Theology: Did Calvinism take over Protestantism?

Deimos

Banned
It is interesting that Lutheranism really has become so much different than Calvinism, as Luther probably wrote more on the subject of Monergism than Calvin (heck, he wrote a book countering Erasamus' views on freedom of the will called Bondage of the Will.) [...]
Well to be fair, the original title of that book is "de servo arbitrio" although the English title quite accurately foregoes the conclusion of Luther's views. Another factor why Lutheranism could become so distinct lies in the nature of Luther's work. It remained unsystematic and allowed for those following him to pick and choose to a greater degree. For example, Luther claims that not only Jesus but God Himself died on the cross. Early critcs of Luther noted this as approaching the heretical teachings of miaphysitism and later Lutherans no longer emphasised that particular aspect due to its problematic nature.

So really, the differences between most Christianity on "Calvinist" doctrines is really quite negligible, other than the issue of limited/unlimited atonement, which is a real battleground among the two. [...]

Speaking as an actual "Calvinist", I must politely disagree on this. Apart from the scope of atonement, there is also a marked difference in how it actually affect humans. For Luther, the crucifixion made men into hybrid beings who were both in possession of a saved soul and a sinful body and therefore simultaneously saved and condemned. He believed to have found he same sarx - pneuma dichotomy in the Pauline epistles and also based his views on the Old Testament on that.
In Calvinist tradition atonement does not make men any less sinful and does not really transform them. Atonement is more comparable to Christ giving the elected amnesty in regards to God's rightful damnation of them. Calvinism also usually holds the Old Testament in higher esteem than Lutheranism does.

If there can be a distinction between different traditions of the Reformation period, then it would be safe to say that Lutheranism is very focused on Christ and salvation. Calvin obviously built on that but it can be argued that his focus was more on God (indeed, la gloire de dieu is a one of the most distinct and repeated phrases of Calvin's writings).
 
So I guess ultimately, the modern, popular, non-denominational, sometimes Evangelical, "mere" Protestant Christianity as typified in American megachurches isn't directly descended from Calvinism, or Reformed Churches. My original supposition that Calvinism has dominated Protestantism is inaccurate. Though I would imagine all of those various English Protestant groups I referred to earlier are more influenced by Reformed beliefs (including Arminianism) and by Anglicanism, than by Lutheranism. This is probably because of political/national reasons.

I'd still like to imagine how Lutheranism would have adapted to more cultural groups than Northern Germans and Scandinavians. Lutheran Huguenots, Lutheran Scots, Lutheran English Separatists, and so on.
 

Deimos

Banned
So I guess ultimately, the modern, popular, non-denominational, sometimes Evangelical, "mere" Protestant Christianity as typified in American megachurches isn't directly descended from Calvinism, or Reformed Churches. My original supposition that Calvinism has dominated Protestantism is inaccurate. Though I would imagine all of those various English Protestant groups I referred to earlier are more influenced by Reformed beliefs (including Arminianism) and by Anglicanism, than by Lutheranism. This is probably because of political/national reasons. [...]
The religious experience of North America and Europe differed and continue to do so. Nevertheless, there might be some very direct influences that can be traced to Calvinism.
One would be the idea of the Bible as a common ground. Calvinism at its origin was very interested in Protestant splinter groups from all over Europe and what bound these (Frenchmen, Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Scots et cetera) together was the Bible as a common element. This was stretched so far that Calvin for all the bad blood between him and the Holy Roman Catholic Church continued to acknowledge them as Christian on the basis that they used the same Scriptures he did. That is a fine difference to Luther who decried the Pope and Holy Roman Catholic Church as Satan.
I imagine that the idea of the Bible as a common ground was indirectly a very good influence on the settlers and different nationalities that immigrated early into North America.
The second most obvious influence of Calvinism lies in the seriousness that some evangelical communities treat Biblical Law with. Calvinism was far more open to the idea that the Old Testament contained some very wise ideas that should be followed (in principle). For example, people who refuse to get tattoos on the ground of Leviticus XIX, 28, are probably from denominations that enjoyed Calvinist influences.

I'd still like to imagine how Lutheranism would have adapted to more cultural groups than Northern Germans and Scandinavians. Lutheran Huguenots, Lutheran Scots, Lutheran English Separatists, and so on.
The simple change would be for Luther to be more open to compromise than IOTL. Accepting a different interpretation/reading of the words "hoc est corpus meum" (Zwingli read "hoc significat corpus meum") would avoid splintering the Reformation.
Another good point would be to avoid the inner-Lutheran struggles after Luther's death between the Gnesio-Lutherans and the followers of Melanchthon because that might enable the Lutherans to far more effectively develop their doctrine and convert key figures and places before the Emperor intervenes.
 
