MDFREDER-L Archives

Archiver > MDFREDER > 2002-12 > 1040387101


From: "tlong" <>
Subject: RE: [MDFR] Church differences
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 06:28:23 -0600
In-Reply-To: <00ba01c2a78e$f21d5b40$e9052144@elkton01.md.comcast.net>


Thank you Dory for taking the time to explain the differences.

Marie

-----Original Message-----
From: Zinkand Family [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 12:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [MDFR] Church differences

I think I can shed some light on the differences between Lutheran and
Reformed for you. Warning: this will be rather long, but hopefully
informative.

First, we must remember that in those days, there were national churches. So
when we see Dutch Reformed, German Reformed, and Scottish Prebyterian, we
are not dealing with differences in doctrine, only in national origin. Many
of them even used the same confessional standards. (More on that later.)

The doctrine of the Lutherans and the Reformed Churches we very similar
during this time period. They both agreed that salvation was throgh Christ
alone, by means of faith alone. Both agreed that in order to have faith, God
must give it. Both believed that there was nothing that a person could do to
save themselves or make themselves worthy of God, because they were dead in
their sins. Both believed that Christ took the punishment they deserved for
their sins and gave them His righteousness. Both believed that good works
were the fruit of a converted soul and not the means by which someone is
saved. (A subject most eloquently written about by both Luther and Calvin.)

The main point at which these two denominations differed was over the issue
of the Lord's Supper. The Reformed Church viewed the Lord's Supper as a
"sign and a seal" of grace. In other words, it is symbolic of what Christ
did, and through the exercise of the sacrament, the faith of the believer is
strengthened by the grace of God. To the Lutheran, the Lord's Supper was
more than symbolic. They believed that the actual body of Christ is was
somehow "above and around" the elements (bread and wine) of the Lord's
Supper. This position is called "consubstantiation," and can be described as
sort of mid-way between the Roman Catholic belief (transubstantiation) that
states that the bread and wine actually become the body of Christ, and the
Reformed position that it is a sign and seal only.

As to their "getting along" with one another, I have found quite a bit of
"mixing." Many of the Lutheran and Reformed churches shared a building.
(Apples Church and Union Church are two Frederick County examples.) Some of
the church records have even been mixed up. In the families I research I
have found Lutheran and Reformed "mixed" marriages and some families
switching back and forth between the Lutheran and the Reformed Congregations
as they baptized their children. As to the basics of the Gospel, these two
groups were in total agreement, as they were on most doctrines other than
the Lord's Supper, so a good bit of cooperation would be expected.

I think it is important to note that members of these churches would
probably look on one another as "wrong" about the Lord's Supper, but as
Christian brothers and sisters. On the other hand, because the Anabaptists
(Brethren, Mennonite, etc.) differed on the issues that related to the
Gospel itself, such as the role of good works, whether God chooses people or
people choose God, etc., an Anabaptist and a Lutheran or Reformed may not
have considered the other to be Christian at all. (I am sure some people
were more charitable than others in their assessments.)

Another difference between the two churches is non-doctrinal. The Reformed
Churches were confessional churches, that is, they had a set doctrinal
standard. To join these churches one usually only had to be able to give a
credible testimony of faith, that is, be able to explain the Gospel and how
it applied to them. However, if one was to teach or preach, or hold a ruling
office in the church, one had to agree with the church's confession. The
German Reformed used the Hiedleburg Confession; the Dutch Reformed used the
Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dort; the Presbyterians used the
Westminster Confession of Faith. But, all of these confessions contained the
same doctrines, so there was almost complete uniformity between the Reformed
Churches. This confessional practice also meant the doctrines changed little
over the years, and in fact, many Reformed churches to this day use the same
standards, more or less faithfully in different cases.

Luther did write a smaller and larger Catechism, but I do not believe it was
ever elevated to a confessional standard, although it is still used today to
educate young people and new converts in the faith and has been an important
document in that church throughout the years.

Another difference is the structure of church hierarchy. The Reformed
churches use a presbyterian form of church government, in which the
congregation was responsible to recognize those among them who were
qualified to hold office and to then elect them as elders. Elders had no
individual power, but as a council (called a session) they were the
authority, under Christ, for that congregation. Pastors were also elders and
were one voice on the session, but with no more authority than any other
elder. Then congregations would send representatives of their session to a
regional council called a "presbytery." Matters that involved all the
churches in a region were handled in the presbytery. Also, if anyone
disagreed with a ruling made by their session, they could appeal to the
presbytery as a higher court. Above the presbytery, there was a still higher
court called a General Assembly that involved all congregations in the
denomination. If you think of the form of the United State's government
(representative republic) you will see the result of a strong Reformed
influence.

The Lutherans practised the episcopal form of church government. In this
situation the pastor was the top authority in the congregation, although a
church council might be present as well. Pastors were called by
congregations at the approval of bishops, who held an office that was above
the congregational level. Therefore the congregation was responsible to the
pastor, and the pastor was responsible to the bishops. Reformed and Lutheran
churches maintain this difference to this day.

Well, this was decidedly long-winded, but hopefully helpful to those who
were interested.

Dory


----- Original Message -----
From: "Morris LeFever" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 6:02 PM
Subject: [MDFR] Church differences


> Areas settled by early pioneers seem to have been grouped by those of
> similar faiths.
> What escapes me among faiths not Dunker or Catholic, etc. is the
> differences between
> Lutheran vs German Lutheran vs Evangelical Reformed - German Reformed and
> Mennonite?
> In some depositions a person would declare themselves emphatically "as of
> the Reformed faith".
> Some in Lancaster or from Lancaster would be far a time Mennonite and
later
> Lutheran. Especially need to know about differences between Lutheran
faiths
> and Reformed, etc. There didn't seem to be many marriages between faiths
in
> the late 1700's in Frederick. Morris LeFever
>
>
> ==== MDFREDER Mailing List ====
> http://members.aol.com/midmdroots/frederick/
> * * *Early FREDERICK COUNTY WEB PAGE * * *
> Court Records, Cemetery Inscriptions, Lookups and Queries!
> All Postings MUST Be Genealogy Related!
>


This thread: