Why Lutherans say Salvation can be Lost, and the Reformed say it Can't

I've gotten a lot of questions about Lutheranism over the years. Since I'm not a Lutheran, I have to admit I only have a cursory knowledge of their theology and its historical development. Why do Lutheran believe salvation can be lost?  Why do the Reformed say it can't?

I recently came across a few paragraphs from Reformed theologian Geerhardus Vos about this.  Ponder this, as I have been doing:

When we compare the representations of the on final state of man as they have been developed by the different theological traditions, there immediately arises a fundamental difference of great importance for the doctrine of the covenant of works. According to the Lutherans man has ready reached his destination in that God had placed him in a state of uprightness. Eternal life was already in his possession. In his situation the highest ideal was realized. Nothing more need be added to execute God's purpose in creating man. Man was mutable, that is true, and he could fall away from the state of original uprightness and bliss. But for the Lutheran conception this is not a stage that points forward to something else, but rather that which was usual and normal and to be expected. From this it follows that the same condition returns in the state of grace to which fallen man is brought by Christ. Precisely because mankind's destination had already been reached before the fall in Adam, Christ can do nothing but restore what was lost in Adam. And since the destination already realized was fully compatible with mutability and the possibility of falling, the sinner who has been brought back to his destination by Christ must necessarily have to remain at this level. Lutheran theology is, therefore, wholly consistent when it teaches an apostasy of the saints. It does not at all object to uniting the state of justification and sonship with the possibility of such an apostasy.

-snip- (I 'm skipping the discussion of the Pelagian view) -snip-

The Reformed view of the original state of man leads to a totally different result. It was a state of perfect uprightness in which he knew the good and did it consciously. As long as he remained in that state, he could also be sure of God's favor. Up to this point the Reformed view concurs with the Lutheran. But whereas the latter can be satisfied by perpetuating such a state and extending it indefinitely, the Reformed view fixes its gaze on something higher. It sees man not as being placed in eternal bliss from the beginning, but as being placed in such a way that he might attain to eternal bliss. There still hovers above him the possibility of sin and death which is given with his mutable freedom. He is free to do the good out of his good nature but he has not yet attained the highest freedom which can do good only. The latter is placed before him as an ideal. The means of obtaining it is the covenant of works. Here too the state of grace is again ultimately determined by the idea of man's destiny in the state of original uprightness. What we inherit in the second Adam is not restricted to what we lost in the first Adam: it is much rather the full realization of what the first Adam would have achieved for us had he remained unfallen and been confirmed in his state. Someone placed in that state can never again fall from it. As truly as Christ is a perfect Saviour, so truly must he bestow on us the perseverance of the saints.

Source:  Richard Gaffin, ed. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (Philipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing co., 1980) p.242-243.

The Underlying Rift

It's not all a White Horse Inn love fest between the Lutheran and Reformed out in cyber space. Some of you are probably aware of the underlying rift between Lutherans (that take their Lutheranism seriously) and the Reformed (those people not afraid to refer to themselves as "Calvinists").

I rarely get involved with this dispute. I'm not a Lutheran, and I don't plan on becoming one anytime soon. On the other hand, I'm not going to spend my sparse blogging time fighting with Lutherans over predestination, the extent of the atonement or the sacraments.

Here's a blog post though for my Reformed friends with time on their hands: Luther & His Tower Experience:

The most dangerous enemy of the Lutheran confessions is not so much Rome who is obvious but Reformed doctrine which is more clandestine.

Here's another similar tidbit from a CyberBrethren comment box:

As a former Calvinist doctrine was a philosophical matter. We were proud to show how well our i’s were dotted and our t’s were crossed. Everything was done in the Divine Council before the beginning of time. Your life on earth was about your gratitude and your glorifying God. The reformed worship is a play of things past, it is not about what is happening in this very moment.

Speaking of CyberBrethren, recently Pastor McCain posted a comment from Doug Wilson he found uplifting. I like Pastor McCain (and his blog), but if I recall correctly, he's not a big fan Calvinism. So, posting a comment from a post millennial federal vision Calvinist was somewhat surprising:

‎Jesus promised us that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church. It is not often noted that the gates of Hades are not an offensive weapon. Hades is being besieged by the Church; it is not the other way around. We need to learn to see that biblical worship of God is a powerful battering ram, and each Lord’s Day we have the privilege of taking another swing. Or, if we prefer, we might still want to continue gathering around with our insipid songs, dopey skits, and inspirational chats in order to pelt the gates of Hades with our wadded up kleenex.” ~ Douglas Wilson

I left this brief comment: If this is the Doug Wilson I’m familiar with, you’re quoting not only a Calvinist, but a post-millennialist. I haven’t seen this quote in context, but for a post-millennialist, of course "Hades is being besieged by the Church."

