Bavinick on the Lutherans and the Reformed

I'm supposed to have loads of free time at the moment but for some reason haven't had time to do much thinking recently, and hence no blogging. But as usual I return to blogging when I need to get down a quote for future reflection...

I found the quote from Bavinick below quite helpful in my continuing quest to get a handle on Lutheranism. It was mentioned in a comment here which follows an interesting post and discussion.

The difference seems to be conveyed best by saying that the Reformed Christian thinks theologically, the Lutheran anthropologically. The Reformed person is not content with an exclusively historical stance but raises his sights to the idea, the eternal decree of God. By contrast the Lutheran takes his position in the midst of the history of redemption and feels no need to enter more deeply into the counsel of God.

For the Reformed, therefore, election is the heart of the church; for Lutherans, justification is the article by which the church stands or falls. Among the former the primary question is: How is the glory of God advanced? Among the latter it is: How does a human get saved? The struggle of the former is above all against paganism - idolatry; that of the latter against Judaism - works-righteousness. The Reformed person does not rest until he has traced all things retrospectively to the divine decree, tracking down the "wherefore" of things, and has prospectively made all things subservient to the glory of God; the Lutheran is content with the "that" and enjoys the salvation in which he is, by faith, a participant. From this difference in principle, the dogmatic controversies between them (with respect to the image of God, original sin, the person of Christ, the order of salvation, the sacraments, church government, ethics, etc.) can be easily explained. (Reformed Dogmatics 1:177)

The temptation in such discussions is to start getting partisan and claim superiority over the other. I think that is difficult position to maintain. As John H comments 'Vive la différence'!

Incidental notes:

1. I like Kletos Sumboulos' comment that '"Among the latter it is: How does a human get saved?" should read "Among the latter it is: What has Christ done for us?"'
2. I wonder how this links to Melanchthon's famous comment 'to know Christ means to know his benefits' which I am still trying to properly understand.

Random facts about Calvin and Calvinism

I found them interesting. But then perhaps I ought to get our more.

1. 'Archbishop William Whitgift whose distaste for Puritanism was legendary, remained a staunch Cavinist in his views on predestination, as the Lambeth Articles of 1595 amply demonstrate' (p.4).
2. 'Calvin regarded Zwingli as a second-rate theologian and ridiculed the esteem in which he was held at Zurich. though Calvin read and cited Zwingli's important treatise, the Commentary on True and False Religion, he confessed that he was put off by Zwingli's reliance on philosophy, he excessive use of paradox, and his confusion of the universal concerns of the gospel with the parochial interests of the Swiss' (p.173)
3. Calvin signed the Augsburg Confession while at the Regensburg Colloquy in 1541 (p. 172).
4. Relying 'only upon the index of the Corpus Reformatorum as a guide to Calvin's knowledge of the Fathers, one would conclude that Calvin referred in his commentaries on the new Testament to Chrysostom 105 times, to Augustine 101, to Jerome 38, to Ambrose 23, and to Ambrosiaster not at all' (p. 135).
5. 'Calvin does not use the Fathers in the way a medieval commentator used his ancient authorities. The Father's are not cited by Calvin in his exegesis of Romans 8 because he agrees with them and needs their authority their authority to strengthen his argument [...] in every case, explicit and anonymous, in which Calvin has referred to Patristic exegesis, he has quarreled with it. One ought not to make too much of this quarrel. After all, as we have already seen, there is a wide range of issues on which Calvin is in complete agreement with the Fathers. [...] Calvin, after all, is writing a commentary on Paul, not on Origen or chrysostom or Augustine or Ambrosiaster. Calvin keeps his pages as uncluttered as possible because it is Paul himself and not the commentators he wants to interpret' (p. 136)

All page references are to Calvin in Context by David Steinmetz.