the sacrament of Communion, and the view in the second camp is that God works apart but with the sacrament. The third camp, in contrast, instead believes that Christ body and blood is not present in the Eucharist and the only thing we receive is the memorial remembrance of what has already taken place. Of course, this camp is drastically opposed to the two other camps and should not even be considered Reformed-Zwingli was, ironically, closer to the Anabaptists, really. As I have said, the only thing that the other two camps share with it is the wording, but for instance, when Zwingli says “symbol” he means literally a bare symbol, but when Calvin says “symbol” he instead means it in a way where it is truly united with what is signified. Where I think you are in mistaken about the Reformed view, is in thinking that the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist is contingent on the faith of the individual-this is not the Reformed view. The Reformed view is that the faith of the individual does not change whether that body and blood is present, but rather it changes whether or not it is received, as those that partake of it in an unworthy manner reject what is given and thus do not receive it. Of course, as you consider that part of the view, you can see that it is a lot more similar to the Lutheran view than you are making it out to be. Obviously, the division between the Lutheran and Reformed view is still in terms of the mode of the presence and in terms of the Lutheran ideas of Manducatio impiorum and Manducatio indignorum, but it is not at all in terms of whether Christ is truly present in the Eucharist (we’re in agreement in that regard).

Dr. Cooper, I appreciate your videos. Its nice to get a scholarly confessional Lutheran perspective. I couldn't help myself on wading into your mention of Anglicans. As one, let me first issue a general caution to beware those who add party or tradition modifiers to the term 'Anglican' (i.e. Reform Anglican, Evangelical Anglican, Anglo-Catholic, etc...). They are according to their labels. But they also all depart from the faith outlined in our Anglican formularies (i.e. 39 Articles, Prayer Book, Catechism, Ordinal, Homilies) in various ways and the fairly strong consensus among Anglican Divines prior to the second half of the 18th century and the challenges of the Enlightenment. As to the question of Altars. Bishop Edward Harold Browne, who has one of the best (i.e. orthodox) commentaries on the 39 Articles has a great footnote on the topic. He admits that the term is used in the early church and is theologically appropriate, but that its use was dropped by the English Reformers because of its association with the sacrifice of the mass, which I've read was perhaps more deeply ingrained in the piety of pre-Reformation England than anywhere else in Europe. Thus, official in the Prayer Book it is called a Holy Table. However, based on the Prayer's Book ornaments rubric, which essentially allows any church ornament save shrines to saints, you could technically still call the Holy Table an Altar and many Anglican Divines of that era do use the term, although definitely sparingly. John Jewel, for instance, speaks of the 'Sacrament of the Altar'. As you move away from the 16th century, however, and any real danger of widespread believe in the sacrifice of the mass, the use of the term Altar becomes widespread. Bishop Anthony Sparrow writing a commentary on the Prayer Book in 1655 will say at times 'Holy Table or Altar", but quite often just uses the term 'Altar'. By Browne era (c. 1840), the use of the term was ubiquitous and thus he can commend it for its patristic and strong theological underpinnings. By the way, I found Henry Eyster Jacobs book, The Lutheran Movement in England an invaluable source on understanding orthodox Anglicanism. I've been very interested in the amount of influence Lutheranism had upon development Anglicanism, several early 17th century Anglican Divines, for instance, are familiar with and cite Chemnitz and numerous Anglican Reformers tout the distinction between Law and Gospel, even defining the distinction as 'True Religion'. I think its safe to say that the basic shape of our Anglican formularies and thus Anglican theology is Lutheran, although there are definitely also important differences.