'Culturally' speaking, how might more widespread Lutheranism (and Lutheran-derived off-shoot Protestant sects) look, compared to the Reformed-inspired denominations of OTL?

It's interesting that when you think of stereotypical Lutheran features in America today, one immediately thinks of the national cultures (i.e. Scandinavian, and occasionally German) that those denominations preserve. Not so much the theological culture.
 
Well to be fair, the original title of that book is "de servo arbitrio" although the English title quite accurately foregoes the conclusion of Luther's views.

I had to look it up, but "On Unfree Will" is pretty much the same thing.

For example, Luther claims that not only Jesus but God Himself died on the cross.

This seems like an odd distinction you are making. Historic Protestantism upholds CHalcedon that Christ was fully God and fully man. I don't think saying that God died on the cross qualifies as miaphysitism (i.e. the divine and human natures are one nature, but the divine nature overshadows the human nature). I think you would be hardpressed to find any orthodox thinker, pre or post protestantism that would affirm that God did not die on the cross.

Speaking as an actual "Calvinist", I must politely disagree on this. Apart from the scope of atonement, there is also a marked difference in how it actually affect humans. For Luther, the crucifixion made men into hybrid beings who were both in possession of a saved soul and a sinful body and therefore simultaneously saved and condemned. He believed to have found he same sarx - pneuma dichotomy in the Pauline epistles and also based his views on the Old Testament on that. In Calvinist tradition atonement does not make men any less sinful and does not really transform them.

Reformed Theology teaches that there is something called the "sanctification process" which takes place after the moment of justification. This means that, in Calvinist theology, a totally depraved individual whose every inclination of his heart is continually toward evil is guided by the Holy Spirit to oppose his own nature, and actually desire Godliness and do good works. So I think you are speaking of nominal, but not functional differences.
 

Deimos

Banned
'Culturally' speaking, how might more widespread Lutheranism (and Lutheran-derived off-shoot Protestant sects) look, compared to the Reformed-inspired denominations of OTL?
[...]
Religions often conforms to their surroundings and it is hard to say what specific paths would have been taken with an early POD.
What is likely is a greater effort of ATL Lutherans to join the concepts of state and church to some degree. In the kingdoms and oligarchic merchant republics of Europe that is very feasible but for a democratic society it is hard to say what will be done. Maybe there are guaranteed seats for church officials in legislative commitees or churches are expected to perform social services for the citizen and are partly paid for by the state. Not in the sense that there must be a specific state religion but that regional Lutherans are always represented if the matter concerns them.

Additionally, there is practically no escape for Lutheranism to form its own scholastic orthodoxy that will in turn inspire Radical Pietists to break away, so you will also get a variety of sects that could fill a what they think the mainstream churches are missing.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
I don't particularly think so. The problem with Calvinism is that it gets tied up into the notion of Predestination, which most Protestant theology today is completely opposed to. Calvin had a fairly comprehensive theology that Luther never really set up, but I would say that the evolution of the Protestant movement has been one centered around later reformers more than anything, with a Lutheran tradition of justification by faith and a Calvinist tradition of personal morality and piety in others.
 
Which is an interesting, ahistorical and abiblical reason to reject a doctrine. I bring this up simply because many of the modern opponents of Calvinism have reasons such as these, but not specifically anything from a storied historical tradition whether it be the Scripture, the Church Fathers, or medieval Catholic thinkers.

I honestly don't know enough about the Southern Baptist Convention and its history to tell you the real separation, but I know there is a distinct one from the Primitive Branch
 

Deimos

Banned
[...]
This seems like an odd distinction you are making. Historic Protestantism upholds CHalcedon that Christ was fully God and fully man. I don't think saying that God died on the cross qualifies as miaphysitism (i.e. the divine and human natures are one nature, but the divine nature overshadows the human nature). I think you would be hardpressed to find any orthodox thinker, pre or post protestantism that would affirm that God did not die on the cross.[...]
The idea that God could or even did die was and is heresy to the Holy Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations as far as I am aware. The idea was already deemed heretical in the fourth century AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patripassianism
 
The idea that God could or even did die was and is heresy to the Holy Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations as far as I am aware. The idea was already deemed heretical in the fourth century AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patripassianism

WHat are you talking about? Modalism has nothing to do with Luther. Jesus died, He did not cease being God, though His human nature was in the state of death, His divine nature was not.

Can you actually show where Luther was a Sabellian?
 

Deimos

Banned
WHat are you talking about? Modalism has nothing to do with Luther. Jesus died, He did not cease being God, though His human nature was in the state of death, His divine nature was not.