Pastor McCain responded, "Well whatever he meant by the comment, I thought it was still good. A broken watch is correct at least twice a day."

Well, the next time either I, or one of my fellow Reformed minions quote Dr. Luther’s De Servo Arbitrio on predestination and a Lutheran complains, I’m going to say, “Well whatever he meant by the comment, I thought it was still good. A broken watch is correct at least twice a day.” (:
Doug Wilson is a great writer. I have some serious disagreements with him, but he is an excellent communicator, and highly quotable. Why… even Lutheran pastors quote him!

Goddess Lutherans: The Sifting of Christianity Through Feminism

"The Lutheran Feminist Movement exists to celebrate the feminine persona of God/dess and dimensions of the sacred as expressed in worship, learning, mutual care, and acts of justice."

Now here’s a Lutheran church that I found interesting (for lack of a better word): Ebenezer Lutheran Church, San Francisco - ELCA. Particularly, you may be interested in attending the Christian Goddess Rosary every Wednesday at 7:00 PM. Now before the Roman Catholic crowd starts up with a mantra about how Protestants are a disorganized blueprint for anarchy, you might want to visit Junia's Daughter:Reflections of a Catholic Woman Priest.

Here's my 2 cents: CS Lewis once said, "God himself has taught us how to speak of Him." I would add, the male imagery found in Scripture does not depreciate women- anymore than the examples of feminine images depreciate masculinity. The Goddess Lutherans pray, "Our Mother who is within us we celebrate your many names." When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, "Our Father", I would not have stopped him to point out His use of a masculine image. I'm the type of person who just does what an almighty God tells him to do. Since Jesus spoke infallibly, I can rest assured that however he taught me to pray is the right way to pray. This is but another aspect of sola scriptura. We must continually conform ourselves to its clear teaching, regardless of our agendas. I would challenge these ladies to examine their feminist tradition in light of sacred scripture. One cannot sift Christianity through feminism. Christianity comes with a particular vocabulary.

How "Lutheran" Are You?

I found this quiz, How Lutheran Are You?. No, I didn’t score 100. The results showed I was 75% Lutheran. Most of the questions in which I knew the answers were about Martin Luther. The questions I didn’t know were in Reference to Lutheran hymnals and Denominational details. The quiz doesn’t really show how “Lutheran” one is. Actually, the quiz shows how much one knows about Lutheranism.

Guest Blog: Properly Dividing Law And gospel

by Frank Marron (Lutheran)

While many sermons on Sunday may teach the orthodox Christian faith, most are not proper because they do apply the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lives of believers. Sure, you may leave church after hearing the truth concerning both the Divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ – that He is both man and God, but most likely you will not have heard the Gospel applied to your everyday life. Here is a case study illustrating this fact, based on a recent broadcast of Law & Gospel by Pastor Tom Baker. All names are fictitious.

Ann is a middle-aged woman who recently lost her husband in an automobile accident, where a drunk driver was responsible. She is a member of a mainstream Christian church denomination where her fellow members and pastor all encourage her to forget and forgive because the bible tells her she must do so. After all, we read such commands in the bible. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, St Paul writes:

Ephes. 4:32
Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

Jesus Himself states:
Matthew 6:14-15
For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, [15] but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Grieving over the loss of her life’s companion, Ann is naturally confused. When asked, she forcefully testifies she is not angry with God, but instead angry with the drunk driver who caused her pain and suffering. Her pastor and church friends are uncomfortable being around Ann and continue to encourage her to forgive the drunk driver and get on with her life. But Ann cannot simply do this. She thinks she is in a good church home and has heard the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But has she really?

