You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Word/Sacrament' category.
But this agreement of mine to the principles involved should reveal to us a hidden assumption that is helping to drive this debate. This is the assumption that when very young children are taught to respond this way, we are simply training them, as you would a puppy, and not really educating them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The plastic nature of a child’s soul is thought to be such that you could tell them anything, and since they don’t know any better, this responsiveness of theirs cannot be known to be true faith. And since we cannot “know” it to be true faith, then we need to wait until their profession of faith is mature enough to cross-examine. We are bringing the logic of courtroom verification into the rearing of children. Nothing against courtroom verification in its place, but that’s not what we should be doing here. Christian nurture is more like breastfeeding than it is like grilling a hostile witness. (Wilson answering Lane Keister on Paedocommunion)
Doug Wilson says:
Every Saturday night I ask my grandkids certain Sunday worship prep questions. Do you love God? Yes, they all yell. Are you baptized? Yes. Is Jesus in your heart? Yes. Will you take the Lord’s Supper tomorrow? Yes. Now no Reformed folk can really object to these sorts of personal questions without also objecting to the Heidelberg. “What is your only comfort in life and in death?” “That I . . .”
The reason for this controversy is that the following morning we act like we believed their answers. We do that by giving them the bread and wine. Now if you make them say these things, but then you refuse to believe the answers through the sacrament, then how can you expect them to believe the answers? You are just doing a catechism drill. You are insisting that they speak high and lofty words indeed. But at the end of the day, as we all know, “I’m just saying these things.” Nobody acts like they are true. “Why should I?”
Simply, the Credo position is left with uncertainty and pure subjectivism on the matter. When you say some will be 6 years old, but others who grow up in covenant homes may be 12 (not to speak of some who wait until they are 18) before they get to such and such a point of reason and maturity to take the Lord’s Supper, then you have begun to do what Paul opposed in I Corinthians: to make classes of Christians; to categorize the body; to dis-unify the oneness of the Unbroken body of our Lord. So, this becomes very problematic indeed.
In following Lane Keister’s arguments against Paedocommunion, I continue to ask these sorts of questions:
Why does a simple, credible profession of faith have to be spoken in words? Why not with actions, signs or symbols? Why not with a gesture? Why learn the catechisms of the Reformed faith? Why not the Apostle’s Creed? Why not the Nicene Creed? How to define the gospel? Narrowly: Christ is Lord? Comprehensively: Lord, Messiah, Death, Burial, Resurrection, Ascension, Second Coming, etc.? What does being “ready” to partake of bread and wine mean? A,B,C or A,B,C & D?
For those of us who are committed to the practice of paedocommunion, Doug Wilson writes that we should explain the Supper to our children:
Young children should have the Supper explained to them by their parents in each observance of the Supper, and they should be able to attend to what is said. Please note that we are not requiring that little children be able to explain the Supper before they may partake. They are recipients; they have the Supper explained to them. We feed them the bread and wine in much the same way we begin speaking English to our children when they first arrive in our homes — not because they understand it, but rather so that they might come to understand it. It is similar here. We are not asking for anything to arise in the child or manifest itself before he is qualified to receive. He is receiving and learning, not giving and teaching.
Jim Jordan pointed out long ago that the Bible does not explicitly state that we are to sing the Psalms in worship (though the Psalms ought to permeate our liturgy for various reasons). The Bible does not even say that there ought to be preaching in every worship service (though without preaching man cannot understand the word from God). However, the Bible does say explicitly that we ought to eat bread and drink wine (I Cor. 11). One would think that every Lord’s Day the Supper would be the climactic moment of our liturgy. The opposite is true in most of evangelicalism. Preaching takes preeminence and the Lord’s Supper (and certainly the Psalter) are put aside for rare occasions. Something is wrong with this picture.
When I was in the PCA (the Christian Reformed Church also does something similar), the BCO instructed Teaching Elders to alert the congregation that the sacraments would be administered the following week. With this formality, how can the Reformed Church ever overcome her unbiblical ways? How can the church claim the apostolic witness of continually breaking bread (Acts 2:42)? The proper sacramental preparation occurs every week as God’s people confess their sins before God and prepare to be nourished in word and sacrament.
My three-month old daughter will be baptized this Sunday. This will be a significant day for us. Before coming to the Reformed Faith, I cared little about the sacraments. They were insignificant and tedious practices. In the tradition I partook of, the Lord’s Supper was administered once a month, and in case we had guest speakers it would be postponed another month. On the other hand, baptism was treated in a little more serious tone. Adults came to the baptismal pool and confessed their faith before the congregation and were immersed. This was my experience both in the Baptist and Brethren traditions. These baptisms took on a more public nature. It was celebrated. I never had any dispute concerning the legitimacy of those adult baptisms, except that for some, it had been the second or third time they were being baptized. Since a profession of faith was expected, most of them who had made early professions of faith and were consequently baptized in their youth, felt that their early baptisms were the result of an unclear and false faith. Naturally, many of my friends–myself included–went through the waters twice.
Coming to the Reformed faith meant accepting what Paul says in Ephesians that there is only one baptism, as there is one Lord and one faith. It is accepting that water poured/sprinkled on an infant actually confers the benefits of the covenant. As Peter Leithart observes:
When an infant is baptized, the baptism itself is a gift from God’s unmerited favor. Baptism itself gives the child membership in the church, an identity as a member of the people of God and as a Christian, a family of brothers and sisters whose Father is in heaven and whose Brother is on a heavenly throne, the gift of public identification with Christ, a place in the temple of the Holy Spirit, a commission to serve Christ, a deputation (to use Thomas’s language) to a place in the worship of God, and much more. These are not, I submit, merely offered or promised to the child, but actually delivered. And they are his, whether he believes and trusts or not.