I have been MSL for years, my children went through school there. I also have reformed leanings and have been influenced by far more reformed pastors than Lutherans. You are the first one I have heard that teaches on these issues I don’t think there are many people in my church who understand any of these differences nor do they care They are Lutheran by tradition or happenstance I have been looking for a new church because none of these issues are taught or discussed at any Lutheran church I have attended. No one knows eschatology or soteriology or any other doctrines of the faith. If you talk to reformed people they know and have an interest in God’s word far more than my Lutheran brothers and sisters. I have a higher view of the sacraments than many American reformed people but the teaching and preaching is so low that I have to listens to sermons from non Lutheran pastors to hear any meat from the sermons. Why is it that that the sermons are so shallow in the Lutheran church. After hearing you that doesn’t mean there aren’t Lutherans who aren’t dealing with the issues. Is it because you think the sacraments do all the work therefore deep teaching of the word is unimportant. In closing you asked why I would want to take the supper if I didn’t Agee with the exact understanding of the church I was attending it is because the lord has commanded that I do so when I meet together with Christ’s family and I have brethren who are Baptist and brethren who are reformed and I have no problem sharing the supper with them and I believe I am told to do so. The Lord said this is my body and blood. He did not say this is my real body and blood. I don’t think we should add to Gods word

Very helpful, thanks, but can you explain how an "efficacious work of the Spirit" can be resistible? It's either efficacious or it's not, right?

I’m a Presbyterian who’s exploring the Lutheran church. I’m confused by the title of your video. Are Lutherans not reformed? I understand Lutherans are not Calvinists. But why eschew the term Reformed? Thanks for helping clear this up for me (and I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question haha).

In other words, the Sacraments are insubstantial for the Reformed since nothing happens via them that can't and doesn't happen otherwise within one's soul if possessing saving faith. That's certainly way different than the early Church's understanding.

Just ordered Krauth's book to study deeper. Thank you, Jordan.

As a reformed Christian, I have always heard from other Reformed people that the difference in presence in the LS has to do with how each tradition views the Jesus Christ. Is the human nature of Christ at the right hand of the Father or all around the world and is the human nature finite or pretty much infinite? BTW I believe in spiritual presence but I am much more on the side of Luteranism instead of a non presence view. So spiritual presence but on the side of a Lutheran or Eastern Orthodox view of the presence.

The Reformed tradition on the Sacraments as summed up by Warfield is an extreme version of the "occasionalism" of Scotus, the Franciscans in general and also the nominalists. Arguably the Lutheran position is closer to a more moderate "occasionalism" which nevertheless departs from the eventual Thomistic view of how the Sacraments effect what they signify.

My jaw almost dropped when I heard Warfield. Pure brilliance.

Perhaps key distinction rather than key doctrine would work.

As usual, your presentation is thorough and fair. @49:13 the essential difference. The objective identification of the bread and wine with the sacrificed body and blood of Christ is why I am an Anglican Catholic.

Great video!

Seems much of this is if I can invite Jesus into my heart I can invite Him out. But if He nailed me into the palm of His hands, he has given me irresistible grace. Just as I did not choose to be born, I did not choose to be born again. Praise be to God.

Missouri and Wisconsin synod don’t share the table, do they? Despite being confessional Lutherans. (?)

Dr. Cooper, re Close Communion, I think your explanation ("people that don't agree with our view shouldn't even want to participate") is not correct, because (1) some members of Reformed churches probably do agree with the Lutheran view, and this could be ascertained, say, with a brief interview by the elders prior to the service; (2) Lutherans from other denominations, who presumptively hold the same view, are also excluded, at least in some Lutheran denominations. Instead, I think the real reason has to do with a view of the church and her authority, and the meaning of membership. EO and RC are also Close Communion, for this reason. The Reformed used to be also, in effect, and some still are. It is only post-baby-boomer as far as I can tell that popular Reformed denominations became promiscuous in admittance to the Lord's Table.

Can you post the link for the first video of introduction please.

As someone newly coming out of a Reformed tradition, I have to ask: If merging Lutheran and Reformed seminaries didn't work for Lutherans because all of the graduates came out Reformed, doesn't that imply that the Reformed had the better arguments? And also imply that Reformed theology is the correct one (at least when compared to Lutheran theology)?

