On a somewhat related note, in the comments to a post on Calvin's birthday at the weblog "The Old Adam Lives!" someone by the name of "Larry" made a rather interesting observation. He said, "There is no such thing as a Lutheran Baptist." This is interesting, of course, because there are numerous "Reformed Baptists" staking a claim to Calvin's legacy in the Reformation. As a Lutheran, I would consider it a blessing that there are no Lutheran Baptists. It's not something I've given much thought, but if it is true (and I'm not entirely sure that it is) it is a remarkable and remarkably wonderful thing. Naturally, some would disagree, considering it a failure in the Lutheran Reformation -- a failure to consistently follow through on the principles of grace alone, faith alone, and scripture alone?
What do you think, and why?
3 comments:
Hola-- I felt like I needed to dwell on your "Lutheran Baptist" comment, and shoot off at the mouth as usual, while I'm at it. :o)
I can't really speak to the historical influences on Baptist theology and why Calvinism would have more influence than Lutheranism. I do think that Lutheranism comes across as more stridently "confessional," whereas the many Reformed confessions might have a bit more leeway for adaptability. Baptists just see the Lutheran sacraments as way too Roman, whereas you will find Baptists who will acknowledge some sort of "spiritual presence" ("spiritual" meaning whatever you'd really like it to mean, other than "real").
Because Baptist churches are so autonomous, you will find secret wanna-be Lutherans in their midst sometimes. There are those who have been influenced enough by Calvinistic sovereignty that they ultimately reject decisionism, yet still hold to universal atonement and the belief that if mankind is condemned, it is his own fault for rejecting God. Not far off.
Actually, the Internet Monk thinks of himself ofttimes in terms of being a Lutheran-leaning Baptist. He has massive issues with the Sacraments, but he likes the Law-Gospel distinction at the heart of our doctrine.
Those are some very interesting observations. Thanks to both of you. Given their traditional love for evangelism and their historical background in Calvinism it seems only natural that the Law-Gospel distinction would be a welcome thing among most Baptists. But when you start dealing with sympathies and variations from the pure doctrine of each camp it all gets very complicated very quickly.
I guess what is interesting to me about Larry's comment is that even though there are significant numbers of people as individuals and as groups who identify themselves as "Reformed Baptists" you don't have many individuals and no groups (that I'm aware of)who think of themselves as "Lutheran Baptists." No one seems to be making a conscious effort on an institutional level to fuse "Lutheran" with "Baptist." I suspect that most people who give it any thought understand that it is simply impossible. Larry attributes this to the orthodoxy of Lutheranism and the heterodoxy of Calvinism. Perhaps that is a bit too simplistic, but it may not be all that far from the truth. At least one important point on which Calvinism is heterodox is the doctrine of the Sacraments, and specifically in the way Calvinism makes them primarily symbolic. It is a spiritual symbolism, to be sure, and thus the Sacraments are held in tremendous high regard. But at the end of the day the Sacraments are pointing beyond themselves to something else, and not truly accomplishing anything. In the same way, the preaching of the Word (the "external call") is an efficacious work of the Holy Spirit only if it is accompanied by an "internal calling" of the Holy Spirit's irresistible grace. So the heterodoxy of Calvinism -- and the chief novelty that John Calvin brought into the mainstream of Protestant Christianity -- is the idea that the Holy Spirit is not always at work in the divinely appointed means of grace. This seems to me to be the sin (or is it sine?) qua non of Baptist piety, and so Calvin's idea of "Reformed" is a good fit for Baptists, where Luther's Reformation is fundamentally incompatible.
Post a Comment