Covenant children are baptized because they need a heavenly mother and heavenly Father. Baptism actually does what it says it will do: it saves (I Peter 3:21). It will bring my little daughter to the arms of her Lord just as He called the little children to Himself (Matthew 19:14), she will be united to He Savior in baptism (Romans 6) and she will partake of all the benefits of the covenant just as the children of the saints in the Old. As Abigail grows in her faith, believes in Her faithful Lord, she will be adorned and cleansed daily by the Spirit of God. When she disobeys she will look to the waters of life and be reminded of the graciousness of Her Lord. And when she repents in humble submission to her Messiah, she will know that God has been faithful to His promises.
The August edition of the Ordinary Means Podcast discussed the four papers delivered at the General Assembly this year. They analyzed the contribution of each particular speaker on the topic of sacramental efficacy. However, their pre-disposition to oppose anything associated with the Federal Vision clouds their assessment of Jeff Meyers’ excellent paper entitled: “Efficacy and Ritual Performance: How the Administration of the Sacraments Affects What They Actually Accomplish,” which should cause many PCA ministers to re-consider their practice of the Lord’s Supper.
One of the criticisms they offered of Meyers’ presentation is that he is overly interested in performing the rite of holy communion properly so that God would bless His people. In their perception, the idea of doing something right in the liturgy of the Lord’s Supper is to revert to the Old Covenant idea of “do this and live.” Of course, their WTSCAL training has taught them that the Deuteronomic mandate of “do this and live” is no longer relevant because Christ has done it all on our behalf. The reality, however, is that this is simplistic. No one denies the full and satisfactory work of Christ on behalf of His covenant people. Christ is the end of the law, and as such, the law never has and never will convert a dead man. That Christ has fulfilled the law does not mean that He has abolished the ethical implications thereof for His people (this is the old theonomic debate all over again). In this case, Meyers’ warning that the Lord’s Supper be done correctly, so that God would bless us richly, is simply an echo of Jesus’ own words: “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Paul himself speaks of the orderliness and decency of Church life. So what hinders that principle from being applied to what is at the heart of the liturgical experience: the Supper of the Lord? If God demands that His word be preached faithfully and correctly, does He not demand that the rite of the Holy Communion He initiated with His own disciples be performed correctly?
Another critique offered is that Meyers contradicts himself by affirming that the Lord’s Supper is to be celebratory, then saying that it needs to be done rightly. One of the guests of the Ordinary Means podcast cannot understand how order and celebration can be reconciled. He argues that if we are to be concerned with the details of the supper, then that will distract us from celebrating Christ’s work for us. But creation is a perfect example of this beautiful harmony. God spoke creation into existence in an orderly manner and God calls us to rejoice over His own creation, the fruit of the vine as a means to this enjoyment.
Overall, the discussion and analysis of the other speakers were helpful and informative.
Thus, to remove wine from the Supper is to emasculate it, to rob the needy – yes, to rob those who struggle with alcohol addictions – of the gift of healing life which Christ gives. –Tim Gallant
Contemporary services are filled with a delight for the somber. In particular, many come to the Lord’s Table without any expectation to be renewed by God’s grace. The table, to many, serve only as a post-liturgical stick note, rather than the Eucharistic means to receive the grace of God via bread and wine. Indeed it is impossible to come to the table with any joy if the table does not impart grace to the broken sinner. But if we restore the early church and reformational attitude towards the Eucharist, we will begin to see the Lord’s Supper as an essential, without which the liturgical service is incomplete. To begin we are to treat the Eucharist as what the Eucharist means: give thanks. We give thanks to the Lord for renewing us and we give thanks to our Lord for making resurrection life possible even now.
Infant baptism is a God-ordained means of ecclesiastical unity. When children are brought into the covenant of grace through baptism, the washing with water prepares him to live with others who are washed in the fellowship of the Spirit. Little ones–infants–serve as a perpetual reminder that God continues to bind together His church and the church’s households.
Our catholic communion on the Lord’s Day is the effectual means God uses to wash His bride, but what takes place in the home–the domestic church–is the continual preparation for unity. In the home, covenant children are to be reminded that their baptisms calls them to daily renewal through repentance and confession. In order for children to understand the catholic church, they are to learn to live in the domestic church first. Hence, the parental call to train in righteousness is even higher. The disunity of the church at large may stem from the disunity of the domestic church. The baptism of the church is a baptism unto life. Hence, baptism calls infants to live in a home that is washed and cleansed from the stain of outsiders, so that they may pursue unity in the entire church.
A young ministerial candidate was asked whether his sacramental views comported with those of the Westminster Standards. This line of questioning was a novelty to him, and so he asked for a copy. One was quickly produced, but when it became apparent that he was not going to swear on it, but on the contrary, intended to open and read it, the moderator rebuked him sternly. “We have asked if your views are consistent with the Standards, young man, and did not ask you to intrude yourself upon them by considering what they may appear to say.” Abashed by his error, the young man apologized and was quickly forgiven. –Effectual Means of Salvation by Doug Wilson
Editor’s note: I have updated this post to add a few more thoughts on the debate (11-10-07).
I have just heard the debate between Baptist author/apologist James White vs. Presbyterian minister and writer Rev. Gregg Strawbridge. Throughout my theological life, I have been influenced in many ways by both men. Gregg’s passionate exposition of the Scriptures has been a source of theological maturity for me. On the other hand, Dr. White has also played a role in my thinking, though in the last few years I have distanced myself in many ways from his theology. Nevertheless, White’s commitment to offer a Biblical apologetic against Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons have been a helpful resource in my apologetic library.