I'm one of the average of 20% of Confessional Lutherans who used to be Reformed. Raised and catechized very well in that direction, and I'm thankful. But I have to confess that I believe that the Reformed camp was liberal Christianity of its day. It makes sense that these views would suddenly appear when they never had in all of Christianity. The "enlightenment", the "age of reason", was the liberal movement being birthed, and "liberal Christianity" always holds fast to such things. Liberal Christianity today adopts the liberal movement of the sexual revolution, for example. At the birth of the second stream of the Reformation (the Reformed), it makes sense that they would adopt what are historically Gnostic views -- that is, denying Baptismal Regeneration and Real Presence in the Lord's Supper. Only Gnostics had ever denied those before that time, and the Reformed are (conveniently) not shown that part of Christian history. And that's sad, because they talk a lot about hermeneutics and exegesis, and yet they eisegete the Church Fathers as much as their opponents eisegete the Scriptures. But I digress. Even though I may be going out on a limb -- as well as treating my own former traditions the same as former Pentecostals, Old Catholics, and many others do upon coming into oldschool Christianity -- I believe Reformed Christianity is better than much more liberal Christianity in our day, but it was liberal Christianity in its day, and while it's better than other branches, its differences from historic Christianity is why so many such people are becoming, for example, Lutheran. We are finding rest we didn't believe was possible until our hearts stopped.

However, you can't always objectively point to baptism as evidence of salvation *in the end*. I think that is the problem. I can say I am saved now but baptized people can fall away or be deceived. I think the truth lies somewhere between the two systems.

The Righteousness of Christ alone is imputed to our account when the Holy Spirit gives us the gift of faith and implies God doing the electing from eternity.

Could it be what did Calvin and Luther had to fight against? What were the challenges and heretical views that they taught against? I always think that many make too much to do on justification because that was the big fight during the early reformation. It might be easier to see that the Orthodox have never really fought against Pelangianism because that was more of a Western heresy and fight.

As a Lutheran, my largest disagreement is and has been closed communion. Any man that comes to the table God has prepared for us, with a true repentant and contrite heart, should not be denied the grace in the body and blood. Simply use an elder to speak to that person, privately when you see the new face to explain to them what they're doing. Luther himself encouraged going to the table, as often as that sinner needed. Christ offered His body for an atonement. Past, present and future. In the sacrament of the eucharist no one should be denied. We cannot see into a man's heart. Only God can do that. We are not offering the bread and wine. We haven't prepared a table. God has.

I’m Catholic but am more Lutheran in theology. I worship in the Catholic Church though.

The yoke of the Reformed tradition is too heavy to bear. As a person who followed this tradition for years- I can say that you never ever ever ever have assurance of salvation. You are in perpetual doubt- mostly because of their silent tradition of Christ first Moses after in salvation. For the first time in many many years I found rest for my soul in Christ, in the Lutheran church. Praise to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

I think your last point is really important. This is also why I would never want to attend the eucharist in a Roman mass. Maybe Lutherans and Roman Catholics could be able to overcome the differences about Transsubstantiation, but I see no way how to find common ground about the sacrifice of the mass.

Since Christ shed His blood for all, why not Communion for all?

By contrast SOME Presbyterians let children take communion (cough cough Doug Wilson) believing in the objectivity of the covenant and that the Lord's Supper is New Covenant sign to the beliver.

I was one that wanted to find a common ground among the reformed (I grew as one) and the lutheran (I 'm converted to) but the more I study and understand the more I realize that this common ground is a phantasy. There is nothing in common. The lack of belief in the sacraments as real and effectual means of grace, i.e. the blood and body and deity of Jesus for you, is a huge difference. Reformed have a faith on their faith. We have a faith on what Jesus does for us from the outside of us. Reformed speak all the time about ''I feel this, I think so, I have something in my heart'' etc The Lutherans say ''I 'm baptized'', they never point on their ''faith'' (magnitude and quality of their faith) and their deeds (as something that help you to prove your faith). In reformed tradition everything is subjective. In lutherans everything is objective. Reformed look their heart and their feelings and their works and they never are secure for anything. Lutherans look always on the cross, never inside them, because they know that inside them there is only sin. Reformed are quasi-gnostics and they create from time to time new things in their theology. Lutherans are the original, the ancient, the unaltered catholic, orthodox, apostolic church. Lutherans have more in common with RC and EO than with the thousand of modern, americanized protestant denominations and new christian religions. Let's notice also that reformed is not what Calvin wrote. Calling them ''calvinist'' is out of any logic and right.