Most Christian denominations believe that “if the bible says it, then that settles it - I believe it”. Sadly, such a viewpoint is prominent throughout Christianity and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the Word of God. There are two methods God speaks in His Word: Law and Gospel. “Law” is shorthand for the will of God, usually understood in the context of the ten commandments. In the above Scripture quotations, these verses are definitely Law. It is the will of God that we forgive one another, just as stated in the Lord’s Prayer(e.g. Matthew 6:12). All religions of the world are Law based, believing that the way a person gets right with God is by doing the will of God. Such people are referred to as those who live under the Law. Although Ann’s denomination professes belief in Jesus Christ, this church is not really different from all other religions of the world because it encourages it’s members to live under the Law. Ann is terribly burdened by her loss and under condemnation for failing to forgive the drunk driver who killed her husband. Instead of comforting Ann, her church burdens her with the full weight of the Law: Ann must forgive. This is a classic example of the failure to properly distinguish between Law and Gospel.

The bible is riddled with passages of Scripture that are either Law or Gospel. In fact, many verses can be understood as either one, depending upon whether one lives under Law or under the Gospel. Most denominations fail to understand that the primary purpose of the Law is to reveal and magnify sin, not to present a challenge for a man to keep the will of God(Romans 3:20;5:20). The Law of God is good in that it reveals the will of God, but it only condemns a person and does not enable him to keep it. The Law is a mirror showing us how imperfect and sinful we really are and is a tutor pointing to Christ(Galatians 3:24). Most denominations know the Law well and rather than emphasize the scriptural purpose for it, they encourage members to try to keep it, often believing that the Holy Spirit will empower people to do this, thus pleasing God. Such encouragement is a confusion of Law and Gospel and even attempts to use the cross of Christ as Law rather than Gospel! Such denominations believe that the purpose of the bible is to present “right rules for living”. Unfortunately, this is not Christianity, but rather exactly what all other man made religions of the world teach, such as Buddhism, Mormonism, or Islam.

Romans chapters 7 and 8 illustrate the apostle Paul’s understanding of Law and Gospel, sin and Grace. Romans 7:9 shows how the Law created awareness of sin for Paul and the inner turmoil over failure to keep it. Paul says that even though the Law is good, it caused death for him. In verse 15 Paul states that he does the exact opposite of the will of God, despite his desire to do otherwise! Verse 24 shows Paul exclaiming what a wretched man he is, finally realizing that the only solution to his dilemma is Jesus Christ. Paul is no different than any other man: All have sinned and fallen short of the will of God(Romans 3:23). The good news is that there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus(Romans 8:1). Most denominations don’t seem to understand why there is no condemnation of believers such as Ann, who professes belief in Jesus Christ. Instead, such churches place Ann on another guilt trip for failure to keep the Law completely. Such denominations read Romans 8:1-6 as those who live under the Law, believing that walking according to the flesh refers to continuing to sin and walking according to the Spirit as ceasing from sinning. But this is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Such churches should be embarrassed and ashamed at failing their members. Ann’s denomination does not heed the Scriptures, which plainly state that the Law reveals sin to those secure in their sins, as shown above, but that the Gospel is to be given to those terrified of their trespasses. Jesus came to fulfill the Law perfectly for all men, including Ann(Matthew 5:17). Jesus did what no other man was capable of – He was the Representative Man. Jesus came not for the righteous, but sinners(Matthew 9:13), including Ann. As a believer, Ann is concerned over her failure to forgive, which is a sin of omission, not commission(e.g. James 4:17). The Gospel is that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the entire world, which includes Ann(John 3:16). Jesus did not die for y those who kept the will of God perfectly throughout their entire lives, but for sinners. Only Christ lived the perfect, sinless life. This is the GOOD NEWS, the Gospel, which is rarely preached from the pulpits of most denominations. The Gospel is not that God forgives your sins and sends the Holy Spirit to enable you to keep the Law of God. The Gospel is 100 percent gift: God forgives your sins because the Son of God took the punishment for your sins. God gives you the gift of Faith in which to receive this blessing and also the seal of the Holy Sirit(Ephesians 1:13-14). Jesus Christ exchanges His Righteousness for your sins so that we become adopted children of God through absolutely no merit of our own. Being aware of her sins and failure to forgive the person who killed her husband, instead of being burdened with more Law, Ann should have been comforted with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Ann should be encouraged to continue to walk by the Spirit, confessing her sins and receiving the forgiveness of sins and the peace of God through Jesus Christ her Savior, which is living under the Gospel. Jesus Christ lived the perfect life of obedience under the Law for Ann. Jesus Christ received the full wrath of God for Ann’s sins. In the eyes of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, Ann is considered perfect, sinless, and righteous(2Cor 5:21). This is the Gospel. This is the comfort and peace which is sorely lacking in Christian preaching today.