Their debate a few nights ago demonstrates what the Van Tillian tradition of apologetics has so long proved: ideas have consequences. Presuppositions and notions about hermeneutics affect the beginning statement and closing statements of a debate. Interestingly, the debate ended just as it began: the nature of the covenant. White argued persistently that the New Covenant provided only blessings–since it was only for the elect; while Strawbridge’s commitment to covenantal thinking and continuation led him to conclude that the New Covenant is not different from the Old with regards to recipients and structure, but only in regards to efficacy and eschatological intervention through Christ.
Though presuppositions determine all things, I would like to affirm that Strawbridge’s presuppositions is more consistent and faithful to the Biblical text. I do not make that statement simply because of my predisposition towards paedobaptism. I should note that when Sproul debated John McArthur many years ago, he (Sproul) suffered greatly to present a coherent covenantal model, and thus failing to persuade us why Credo-Baptism is erroneous. Nevertheless, however one may think of these types of ideas/exchanges, my conclusion is that White failed to give credence to a fundamental Biblical component of hermeneutics–that is, Biblical typology. In Biblical typology, the author connects ideas which at first seem invisible. Indeed, this is the duty of the exegete: to bring together God’s revelation into one coherent message.
James White’s main point of contention in every discussion on baptism is that his Presbyterian brothers just did not separate themselves enough from Catholicism in the 16th century, and if Calvin would just have seen a little more light we would all be Credo-Baptists today. White threw out the “T” word to let everyone know that “Tradition” is the worst of all evils and he (White) has no heritage, no tradition influencing his interpretive scheme. White, however, appears unaware of just how much his tradition affects him. For instance, Strawbridge argues rightly that Hebrews establishes that the New Covenant includes believers and unbelievers. As an excellent reference he quotes Hebrews 10:29-30 which reads: How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” According to verse 29, “one” and “he” are two different people. Here is where White’s tradition enters the game. White argues, following John Owen (a historical figure; a respected man in White’s tradition) that the “he” in verse 29 refers to Christ and not to an individual. Grammatically however, notice that in verse 30 it is God’s people that is in mind in verse 29, not Christ. The text says that the Lord will judge “his” people. White never mentioned verse 30, which in my estimation confirms Strawbridge’s assertion about verse 29. If White would only abandon his tradition, he would see the simplicity of the text. In the end, the New Covenant maintains the structure of the Old Covenant, that is, a covenant made with believers and unbelievers. The radical change that White argues is non-existent. Once again, let us place the “radical” where radical belongs: in the person of Christ; that is what is radical about the New Covenant.
Strawbridge’s greatest strength is his ability to tie together New Covenantal language with its intended Old Covenant background. Reformed exegetes understand that New Testament writers did not write unaware of their Jewish context. They were not robots, rather their personalities and backgrounds played a deep role in writing what would become our New Testament canon. Their knowledge of Old Covenant language was always influencing their writing. This is the conspicuous reason there are so many Old Testament quotations in the New; there was an unspoken reliance on the Old Covenant canon because the Old Covenant was part of their identity as New Covenant writers.
White, on the other hand, unaware– or better yet,– unwilling to ever engage in this form of argumentation, lost sight of Gregg’s main point: the Children of Christian parents belong to the Lord because this was God’s purpose from the beginning. Of such is the kingdom of heaven; to such belong the kingdom. This is Biblical pattern–not merely a temporary pattern,– but one that would continue to all generations before and after Messiah would come.
Many in the Southern Presbyterian[1] tradition deny that infants born in covenant homes are to be welcomed in the full life of the church.[2] In fact, some even assume that they are not to receive any covenant privileges until they have reached an age where articulation of one’s faith is possible. This position seems to be a prevalent reaction to the high sacramental theology of various traditions. Unfortunately, this has led to the denial of the God-granted role for covenant children in the church. Infants are heirs of the promise simply because God in His free grace displays His holy affections to the family. As Bullinger writes:
…we consider children of parents to be children and indeed heirs even though they, in their early years, do not know that they are either children or heirs of their parents.
Baptized infants are the proper recipients of grace and are commanded to live in light of his/her covenantal commitment. To live in light of his baptism entails a sacred commitment to piety and holy living. If one is enlightened (baptized) and deny the work of grace, he is then in the same condemnatory status as Judas. Bullinger captures this idea:
They are, however, disowned if, after they have reached the age of reason, they neglect the commands of their parents.
So then, it is not a trust in the sacrament, but a life lived in light of the sacrament that grants assurance. The Jews thought they were secure because of their birth into the covenant family, but they did not live in light of that status, and thus, suffered the curses. The covenant Lord has entered into covenant with all baptized children, and infants are to grow in that covenant; repenting and believing that God’s grace is sufficient.
[1] For an excellent analysis of Southern and Northern Presbyterianism and how they understood sacramental efficacy, see Lewis Schenck: The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant.
[2] In the case of Baptist ecclesiology, infants are not even worth y recipients of the covenantal sign of baptism. Hence, there is a legitimate distinction between Southern Presbyterians and Baptists. Though both affirm that children do not receive any saving grace until they make a profession, Paedobaptists apply the sign of the covenant in faith that God will keep His promise.
Hooper makes an important point about Cyprian’s dictum: “nulla salvus extra ecclesiam” — outside the church there is no salvation. Hooper notes that, “The Fourth Lateran Council (ca. 1215) allowed that Cyprian could be wrong and that salvation could exist outside the church, but not outside Christ.” However, “The Fifth Lateran Council (ca. 1512-1517), though, reaffirmed Cyprian’s dictum “nulla salvus extra ecclesiam” –outside the church there is no salvation, excluding the Greek Christians.”1 Cyprian, of course, referred to the Roman Church as the source of salvation. Notice that the Fifth Lateran Council occurred during the birth of the Reformation. Cyprian’s dictum is also found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, though, the WCF did not limit the church to the Roman Church. The Genevan reformer John Calvin, writing his Institutes of the Christian Religion at the very time of the Reformation, wrote therein “beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for.” Hence, the Reformation brought with its dogma a strong view of the salvific nature of the church, though not as exclusive as Rome.2
Cyprian’s dictum, however, can be used in a conciliatory fashion, though his intention was one of exclusivity. Though there are clear sacramental and ecclesial distinctions among the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox tradition, all share a Trinitarian Baptism. This baptism, brings infants and adults to enjoy the benefits of the true church, no matter how wrong it may be in certain areas.
Footnotes
- These quotes are from a series of e-mails from a theology group of which I participate. [↩ back]
- Of course, the Confession certainly had anti-catholic sentiments and I am certain that they would have considered Rome an apostate church; the anti-christ–gladly that was changed in the Revision. [↩ back]
God’s affirmation of the material world is seen in the fact that He uses physical water to introduce people into His kingdom, and by the fact that we eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood in the Lord’s Supper. Many Christians, however, cannot embrace such physical ideas. Water baptism, is thus reduced to a mere symbol instead of a powerful communication from God, and so are the bread and wine of the Supper. Such a reduction was not the view of the Protestant Reformers, who sought to correct the magical views of the Papal Church, without denying that God really acts through such material means.
Jordan, James. Creation in Six Days, pg. 73.
I have waited for this for a long time. The Baptized Body by Peter Leithart will prove to be a helpful contribution to sacramental studies in the years to come.
Vander Zee writes out of a deep sense of grief over the evangelical denial/neglect of the Sacraments. This is what truly drives him to write this informative book. In his own words, “Evangelicals apparently are not very interested in the sacraments, which seems to correspond to their lack of interest in ecclesiology in general.”1Vander Zee masterfully exegetes what is at the heart of this Protestant abandonment of a robust view of the waters of baptism and the Eucharistic meal. They have made the preaching the center of all worship,2 and the Lord’s Table an unfortunate monthly or quarterly inconvenience.
Vander Zee helpfully reorients the reader to see in these sacraments more than mere church activities or necessary duties, but rather a life transforming and soul-changing rite that impart grace to the elect. The evangelical (broadly speaking) world needs to be called back to where the Scriptures and the church have been calling for centuries: to the frequent table feast and the powerful sign and seal of baptism.
The book is divided into 12 chapters. Each chapter focuses on a particular dimension of sacramental theology. The reader who has had little exposure to this topic will find himself familiarized with historical, theological, and existential levels of sacramental thinking after reading this tome. As a result, he will become aware of different theological traditions, and, furthermore, of why the church from her early days has made these sacraments an essential part of their worship.
Vander Zee approaches these topics from a distinctly Reformed perspective. Nevertheless, he has carefully analyzed other traditions where the Eucharist and Baptism are inextricably tied to their liturgy and life. The author is not only interested in defining a Reformed view of the sacraments (though his expositions of them reveals his presuppositions), but he is eagerly seeking to see the sacraments as means for unity and peace in the church. Due to this passionate plea for unity, he interacts with the honorable Alexander Schmemann,3 who beautifully taught that we are hungry beings and our souls can only be satisfied in Christ offered for us. “All hunger,” wrote Schmemann, “is a hunger for God. All desire is finally a desire for Him.”4
The author interacts with an eclectic group of sacramental scholars ranging from Catholic to Baptist writers. As a Reformed Scholar, it is only natural that the author emphasizes some Reformed distinctive such as covenantal baptism and a Calvinistic view of the spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are supplemented by positive interaction with other traditions that seek to elevate the importance of the sacraments in the church.
Ultimately, sacramental interest is diametrically opposed to the overwhelming individualism of our day. In his discussion of the history of baptism, Vander Zee operates under the presupposition that the Bible, particularly the New Testament, operates under Jewish conceptions of the family. “In the Jewish way of thinking, one’s relationship to God is not merely individual, but social.” 5 In this same manner, argues Vander Zee, the New Testament continues that covenantal structure begun in the Older Covenant where families were invited to partake of all sacramental privileges in the covenant.The households are always included in God’s promises.
The intention of this book is to bring together the body of Christ, battered by divers controversies, into one baptism. The church is plagued by separatists who would rather die alone than seek catholicity. In their estimation, individualism is the badge of orthodoxy. In other words, my response to the gospel, my commitment to Christ, and my remembering the Lord at the table is the foundation of true Christianity. In a spiritual level it is my faith that God is seeking and my attestation of that faith in baptism that He desires. Certainly in such a blasphemous attempt to please God, they are in actuality denying the work of grace in God’s gifts to the church. The stake is high: if individualism wins the day, all that the Reformers counted sacred will vanish and give way to autonomous man operating their autonomous wills, preaching their autonomous message to the an autonomous congregation who finds solace not in God’s means to nurture and sanctify, but their own human-devised methodologies.
In light of all this, there is one element of this book that is astonishingly faulty. On page 100, under footnote 29, Vander Zee seems to give in to the symbolism of baptistic theology in baptism. He writes, ” In the practice of baptism today, however, I think its sacramental nature is best highlighted by using as much water as possible according to the circumstances. There is an exciting return to immersion among non-Baptist churches, even for the baptism of infant and young children. I believe that immersion, where possible, is the best means to express the meaning of baptism.” This statement is utterly problematic. Even if the symbolism of baptism by immersion seemed to reflect what happens to us in baptism, the question is: does the Scripture teach immersion? It is not enough to seek catholicity at the expense of abandoning certain Biblical and Reformational principles in order to unite.6 It has been sprinkling and pouring that has united the “One, holy and apostolic church,” not immersion. Furthermore, the Biblical imagery of immersion bears no similarity to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Christ was not buried under the earth, but above the earth in a tomb. Suffice to say, Vander Zee builds a crescendo leading to a beautiful portrait of true baptism, however, he fails to seal that picture with the imagery the Bible conveys.
As a final note, this book walks the reader through a litany of events; from the corporate unity that was broken so severely in the Church of Corinth,7 to the historical battles fought over sacramental definitions in the Reformation, to the modern divisive waters of baptism that were truly intended to unite. We are reminded, however, that amidst these tumultuous historical events, our God has not left us without the proper means of nourishment. He brings us to the waters of baptism and to the table of His dear Son to be fed and assured that we are His to His everlasting praise. These are simple, physical means: water, bread and wine used by God to create a new humanity. In the words of Vander Zee, ” When the worshiping community shares the cup of wine, it affirms what it already is and will become in God’s kingdom, a community of joy and gladness, the feasting people of God.”8
Word format – christbaptismandthelord_ssupper.doc
- Vander Zee, Leonard J. Christ, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper: Recovering the Sacraments for Evangelical Worship, pg. 10. [↩ back]
- Preaching must be maintained as central in Orthodox Reformed worship, but it cannot be put against the Sacraments, for they work together as means of grace to convert the soul. [↩ back]
- See pages 18, 202, 212, 219, 224, 239. [↩ back]
- Quoted in Vander Zee, pg. 239. Taken from Schmemann’s For the Life of the World, p.15. [↩ back]
- Vander Zee, pg. 99. [↩ back]
- Immersion is also practiced by the Orthodox Church. Though the Orthodox Church has been greatly used by God, they are still practicing erroneous baptism by denying the rich Old Testament symbolism of pouring and sprinkling. [↩ back]
- I Corinthians 11. [↩ back]
- Vander Zee, pg. 240. [↩ back]
Calvin and Luther had many things in common. Both believed firmly that the Eucharist was a means of grace. 1 The elements nourished the believer and prepared them for their labors in the Lord. Calvin says that the Eucharist is needful because of our “dullness.” Similarly, Luther opines by stating that the sacrament, like the Word of God Almighty, has been given and ordained so that our weak consciences may be encouraged to faith and love. This common bond ought to have unified these two and their respective followers.
Though there were substantial differences, Luther and Calvin understood that the words of Christ had to be taken seriously. Zwingli’s memorial view did not do justice to the words of Christ and the Roman Catholic position relied too much on Aristotelian categories. Luther and Calvin’s level of sacramental and Biblical seriousness ought to pervade the Church of Christ today. It is a futile attempt for the church to “succeed” 2 in every area, but fail to see the essence of the apostolic church. 3 Calvin listed the proper administration of the sacraments, along with the preaching of the Word and Church discipline as the three marks of the church. The church is an unhealthy body if it does not keep and administer that mark faithfully, for in the Lord’s Supper the children of the King sit at His royal table to experience the glories of that sovereign union the King has made with His people. To deny such a glorious banquet would be to deny His children the true assurance that they belong to the King. Children 4 come because they are needy; they come because they hear the great Shepherd’s call. Indeed, the Lord’s Table is for those who labor and are heavy laden, and Christ the Lord will give them rest.
- See Stephen Nichols’ discussion on page 124 in Martin Luther: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought. [↩ back]
- The standards of “success” today are in total disagreement with God’s standards of “faithfulness,” which demands a holy reverence to His means of grace for the church. [↩ back]
- Acts 2:42 –And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. [↩ back]
- My reference to “children” refers to the church. “Children” is here used as in John’s address to the “dear children” in I John 2. Nevertheless, I believe that “covenant children” should be admitted to the table of the Lord. This topic is not the intent of this paper, though a logical consequence of it. [↩ back]
For Luther, Jesus’ words were simple and clear. And for those who would oppose its literal rendering he had strict condemnation. According to Luther’s crucial work on the words of Jesus called: “That these words of Christ, ‘This is my Body,’ Etc., stand firm against the fanatics,” 1 he argues vociferously against his opponents whom he calls “fanatics.” He writes: “Now you demand Scripture from us, dear fanatics? Here it is: ‘Take, eat, this is my body.’ Torment yourselves for now with this text; later you shall have more.” 2
Turning back to the matter of the ubiquity of Christ, what is Luther’s reasoning behind it? General reference is made to the fact that Christ is seated at the right hand of God. This would entail that he is in one place. But Luther contests this idea when he says that “the right hand of God is not a specific place in which a body must or may be, such as on a golden throne, but is the almighty power of God, which at one and the same time can be nowhere and yet must be everywhere. It cannot be at any one place, I say. For if it were at some specific place, it would have to be there in a circumscribed and determine and measured, for it is uncircumscribed and immeasurable, beyond and above all that is or may be.” 3 Luther goes on to give a more thorough defense of his position. Though there are legitimate responses to Luther, it must be acknowledged that he dedicated a substantial amount of his writings to answering them. 4 Further, like Calvin, Luther, too, saw a strong connection between Word and Sacrament. Hence, Christ was not alone in the Sacrament, but was accompanied by His word. Listen to Luther’s insightful words: “ For there stands God’s words, ‘This is my body,’ which grasp, comprehend, and give us physically the body of Christ; therefore the body of Christ must be useful through the Word. Indeed, even if it were true that Christ’s flesh were merely a piece of beef, and yet God’s Word were there bidding us to eat of it, it would nevertheless be useful on account of the Word.” 5 The Word is therefore in Luther’s view inseparable from the body.