I don’t know of any in the reformed camp who would point to the means of grace as a basis for their assurance. I think they would point to the finished work of Christ and one’s repentance and trust in Christ - from the heart - for the forgiveness of sins (i.e. faith) as the basis for that assurance. I think a predominant concern among the reformed in terms of the sacraments is false assurance. The idea that, when pressed as to how one knows he is saved, a baptized person may simply respond, “I’ve been baptized” and may actually have no understanding of the gospel whatsoever (i.e. that we are sinners deserving of eternal death and can only be saved by the unmerited grace of Christ who atoned for our sins on the cross as our substitute so that we don’t receive the punishment for our sins but receive the gift of eternal life). The concern is that the person in this hypothetical will continue throughout life relying only on the fact he has been baptized without ever having repented and personally placed his faith/trust in Christ as savior for the forgiveness of his sins. Such a person, in the reformed view, would be entirely deceived and would believe he is saved while actually having no heart/mind understanding of the gospel whatsoever. This is the false assurance predicament that the reformed believe is possible and even probable in a person’s life when that person is told only, “you were baptized” in response to his question, “how do I know I’m saved?”

I understand the there are major differences in theology of the two. My question is either view truly heretical ? Don't we all agree on the core truths of Christianity ? Is a Lutheran going to hell for having a different theology than the Reformed and vice versa ?

Look at the irony, Lutherans have a high view of baptism but disallow baptized believers from other Christian denominations to take a communion. So much for baptism, it means rubbish for Lutherans if they deny communion to other baptized believers, communion is about sharing the Lord’s table with other believers, not a theology test before taking breaking bread with other believers. Unbelievable, luckily in Canada where I live not a single confessional Lutheran church enforces closed communion, and I would think that in he US is probably the same with few exceptions. Same with Roman Catholics, I have yet found a Roman Catholic Church that would deny me communion when I tel them I am an evangelical, every time I have been told that as long as I am baptized I can fully participate in their mass service and receive communion. Thanks be to God that churches do not enforce what the dumb leaders instituted, I.e. closed communion.

As one of your Reformed listeners I thought this was excellent. It's interesting that it's something I've spoken to others about when discussing baptismal efficacy. I guess I'm one the Reformed who would place more emphasis on the sacraments though I hope that will become more prevalent. I don't have high expectations as a large portion of the current Presbyterian landscape was very recently brought over from the Baptist tradition. Sadly they most likely heard, "We're not saying that baptism saves the baby" as a way to make the transition more palatable. Anyways, I'm sure you're also aware of the Reformed's understanding of the unity of the Trinity in salvation and how this relates to the issue. Like you said there's that parallel between Christ's atoning work being specifically for the Father's elect and the Spirit's application of those benefits being in unity with the Father's election and the Son's atonement. Just as Christ the high priest offers a priestly prayer not for the world but for those the Father has given Him, so He offers a priestly sacrifice for that same group (though the general invitation is universal along with the sufficiency but this speaks to Christ's priestly intentions). The same would be said of the Spirit's work. I honestly can't see the Spirit applying the benefits of Christ's sacrifice in baptism to those whom the Father hasn't elected to receive them. This is why the WCF says the efficacy of baptism is for "those whom the grace belongeth unto" -- the elect. That's not to say that I'm accusing you of affirming the disunity between the persons of the Godhead, but I thought I would add a little more to the discussion. Sadly if Christendom were a high school cafeteria, the Reformed have left the table where the Lutherans, Anglicans, Rome, and the East are sitting and have gone to sit and talk with the Baptists. I'm not sure if that's been a good influence on us though it's helped them I guess.

Greetings Brother. I have recently embraced the Reformed View of Election / Predestination. Blessings.

