The Doctrine of the Means of Grace: Three branches? Reformed reason-bound?

» rjp7 - Three branches? Reformed reason-bound?

While researching into the Reformed doctrine on the means of grace, I came across your article.

First, may I respectfully suggest that your division of the Christian Church into Lutheran, Catholic and Reformed is a description of 16th century Mitteleuropa more than of the 21st Century church. For one thing you omit any mention of the Eastern Orthodox Church or of the Methodist-Pentecostal-Charismatic 'branch' of the visible church. Both represent large numbers of professing Christian believers and a significant section of historic Christianity.

Also, I was dismayed by the following quotation: "The Reformed branch subjugates the Scripture to Reason. To the Reformed, if what God says in the Bible doesn't make sense, then it is tailored so that the human mind can accept it."

Initially I couldn't work out where you had got this from. Modern liberals still claiming allegiance to the Reformed camp, perhaps? The only thing I can think is that you are particularly thinking of the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper and also on the doctrine of election.

I still think the comment is grossly unfair. The Reformed doctrine of the Supper, long maligned by Lutherans, affirms a real partaking of Christ in the Supper. On the doctrine of election it seems to me that the Reformed doctrine of election is precisely born of a willingness to believe some of the 'hard words' of Scriptures such as Romans 9. You may not agree with the Reformed teaching, but please do not dismiss it wholesale as the distortions of reason. It would be like us accusing Luther of being captive to the superstitions of his Roman past. If that sounds offensive, that's how your own comments about the Reformed come across.

Given the audience apparently of Lutheran believers these sort of comments serve only to deepen divisions between brethren and to stultify serious engagement with the theology of others. The Reformed would be the first to acknowledge our debt to Luther and to praise his theology, including his sacramental theology - while not concurring on all points.

I would refer you to the more informed and irenic Reformed-Lutheran dialogue on the internet.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Luther-Ref...

Respectfully,

Russell Phillips, Reformed Baptist, Edinburgh, Scotland

-- posted by rjp7