As it has been stressed in so many ways, Martin Luther drew extensively from the words of institution given by our Lord in the Last Supper. If no other passage solved the matter appropriately, then according to Luther one need only turn to “This is my body.” There, he believed, was incontrovertible evidence that Christ’s body was truly present in the Eucharist. On the other hand, though Calvin was more sympathetic to Luther than Zwingli, he saw in Luther’s interpretation a fundamental error, namely a confusion of the natures of Christ. If Christ’s body was present in the Eucharist He could no longer be seated at the right hand of the Father as the exalted Lord. For Calvin, believers partook of the body of Christ by faith and in so doing they were elevated to the heavens. 6 Calvin believed that the saints enjoyed him in heaven whereas Luther saw it necessary that Christ’s words in the gospel meant that his physical body descended to the Eucharist. 7 Luther believed in a mystical union between the recipient and Christ himself, but Luther’s emphasis is that the believer can be sacramentally united to the body of Christ himself in the Eucharist.
- These long titles were common in the 16th century Reformation. One need only look through the myriad of titles Calvin had for his Institutes. I would favor a return to long titles as opposed to cliché titles given to modern books. With long titles you can give an exact demonstration of your intention throughout the book, whereas titles like “1984” by Orwell say nothing about the content of the book. [↩ back]
- Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works Volume 37 Word and Sacrament, Ed. Robert H. Fischer. Muhlenberg Press, Philadelphia, 1961, pg. 50. [↩ back]
- can be nowhere and yet must be everywhere. It cannot be at any one place, I say. For if it were at some specific place, it would have to be there in a circumscribed and determine and measured, for it is uncircumscribed and immeasurable, beyond and above all that is or may be.” [↩ back]
- The majority of Luther’s works are dedicated to responding to his opponents. The majority of his critiques are against the Roman Catholic apologists and Zwinglians. [↩ back]
- Ibid., pg. 134. [↩ back]
- Reference to Ephesians 2:6. [↩ back]
- Christ is in, with, and under the elements. This has traditionally been called: “Consubstantiation.” Though as Keith Mathison has pointed out, Lutherans prefer the language of “Sacramental Union.” [↩ back]
I have spent most of the morning and afternoon reading through Leonard Vander Zee’s very well written piece on the sacraments. It is a remarkable combination of good scholarship and pastoral insight.
In his commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians he expands on the words of institution. 1 At the outset he acknowledges the diverse trials the church has faced due to the meaning of these words. According to Calvin, Jesus was not presenting the bread to his disciples but his very body. Indeed, the bread is the center of the Paschal event. 2
Nevertheless, the question is “in what sense is the bread the body of Christ”? Calvin writes: “Christ calls the bread his body; for I set aside, without any disputation, that absurd contrivance, that our Lord did not exhibit the bread to the Apostles, but his body, which they beheld with their eyes.” 3 Calvin says that the “expression is figurative.” 4 As an illustration of this figurative language Calvin uses the Holy Spirit. Just as John called the Spirit a dove,5 Jesus uses the bread as a representation of himself. When the bread is exhibited the body is also there (when the parishioners take the elements by faith). This to Calvin is a “sacramental form of expression,” in which the Lord gives the sign the name of the thing signified.” 6
Though Calvin did not attend the Marburg Colloquy 7 he wished he could have been there. 8 Calvin thought Zwingli and Luther took extreme positions, and that perhaps his understanding of the “spiritual presence” view would bring the discussion to a more mediating position. But what exactly was it that Luther believed concerning Christ’s words? Luther expounds deeply his understanding of “This is my body” in the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. 9 There he writes that on those words “we must rest; on them we must build as on a firm rock, if we would not be carried about with every wind of doctrine.” 10 For Luther the words of institution were deterrents to heresy.
In the Formula of Concord (1577) there is a more detailed explanation of the developed Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as it applies to the “is” of Christ’s institution. Article 7, section 2 reads:
We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the Testament of Christ are not to be otherwise received than as the words themselves literally sound, so that the bread does not signify the absent body of Christ and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that on account of the sacramental union the bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ.
Once again there is a clear denial of the Zwinglian idea that “is” means “signifies.” Luther believed those words had to be taken literally. But this is not to be understood as absolutely literal. In other words, Luther does not mean that the bread is Christ’s body, but rather the bread remains bread and that Christ’s body is present simultaneously with the bread. Therefore, Luther’s doctrine interprets Christ’s words to mean, ‘This accompanies my body.’ 11 For Luther, Christ was present alongside the bread; therefore he is “in,” “with” and “under” the elements. This is, of course, substantially different from the Roman idea of “transubstantiation” where bread and wine are changed into that of the body of Christ.
Luther, however, faced a dilemma. How can Christ’s body be present in the Eucharist in numerous locations? This led Luther to formulate the “Doctrine of Ubiquity.” 12 Keith Mathison summarizes this doctrine in the following words:
“According to Luther and the Lutheran church, there is a real communication of divine attributes to the human nature. The divine attribute that is communicated to the human body of Christ in order that it may be in more than one place at one time is the attribute of omnipresence or ubiquity.” 13
Mathison offers several valid critiques of Luther’s doctrine of ubiquity. Among them he writes that to assume that a divine attribute is given to Christ’s body so that He may be in more than one place is a mixing of the two natures. Mathison writes:
It stands in opposition to the definition of Chalcedon, which asserts that the two natures of Christ exist in one person without mixture, confusion, separation, or division. The communication of omnipresence to the human body of Christ is a confusion of the attributes of one nature with the other. 14
Keith Mathison makes these concluding observations:
The doctrine of ubiquity not only distorts orthodox Christology, but also is inconsistent with scriptural teaching about the divine nature of Christ’s human body. The union of the human and divine natures in the person of Christ began at his conception, and this union existed throughout his entire life and continues today…the Gospels continually speak of Christ’s body in terms of specific locality. He is in Galilee, or he is in Judea, or he is in Jerusalem.15
This is not an exhaustive critique, but sufficient enough to raise some doubts concerning Luther’s sacramentology.
- Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by J. T. McNeill, translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, pg. 1360. [↩ back]
- The Paschal Event is the fulfillment of the Passover in the Old Testament. The “Bread” is synonymous for the Eucharist event. [↩ back]
- Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries Volume XX Translated b Rev. John Pringle, Grand Rapids: MI, 1979, pg. 376-377. [↩ back]
- Ibid., 377. [↩ back]
- John 1:32 [↩ back]
- Ibid., 377. [↩ back]
- Luther and Zwingli met at Marburg to discuss their views concerning the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. [↩ back]
- Of course, young Calvin was still pursuing his studies in France in 1529 when the Colloquy took place. [↩ back]
- In this work Luther examines the seven sacraments of the medieval Church in light of the Bible. [↩ back]
- Basic Theological Writings, pg. 293 [↩ back]
- Mathison A. Keith, Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002, pg. 259. [↩ back]
- “Ubiquity” means the capacity of being everywhere at the same time. [↩ back]
- Ibid., pg. 257-258. [↩ back]
- Mathison 258. [↩ back]
- Ibid., 258. [↩ back]
Calvin spends a significant amount of time responding to his opponents. Though the majority of his efforts are spent responding to transubstantiation, 1 he spends time in the Institutes of Christian Religion interacting with some apologists for the Lutheran view. There is no direct positive commentary on Jesus’ words of institution in the Institutes, but in his commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels he spends a short time dealing with the meaning of the phrase. He begins his commentary on the words “This is my body” by commenting that some “entertain” what the phrase means. This is an unfortunate element of Calvin’s discussion, namely that he spent a major part of his treatments responding to his opponents instead of making a positive case for the meaning of Jesus’ words of institution. 2
Calvin takes a few sentences to give adequate treatment of those words of institution in the gospel of St. Matthew. Concerning the words of our Lord he writes, “that it is not an empty or unmeaning sign which he held out to us, but those who receive this promise by faith are actually made partakers of his flesh and blood.” Further he notes “that Christ presents himself to be enjoyed by us in the Lord’s Supper; for, though we perceive nothing in it but bread, yet he does not disappoint or mock us, when he undertakes to nourish our souls by his flesh. The true eating of the flesh of Christ therefore, is not only pointed out by the sign, but is likewise exhibited in reality.” 3 Therefore, when Jesus says, “This is my body” he means that he is truly present in the eating. Calvin assures the reader that Christ has not fooled us when he said his body is present.
In another place Calvin writes that God will “nourish us throughout the course of our life.” And the sacrament is a “spiritual banquet, wherein Christ attests himself to be the life-giving bread, upon which our souls feed unto true and blessed immortality.” 4 His body is the life-giving bread. Calvin sees a divine banquet in an earthly table. There are many mistakes in interpreting Jesus’ words, but one thing is clear in Calvin: it is a reality. Simply put, the body of Christ is mysteriously present and those who partake by faith partake of Christ himself. Calvin rejected outright Zwingli’s view that the table served only as a memorial. Rather, the recipient had the assurance that the body of Christ would be spiritually present at the Holy Meal.
- Transubstantiation is the change of the substance of bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ that, according to the belief of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church believes that the underlying reality was changed in accordance with what Jesus said, that the “substance” of the bread was converted to that of his body. [↩ back]
- It is unmistakable that as one responds to the arguments of another, he is at that very moment making a case for his position. Nevertheless, it appears that Calvin spent too much time responding to opponents, while Luther spent much time exploring the text itself. This is certainly not to say that Luther did not have “choice” words to his opponents, but merely to point out that he dedicated more of his attention to his text. [↩ back]
- Calvin, John. Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. III. Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids: MI, Reprinted 2003, pg. 209. [↩ back]
- Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by J. T. McNeill, translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, pg. 1360. [↩ back]
Martin Luther understood Jesus’ words literally. When Jesus said: “This is my body,”1 Luther believed it meant that the bodily presence of Christ was there alongside the elements. Zwingli, on the other hand, saw those words figuratively. The physical body of Christ could not be everywhere at the same time, therefore he could not be physically present at the table.2 He understood Jesus’ words to mean: “This signifies my body.” As a result of this disagreement, Luther and Zwingli failed to unite the Reformation.
Luther and Calvin: An Analysis of their views of Jesus’ words of institution
“Our Lord Jesus Christ, the truthful, all-wise, and almighty God-man, has instituted this Sacrament.”3 Luther writes concerning the institution:
We must turn our eyes and hearts simply to the institution of Christ and this alone, and set nothing before us but the very word of Christ and this alone, and set nothing before us but the very word of Christ by which he instituted the sacrament, made it perfect, and committed it to us. For in that word and that word alone, reside the power, the nature, and the whole substance of the mass.4
For Luther, Jesus’ powerful words are the heart of the Sacrament of the Altar.5 Luther writes:
In these words nothing is omitted that pertains to the completeness, the use, and the blessing of this sacrament; and nothing is included that is superfluous and not necessary for us to know. Whoever sets aside these words and meditates or teaches concerning the mass will teach monstrous and wicked doctrines, as they have done who have made of the sacrament an opus operatum and a sacrifice. 6
Here Luther is reacting to the pomp of the Roman doctrine of the mass. He is convinced that unless people turn their eyes away from the ornaments, candles, and chants there can be no true Eucharist. 7
- It is significant to note that among the many issues brought for discussion, Luther and Zwingli agreed on almost all. It was only on the interpretation of “is” in Jesus’ words that they came to severe disagreement.