I'm sure this won't be a popular take, but for the common folk in churches, faith is a more simple affair. People put their faith in Christ and cling to him as their savior. This is true of both the reformed and Lutheran. I like also to go deep into thelogy but most people you talk to don't have a clue about most topics you bring up. This is not to say they are not Christians, again more simple faith. I am reformed and my daughter goes to a confessional Lutheran school because it really is the best option versus a broadly evangelical school. We agree on 95% of thelogy (in my estimation). I consider them my friends and brothers in Christ. The only point of difference that has ever come up is once I said I don't hold to baptismal regeneration to which the WELS Lutheran said, well you know the thief on the cross, I though that was ironic. Anyway, I'm at a point where if someone is truly holding to Christ in faith alone, I don't see the need to try and convert them. And whether it's the physical or spiritual presence in the supper, it ultimately doesn't matter what we people believe about it, because it's only what God knows about it that matters. And that is what will actually occur in the administration. I can admit that I don't have all the answers nor do I think I need them. I also know I have errors. I don't seek to have them, but I am a human so I will. Anyway, the whole point is, there is no need to be so hostile towards each other. I love you all, have a great night.

How does it give glory to God to misrepresent Him as having determined before creation to deny to particular individuals any opportunity to avoid damnation and everlasting exclusion from God's presence?

Can't the Word be considered a Sacrament?

Anglicans are a via media between Lutheran and Reformed, not between Rome and Protestantism.

Can someone uphold T.U.L.I.P. And be a conservative Lutheran?

I agree with the assessment of the summary of the two trajectory's at about 23 minute mark at: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pF9uTdZ4Li4.html. Great synthesis. The Reformed lens is sort of the same lens as the "Universalism" of David Bentley Hart but coming to a different conclusion. The "eternal decree" and the glory of God and trying to make "absolute" sense of it

Where is the evidence for altars in the NT? Jesus is the altar, himself. This may be the primary difference in Lutheran and Reformed theology.

I'm sure there were (and are) very Reformed Anglicans who call it a "table" or "holy table," but I've never been to or heard of an Anglican church refer to it as something other than an altar.

🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺

Nature of Grace and Sacraments. Ok going to bed now. Jk!! This one should be good!

Read it in the Greek without the "theological paraphrasing" and you get original Christianity. Gimme some moe

PLEASE talk more so slowly, so your thoughts are clearer. Your kind just be raving! I have definitely learned a few things, and have enjoyed your videos..I just need to not to go at warp speed🥺