Guest Blog: Properly Dividing Law & Gospel

by Frank Marron (Lutheran)

While many sermons on Sunday may teach the orthodox Christian faith, most are not proper because they do apply the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lives of believers. Sure, you may leave church after hearing the truth concerning both the Divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ – that He is both man and God, but most likely you will not have heard the Gospel applied to your everyday life. Here is a case study illustrating this fact, based on a recent broadcast of Law & Gospel by Pastor Tom Baker. All names are fictitious.

Ann is a middle-aged woman who recently lost her husband in an automobile accident, where a drunk driver was responsible. She is a member of a mainstream Christian church denomination where her fellow members and pastor all encourage her to forget and forgive because the bible tells her she must do so. After all, we read such commands in the bible. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, St Paul writes:

Ephes. 4:32
Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

Jesus Himself states:

Matthew 6:14-15
For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, [15] but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Grieving over the loss of her life’s companion, Ann is naturally confused. When asked, she forcefully testifies she is not angry with God, but instead angry with the drunk driver who caused her pain and suffering. Her pastor and church friends are uncomfortable being around Ann and continue to encourage her to forgive the drunk driver and get on with her life. But Ann cannot simply do this. She thinks she is in a good church home and has heard the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But has she really?

Most Christian denominations believe that “if the bible says it, then that settles it - I believe it”. Sadly, such a viewpoint is prominent throughout Christianity and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the Word of God. There are two methods God speaks in His Word: Law and Gospel. “Law” is shorthand for the will of God, usually understood in the context of the ten commandments. In the above Scripture quotations, these verses are definitely Law. It is the will of God that we forgive one another, just as stated in the Lord’s Prayer(e.g. Matthew 6:12). All religions of the world are Law based, believing that the way a person gets right with God is by doing the will of God. Such people are referred to as those who live under the Law. Although Ann’s denomination professes belief in Jesus Christ, this church is not really different from all other religions of the world because it encourages it’s members to live under the Law. Ann is terribly burdened by her loss and under condemnation for failing to forgive the drunk driver who killed her husband. Instead of comforting Ann, her church burdens her with the full weight of the Law: Ann must forgive. This is a classic example of the failure to properly distinguish between Law and Gospel.

The bible is riddled with passages of Scripture that are either Law or Gospel. In fact, many verses can be understood as either one, depending upon whether one lives under Law or under the Gospel. Most denominations fail to understand that the primary purpose of the Law is to reveal and magnify sin, not to present a challenge for a man to keep the will of God(Romans 3:20;5:20). The Law of God is good in that it reveals the will of God, but it only condemns a person and does not enable him to keep it. The Law is a mirror showing us how imperfect and sinful we really are and is a tutor pointing to Christ(Galatians 3:24). Most denominations know the Law well and rather than emphasize the scriptural purpose for it, they encourage members to try to keep it, often believing that the Holy Spirit will empower people to do this, thus pleasing God. Such encouragement is a confusion of Law and Gospel and even attempts to use the cross of Christ as Law rather than Gospel! Such denominations believe that the purpose of the bible is to present “right rules for living”. Unfortunately, this is not Christianity, but rather exactly what all other man made religions of the world teach, such as Buddhism, Mormonism, or Islam.