In the Reformed, Lutheran and Catholic tradition there is no disagreement as to the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. The difference is how is Christ’s body present in the sacrament. Zwingli on the other hand denied that Christ could be present in any way. [↩ back] - In the Reformed, Lutheran and Catholic tradition there is no disagreement as to the presence of Christ in the Sacrament. The difference is how is Christ’s body present in the sacrament. Zwingli on the other hand denied that Christ could be present in any way. [↩ back]
- Luther, Martin. Luther’s Small Catechism, , St. Louis, Missouri, Concordia Publishing House, 1943, Answer 297. [↩ back]
- Luther, Martin. Basic Theological Writings. Ed. Timothy F. Lull, Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis, 1989, pg. 292. [↩ back]
- “Sacrament of the Altar” is synonymous with the Lord’s Supper, Lord’s Table, and Holy Communion. See Shorter Catechism Questions 296 [↩ back]
- Luther, Martin. Basic Theological Writings. Ed. Timothy F. Lull, Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis, 1989, pg. 293. By “opus operatum” Luther refers to a work that is accomplished or finished, which is supposed to impart grace simply by virtue of its having been properly performed, without reference to any faith or lack of faith on the part of the person for whom it is performed. [↩ back]
- Luther refers to all outward things that would take away attention from the Sacrament. [↩ back]
Note: This is meant to be an introductory study on Calvin and Luther’s understanding of the phrase: This is my body. This study will serve to provide a background for current controversies regarding the blatant denial of a robust Eucharistic faith in our modern Protestant Churches. The footnotes will be very helpful throughout these readings.1
The Reformation marked a return to the Scriptures in the area of the sacraments. This derived from a high view of Biblical authority. Throughout the Reformation, there was a conscious determination to bring all things under the authority of Scripture. Both Luther and Calvin believed that only the Scriptures would bring about true change. Though their adherence to Holy Writ led them to different interpretations on significant issues, yet their commitment to the authority of the Bible led to an unprecedented change in the European religious structure. It is with this zeal for the Word of God that Luther and Calvin approach the Lord’s words of institution. However, when great minds gather, great divisions occur.2
The sixteenth century was a time during which the moral collapse of the Roman Church stirred the Reformation, and other movements as well, to pursue a renewed church.3 Indeed, John Frame’s statement reflects the Reformation’s zeal: “We must first be assured that Jesus Christ established on earth one church.”4 The Reformation was not interested in starting a new church since Christ had already instituted His one apostolic church. Initially, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others were simply concerned, with the restoration of Rome and the purification of its doctrinal errors.5 Of course, as the years went by they became aware that Rome was not about to change. It appears that the people too wanted change, so when Luther found that Rome did not seek a return to the authority of Scriptures, the Reformation became a separate entity; a viable alternative to the Roman Church.6
At that point, they began to dispute differences among themselves. This diversion ultimately led to division between the early Reformers.7 Luther’s disciples began to concentrate on Luther’s distinctives and Calvin’s disciples on his. Among the many distinctions in the developing Reformation none caused greater division than the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. In fact, Jesus’ phrase of institution: “This is my body”8 was the most disputed of the Reformation period. There were various understandings of this language among the Reformers. The irreconcilable differences among them led to the eventual fragmentation of the Reformation. The last chance of a united Reformation died on October 1st, 1529. That day brought Luther and Zwingli together in Marburg9 to discuss their differences and try to come to an agreement. If this had happened the Reformation would have been a more effective movement.10
- This is intended to be a seven part series. Each reading will take 3-5 minutes. [↩ back]
- This is evidently true for Luther and Zwingli. [↩ back]
- The Magisterial Reformers did not initially want a departure from Rome, but a reformation of her wide corruption. [↩ back]
- Frame, John. Evangelical Reunion, Volume 3, Number 23, June 4, 2001, www.framepoythress.org, Reformed Perspectives Magazine, chapter 1. Professor Frame is criticizing “denominationalism.” In personal correspondence I asked Professor Frame if “denominationalism” is a necessary evil? His response: “That depends on the source of the necessity. In the early days of the church, the evil was unnecessary. The problem of division might have been prevented and would have been if the people had followed Scripture. Of course today the prospect of complete reunion is so dim that I can understand your saying that for practical purposes at least denominations must be treated as necessary.” [↩ back]
- This is fundamental to acknowledge at the outset, lest some believe that the Reformers were anti-institutional. [↩ back]
- The Reformers continued to dialogue with Rome as the Colloquy of Resenberg (1541) indicates, but not as pervasively as they did in the beginning. [↩ back]
- It must be noted that though there were differences (as in the sacraments) there was also a great level of mutual respect among the leaders of the 1st and 2nd generation Reformers. Calvin, for example, who was much younger than Luther, spoke very highly of Luther in many occasions. [↩ back]
- Matthew 26:26 also I Corinthians 11:24. Some manuscripts read: “This Is my body broken for you.” This paper will center its attention primarily on Matthew’s account as opposed to Paul’s. Quotation is taken from the English Standard Version of the Bible. [↩ back]
- For a helpful summary see: Stephen J. Nichols: Martin Luther: A Guided Tour of his Life and Thought, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002, pgs. 117-120. [↩ back]
- I continually make this point clear because if the Reformers were to attack Rome’s serious errors together and united, their influence could’ve had far reaching power. Today Europe is a graveyard. The majority of Europeans are not even aware what the Reformation was. However, in God’s great providence the Reformation went beyond Europe. [↩ back]
It is a well-known and undisputed fact that in the early Church the communion of all the faithful, of the entire ecclesia at each Liturgy was a self-evident norm. What must be stressed, however, is that this corporate communion was understood not only as an act of personal piety and personal sanctification but, first of all, as an act stemming precisely from one’s very membership in the Church, as the fulfillment and actualization of that membership. The Eucharist was both defined and experienced as the “sacrament of the Church,” the “sacrament of the assembly,” the “sacrament of unity.” “He mixed Himself with us,” writes St. John Chrysostom, “and dissolved His body in us so that we may constitute a wholeness, be a body united to the Head.” The early Church simply knew no other sign or criterion of membership but the participation in the sacrament. – Alexander Schmemann
Recent Comments