Luther said that one should believe everything plainly and simply or believe nothing as the Holy Spirit doesn't allow one to believe one doctrine truly and another falsely (after instruction in the truth). Many Lutherans however seem to have the view that it doesn't really have any eternal consequences if one's beliefs differ somewhat from what the Bible teaches. The question that arises is would Luther have regarded the teaching of the Formula of Concord on predestination and grace to be such a deviation from the teaching of Scripture as to render those who believe this to have left the true faith? Considering that Luther strongly argued in The Bondage of the Will that the Scriptures teach that all things are predestined to happen, and that this was denied by the Formula of Concord, I think Luther would have held that confessional Lutherans have deviated from the truth to such an extent that they’ve lost the Holy Spirit. Luther opposed Erasmus's defence of free will by arguing that the Scriptures teach all things are necessitated to happen by God, and that people are predestined to be saved and damned. The FOC on the other hand only accepted that people are predestined to be saved, and denied that some are predestined to be damned. It denied that God necessitates everything that happens, and teaches in effect that people sin and are damned because of their own free will. So the position of the FOC is an illogical combination of both Luther's and Erasmus's positions. Luther undoubtedly would have thought that the FOC had compromised the truth by going along with Erasmus in holding that all things aren't absolute and unavoidable, and that we have free will to reject God. That the position of the FOC is nonsense is apparent when one considers that predestination and free will are totally incompatible. If God has predestined only some to be saved, and only they are saved, which is the case according to Scripture, then it follows that those not predestined to be saved are therefore predestined to be damned, and it has absolutely nothing to do with any supposed free will decision by them not to believe. They're on the contrary predestined by God to not believe in Christ. The FOC has simply misinterpreted Scripture when it combines predestination and free will, because the Scriptures can't possibly teach things which are logically contradictory. It's not the case that there's only a seeming contradiction or paradox involved. It's a real contradiction and therefore the position of the FOC can't be true. It's a position which would be pleasing to us if it could be true because it would present God as a benevolent being according to our human understanding, but it can't be true and it isn't true. The FOC is guilty of not taking God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture, as the sole determiner of all that happens. It's His universe and He determines what happens in it, not us. A quote from Luther: The great difference between doctrine and life is obvious, even as is the difference between heaven and earth. Life may be unclean, sinful, and inconsistent; but doctrine must be pure, holy, sound, and unchanging. Life may show omissions and come short of what doctrine calls for. But from doctrine (says Christ, Matt. 5: 18) not a tittle or letter may be omitted, however much life may fail to meet the requirements of doctrine. This is so because doctrine is God's Word and God's truth alone, whereas life is partly our own doing. On this account doctrine must remain entirely pure. God will have patience with man's moral failings and imperfections and forgive them. But He cannot, will not, and shall not tolerate a man's altering or abolishing doctrine itself. For doctrine involves His exalted, divine Majesty itself. In the sphere of doctrine, therefore, forgiveness and patience are out of order. (W 30 Ill, 343 f -E 25, 62 -SL 16, 1675 f) What Luther Says 1230 It’s plain to me that Luther, were he to have lived beyond 1580, would not only have found fault with the Reformed, over principally the Lord’s Supper, but he would also have found fault with the Lutherans over their belief in single predestination and universal grace. Luther pointed people to their baptism for assurance, but this is only valid if one has faith, and such faith isn’t given to everyone in baptism, because the Holy Spirit isn’t always efficacious through the Word and sacraments. Luther in The Bondage of the Will rejected the view that the Holy Spirit is always tied to the Word so that all who hear it can be saved as long as they don’t resist the Spirit. Luther held that only those whom God determines will be converted become regenerate and believe the Gospel, and that this happens irresistibly.

Total mischaracterization of Calvinism. “How do you know Christ died for you ? Because you are one of the elect. “. That is certainly not Calvinism but stupidity and a caricature of Calvinism. Calvin in his Institutes condemned anybody that would try to check his faith by asking themselves if they are one of the elect. On the contrary, in Calvinism you know you are one of the elect because you have faith ! You must have faith first, and in that faith you are found to be one of the elect. Calvinists know they are elect because they have faith, no sane calvinist questions whether Christ died for him by asking himself if he is elect, but knows that Christ died for him through faith. And no calvinists can ever doubt that Christ died for him because this revealed through the Holy Spirit (Romans 8: the spirit testified with our spirit that we are children of God).

The question is if one religious group knows God while the other does not. Division of God's followers is evil according to the Bible, a sign of the flesh.

Growing up Reformed Baptist and late Presbyterian, any reformed person who says the sacraments are essential to them is probably misguided or lying. Most Reformed Churches don't even partake of the Eucharist more than once a month. In fact, most Reformed laymen are probably ignorant of what Calvin and the Westminster Confession say about the spiritual nature of the Eucharist.

Since subtitles are not provided,, may I suggest that you try not to speak so fast. When you develop your concepts by listing examples, you tend to speed up and lower your voice a bit.

no difference - both pish

Just a few tips for pronunciation. Luther....not "Lootthah" but rather "Lutter"...the TH in German is just a T. It's a short "u" as in "book". Calvin....as in CULLvin Zwingli....Z as in TS....as in Tsar...w like English "v"....so like "TSVingli" Just fyi. I did note that pastors and others always go to great lengths to properly pronounce Spanish and other languages but never try that with French or German or even Latin.

Hey guys, I have an idea: we should just settle all these differences with Bible alone . . .

Limited atonement is an invention of Calvin. And it's flat wrong.