One of the more interesting things that I am discovering in my study of the Reformers and the post-Reformation scholastics and orthodox is that the earlier Reformers speak more freely about sacramental grace, while at the same time speaking much less of the role of works in justification. The exact opposite occurs in the later Reformed doctors. They qualify the sacraments greatly, yet also speak much more often of the necessity of good works in our salvation, even positing double justifications and evangelical law-righteousness by which we will be judged.
Neither of these is wholly wrong, but I do find it interesting that those who spoke most broadly about faith alone also spoke most freely of sacramental grace. The Sacraments were not for them “works,” but rather free gospel. It is as folks began to be more concerned with the finer details of the ordo salutis that the ordinary role of the sacraments seems to be diminished.
You said, “while at the same time speaking much less of the role of works in justification.”
Do you mean they do not speak often of the fact that works are not involved at all in justification?
No, they exclude works from the equation more than later writers.
An interesting observation…
It reminds me of the Lutheran term “Gottesdienst” which the website by the same name defines in this way:
“The German word Gottesdienst (literally, “God’s service”) is appropriately defined as both “divine service” and “public worship.” The first and fundamental definition portrays God’s sacramental service toward man in the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacrament. The second and subordinate definition portrays man’s sacrificial service toward God in the offering of hymns, prayers, etc.”
http://www.gottesdienst.org/
The primary emphasis is on God serving us in the Word and Sacraments.
Would you classify the Heidelberg Catechism’s discussion of the works of the Christian under the category of gratitude as the earlier or the later category. To me it is quite consistent with the Lutheran discussion of works under the heading of “New obedience” spawned by grace which was an “early reformation” view under the above morphology.
Am I hearing you correctly?
I agree, I have become hyper-sacramental and have even more seen how futile works-righteousness is. There is no contradiction between a high sacramentology and faith alone.
Chuck,
Yeah, Heidelberg is old school and very good.
There’s a great essay by David Yeago called “The Catholic Luther” which is well worth reading on this subject.
Also a couple of excellent essays by Philip Cary (an Anglican) on the differences between Luther and Calvin in their understanding of sola fide. Summarised and linked on my blog here and here.
From a Lutheran perspective, it’s not so much that an earlier sacramental understanding was overtaken by a later understanding in which the sacraments are downplayed. Rather, it is that the early Reformation produced both understandings from the start (Luther on one side, Zwingli and the Anabaptists on the other), with Calvin attempting to bridge the two but his heirs going down what looks to Lutherans, at least, like a more Zwinglian path. The Lutheran stream of the Reformation retained a highly sacramental view, to this day.
John,
Thanks for the links. I’ve read the Yeago piece before and liked it, though I’ve heard some criticisms of it.
I’m not as sure about Cary. I think I’ve come across him before via Father Kimmell, and my criticism remains the same. He reads the Reformed in a far too monolithic light. I would say that Calvin and Luther agree on what “faith” is, and it is the later Calvinists who change this.
I’m not well enough read in Zwingli to comment as to his standing, but I know where he stood on the free offer of the gospel and such, so I again doubt that he’s as easy to categorize on this subject.