Romans chapters 7 and 8 illustrate the apostle Paul’s understanding of Law and Gospel, sin and Grace. Romans 7:9 shows how the Law created awareness of sin for Paul and the inner turmoil over failure to keep it. Paul says that even though the Law is good, it caused death for him. In verse 15 Paul states that he does the exact opposite of the will of God, despite his desire to do otherwise! Verse 24 shows Paul exclaiming what a wretched man he is, finally realizing that the only solution to his dilemma is Jesus Christ. Paul is no different than any other man: All have sinned and fallen short of the will of God(Romans 3:23). The good news is that there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus(Romans 8:1). Most denominations don’t seem to understand why there is no condemnation of believers such as Ann, who professes belief in Jesus Christ. Instead, such churches place Ann on another guilt trip for failure to keep the Law completely. Such denominations read Romans 8:1-6 as those who live under the Law, believing that walking according to the flesh refers to continuing to sin and walking according to the Spirit as ceasing from sinning. But this is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Such churches should be embarrassed and ashamed at failing their members. Ann’s denomination does not heed the Scriptures, which plainly state that the Law reveals sin to those secure in their sins, as shown above, but that the Gospel is to be given to those terrified of their trespasses. Jesus came to fulfill the Law perfectly for all men, including Ann(Matthew 5:17). Jesus did what no other man was capable of – He was the Representative Man. Jesus came not for the righteous, but sinners(Matthew 9:13), including Ann. As a believer, Ann is concerned over her failure to forgive, which is a sin of omission, not commission(e.g. James 4:17). The Gospel is that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the entire world, which includes Ann(John 3:16). Jesus did not die for y those who kept the will of God perfectly throughout their entire lives, but for sinners. Only Christ lived the perfect, sinless life. This is the GOOD NEWS, the Gospel, which is rarely preached from the pulpits of most denominations. The Gospel is not that God forgives your sins and sends the Holy Spirit to enable you to keep the Law of God. The Gospel is 100 percent gift: God forgives your sins because the Son of God took the punishment for your sins. God gives you the gift of Faith in which to receive this blessing and also the seal of the Holy Sirit(Ephesians 1:13-14). Jesus Christ exchanges His Righteousness for your sins so that we become adopted children of God through absolutely no merit of our own. Being aware of her sins and failure to forgive the person who killed her husband, instead of being burdened with more Law, Ann should have been comforted with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Ann should be encouraged to continue to walk by the Spirit, confessing her sins and receiving the forgiveness of sins and the peace of God through Jesus Christ her Savior, which is living under the Gospel. Jesus Christ lived the perfect life of obedience under the Law for Ann. Jesus Christ received the full wrath of God for Ann’s sins. In the eyes of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, Ann is considered perfect, sinless, and righteous(2Cor 5:21). This is the Gospel. This is the comfort and peace which is sorely lacking in Christian preaching today.

When Music and Advertising Enter The Beggar's Den

To Sean Dietrich,

Recently, in Frank Marron’s guest blog entry on Chemnitz and the Council of Trent, you left the following comment in response:

"Hey, I enjoyed your blog. Thanks for being honest and open about everything. I love Jesus and love reading about people who know him too. I am a musician and I would be honored if you would check out my music. All my music is free for download. Anyway, I don't mean to be a pest, just thought I'd share.Thanks,-Seanwww.SeanDietrich.com"All my muisc is free."

I was initially suspicious your comment above is spam. I found your same comment on two other blogs. While, I don’t think you are bulk spamming Blogger, I do think your comment still qualifies as spam. You’re advertising your music on blogs by responding to articles that have nothing to do with the topics. Now, I visit other blogs and comment sometimes. Out of respect for the hard work people do in keeping up a blog, I comment on what they’ve written.

Of course, you are welcome here to post comments, or even direct folks to songs you think are relevant to the discussion. I’m not against music- I began playing guitar when I was 13 (which means I’ve been playing for a long time). I have a Gibson Les Paul and a Gibson L-4. In the last ten years I’ve been interested in mastering an instrument called the Chapman Stick (pictured Left being played by Emmett Chapman).

But, the insight for you comes from Frank Marron. Frank responded to your music using Luther’s Glory/Cross paradigm, a paradigm that I find profound and most Biblical:

Sean,

I checked out your tunes. Thanks for inviting me to listen to your music! I am a gust blogger on this site, and so I may not speak for everyone who reads and posts here. But since you asked my opinion, let me be honest with you.

First, you are obviously a talented musician with a God given gift for music. I am not blessed in this department, although I sing to the best of my ability in church each week.

I was not born a Lutheran, but joined the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in 1978. I did not enjoy traditional Lutheran hymns at that time and when I relocated back to Seattle for job related reasons in 1984, it wasn’t long before I left that church body. I spent several years in different church homes and was very satisfied with a musically inclined Charismatic church, where the music was contemporary Praise and wonderful. Years and a lot of heartache later I rejoined the LCMS for theological reasons. I came to realize that most contemporary church music, while appealing to modern ears, is theologically incorrect and not in tune with orthodox beliefs. I maintain that if a talented individual such as yourself could ever bridge the gap between modern tunes and Word-of-God lyrics, the product would be tremendous. Don’t get me wrong, there are certain modern songs that are just fine, such as Josh Groban’s hit a couple of years ago(You Lift Me Up). Let me explain. Your tunes and voice are just great, but the lyrics will not appeal to a Lutheran because they are the words of a Theology of Glory. Your words largely exemplify Decision Theology rather than the Theology of the Cross. Here are some examples:

1. “I Wanna Be A Christian”. Certain lyrics used indicate that if you don’t do what God says in His Word you are a fake and not a true Christian. This is Theology of Glory, not the Cross because God’s Word says no one can keep God’s Law the way he must, which is perfectly in thought, word, and deed. In fact, the Law of God, although perfect, is intended primarily to show us that we cannot keep it and to drive us to despair and ultimately Christ! Obedience to God’s commandments does not determine if a person is a Christian, but rather REPENTANCE over their sin and constant awareness of the need for the Savior, Jesus Christ. Christians are no different than other people, except they are aware of their sin and are continually REPENTANT over this.

