George,
Reformed folk are happy and proud to stand on the shoulders of
Luther. I, for one, am saddened that Melancthon and others couldn't
pull everyone together. And, yes, I agree with respect to the origin
of "simul justus et peccator". Indeed, I attribute it to Luther when
I have taught on the subject.
Just wanted to make sure that you weren't putting too big of a wedge
between Reformed and Lutheran on this point. And I thought that
making the distinction between extent and degree of depravity was a
useful contribution to help Burgy to understand Jan's Calvinism. But
I do agree with you concerning your point about what the term conveys
to non-experts. We keep using it because it makes such a nice
acronym. (Although sometimes I switch the acronym from TULIP to
TUDIP--using a two dip ice cream cone as my icon--and switch the term
"limited atonement" to "definite atonement" for exactly the reasons
you mention.)
BTW I occasionally listen to "The White Horse Inn"
(http://www.alliancenet.org/radio/whi/whi.html ) a radio program
hosted by the Reformed theologian/pastor Michael Horton who has a
Lutheran theologian/pastor Ron Rosenbladt on his panel. With the
exception of a few "extreme" Lutheran perspectives on the sacraments,
I find myself agreeing with everything he says. I'm not in the Horton
camp on everything, I must admit, but I do find them a helpful
corrective to much of modern evangelicalism, especially with respect
to Word and Sacrament, the centrality of the cross, Law / Gospel
preaching, and the importance of the doctrine of justification by
faith. (I guess all emphases that both Reformed and Lutherans can
wholeheartedly embrace.)
TG
>"Terry M. Gray" wrote:
>
>> George,
>>
>> I'm surprised at your identification of the view you outline below
>> with "the Lutheran view" since as far as I can tell it is identical
>> with my view.
>
> Well, remember that Luther came before Calvin!
> Seriously, I wasn't trying to be exclusive. I was
>responding to Burgy's
>question about what people "from other faith communities" thought about "total
>depravity" &c. I don't think that on this precise topic there are major
>Lutheran-Reformed differences, though of course there are when the
>discussion is
>broadened slightly to predestination & its implications.
>
>> Total deprativity, to Calvinists, does not mean "that there is
>> absolutely nothiing good about unregenerate humanity at all". We
>> labor to distinguish between the "extent" of depravity (which is
>> total and affects every human faculty) and the "degree" of depravity
>> which is not absolute. Thus no Calvinist theologian that I know of
>> would say that man is as bad as he good be.
>
> OK, but I was referring to the sense that the phrase may convey to
>non-experts. Lutheran & Reformed ideas about original sin have
>often been seen by
>Roman Catholics as Manichaean - just as, conversely, their ideas
>have often been
>described as semi-Pelagian. & while this is formally untrue, we do need to be
>sensitive to what people actually hear as well as to what we mean to say.
>
>
>> Also, with respect to "simul justus et peccator" -- equally part of
>> the Reformed theological tradition and the reason that justification
>> is always the mainspring for sanctification. We never get beyond our
>> need of the merits (both active and passive) of Christ.
>
> OK, but I think the phrase itself originates with Luther.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>George L. Murphy
>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>"The Science-Theology Interface"
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 12 2002 - 15:46:07 EDT