Can you actually show where Luther was a Sabellian?
Forgive me as I could not find an English source, but I wanted to provide an answer to this question irregardless. In his 1539 writing "Von den Konziliis und Kirchen" he wrote:
Wo Gott nicht mit in der Waage ist und das Gewichte gibt, so sinken wir mit unserer Schüssel zu Grunde. Das mein ich also: wo es nicht sollt heißen, Gott ist für uns gestorben, sondern allein ein Mensch, so sind wir verloren. Aber wenn Gottes Tod und Gott gestorben in der Waagschüssel liegt, so sinket er unter und wir fahren empor [...]
And only some lines later he writes the following:
Denn Gott in seiner Natur kann nicht sterben. Aber nun Gott und Mensch vereinigt ist in einer Person, so heißt es recht Gottes Tod, wenn der Mensch stirbt, der mit Gott ein Ding und eine Person ist.
Both quotes are taken from the German Weimar Edition (WA 50, 590) - the standard German edition of Luther's works. I only wrote it in modern German in case you needed to translate it via google or similar services.
 
Last edited:
It is interesting that Lutheranism really has become so much different than Calvinism, as Luther probably wrote more on the subject of Monergism than Calvin (heck, he wrote a book countering Erasamus' views on freedom of the will called Bondage of the Will.)

Even standard Catholic doctrine teaches that grace precedes conversion, and grace operates in the sacraments and in the will of the believer who partakes in them.

So really, the differences between most Christianity on "Calvinist" doctrines is really quite negligible, other than the issue of limited/unlimited atonement, which is a real battleground among the two.

Most of the "free will" Protestant types really come more from Wesley and liberalism than from any more ancient origins.
Arguably Pelagius is an ancient source. :D

But you are right of course. Much of modern Evangelicalism is at odds with historical Christianity in it's view of salvation.

As a Southern Baptist (not the Primitive(actual name) group), predestination is completely alien to our system,..
My understanding is that historically there was a good deal of Calvinism in Southern Baptist historically and there certainly some rather important modern Calvinistic baptist in the denomination now. Mark Dever, Albert Mohler, David Platt and Matt Chandler are googleable names for example.

.. and it seems to make evangelism pretty pointless, given our determination to convert.
Calvinist engages in evangelism because Jesus gave him a command to do so. For a Calvinist preaching of the gospel is the way God chose to use to call his elect to him.
 
Forgive me as I could not find an English source, but I wanted to provide an answer to this question irregardless. In his 1539 writing "Von den Konziliis und Kirchen" he wrote:
And only some lines later he writes the following:
Both quotes are taken from the German Weimar Edition (WA 50, 590) - the standard German edition of Luther's works. I only wrote it in modern German in case you needed to translate it via google or similar services.

The latter quote sounds like Miaphystism: "For God in his nature can not die . But now God and man combined in one person , so it is quite the death of God , when a man dies who is one thing and a person with God ."

Question: Is that Table Talk or a published work? Much of the table talk quotations sound made up, and we already know they are second hand...
 

Deimos

Banned
The latter quote sounds like Miaphystism: "For God in his nature can not die . But now God and man combined in one person , so it is quite the death of God , when a man dies who is one thing and a person with God ."

Question: Is that Table Talk or a published work? Much of the table talk quotations sound made up, and we already know they are second hand...
It is his 1539 published work "On the Councils and the Church". The context to the quoted passages is talking about the heresy of Nestorius but the two quotes I took appear to be Luther's own views, especially on the communicatio idiomatum - the exchange of properties between the divine and human nature of Christ.

http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEW1luther_e14.htm

Just do a text search for "weight" and you will find the appropriate passages.
 
Last edited:
Luther is denouncing Nestorianism, and thereby miaphystism. It appears what he is saying is that CHrist has two natures, God and human. He is not saying that these two natures are in fact one nature.
 

Deimos

Banned
Luther is denouncing Nestorianism, and thereby miaphystism. It appears what he is saying is that CHrist has two natures, God and human. He is not saying that these two natures are in fact one nature.
He did indeed not consider himself one. However, with his special take on the communicatio idiomatum, he is coming close to it, like I said in the post that mentioned it. What is important is that you noted it yourself and similarly his enemies noticed this closeness as well and used some of these quotes against him (mostly without the context). For the sake of keeping this thread closer to its original topic I think any further discussion on what we discussed should be contained to private messages but I must admit that I enjoyed reading and talking about theology on this site for a change.
 
Last edited:
In regards to calvinism in the US. Although the initial bases of the teachings were in New England, the Scots and scotch Irish who settled The appalachian region, were presbyterian, the difference is that the presbytarians lost a lot of their inital faith while the New Englanders held on to their puritan doctrines. Later the puritans splintered and moralists roamed the country spreading the beliefs of Calvinist New England. Sorry if that was incomprehensible, its way too early.
 
Top