2. “Will I Give My Best”. This song’s lyrics indicate that a person should give his best for Jesus because Jesus did that for him. Once again, this is Theology of Glory stuff. The Scriptures are clear that all we have to offer God is our sin. That is the only thing we really have to offer. As the Psalm says, God does not want sacrifices and offerings from us, but rather a broken and contrite heart. God is interested in an entirely New Creation, because our old self prior to conversion is only worthy of condemnation.

3. “Here I am”. There was one good line here “Nothing you can do can make Me love you less”. This is true. God IS love and has shown this by dying for sinners who were hostile to him, not “good” people who welcomed him. However, the line that contained the words that God wants to be our friend is theologically lame. God is our Father.He sent His Only Begotten Son to die for us. He doesn’t merely want to be an earthly “friend” but our Savior. He wants to clothe us with His blood, His Righteousness, which becomes ours through the vehicle of Faith. Which in turn comes by hearing the Gospel.

4. “Nothing Special”. I wasn’t sure of the lyrics here but kept hearing “I’m nothing special…it feels so right”. Theologically, since Christ died for us, we are extremely valuable. We are His adopted sons, inheritors of all the promises of God, which are Yes! And Amen! In Christ. Our bodies are now the temple of the Holy Spirit. Christians are indeed very special to God. We are His holy nation, chosen people, where He lives on earth, etc…

I hope you take these comments in the manner they were intended, which is in Christian honesty and love. You see, a lot of Christian denominations will love your songs, including the lyrics. But not Lutherans, for the reasons mentioned above.

Frank Marron

Sean, take the time to read through Frank's comments and digest them, and by all means respond to them. Don't simply think Frank's comments are "sectarian". The better your theology is, the better your music will be. I suggest getting involved in a church with pastors who can read over your lyrics to make sure they're theologically correct. Also take the advise from Churchmouse:

"Have you read Steve Camp's The 107 Theses: A Call for Reformation for Contemporary Christian? I think you will find it very interesting. If you haven't done so already, you can read it here."

John Mark Hits One Out Of The Ballpark: The Lutheran Understanding of Calvinists

There is significant value for Reformed folks to understand Luther’s “theology of the cross” (and probably at some point I will get into this one). It’s hard to sum this up quickly, but when I’m pressed to give an answer in ten seconds to someone who asks me about it, I ask this question:

“Which way has God most clearly revealed Himself?”

Sometimes the answer given is “in nature.” This would be a good try for a non-Christian, but the folks that have given me this answer are Christians! The answer of course, is “in Jesus Christ,” and this is the ten-second explanation to the “theology of the cross.” Luther would say something like, “If you want to know God, know Jesus Christ.”

Now, I’ve met quite a few cyber-Lutherans. I think in some cases, Luther’s “theology of the cross” is wrongly used by some of them against Reformed Christians. Many times if a Reformed person even mentions predestination, election, atonement, etc, some Lutherans will quickly take refuge behind the theology of the cross, and say that the Reformed are not talking about Jesus, but rather the hidden God. I always wonder if maybe the theology of the cross is being misapplied in order to maintain a tradition, or is either being misapplied due to a faulty understanding of Reformed theology. Now, I’m not pigeonholing all Lutherans, so please put your guns back in your holsters.

Probably motivated by this post from James White , John Mark over on his Sweet Tea And Theology blog, put something into words that I’ve never been able to relating to this subject. He applied a type of incorrect Lutheran hermeneutic to the Nicene Creed in which everything not mentioning Jesus was stricken from the creed.

Now of course, John Mark is using an example of argumentum ad absurdum, and doing so quite effectively. I doubt of course any Lutheran would agree with his findings. But this is the point isn’t it? Deuteronomy 29:29 says, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.” Of course, the primary meaning of this verse applies to the law, but secondarily, it is those things in the Scripture that have been revealed to us that tell us who God is. Yes, it’s true that God has most clearly revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, but this does not negate the Reformed doctrines of grace.