Lutherans and the Lord's Supper

[KensingtonerRebbe]

Recently I've been reading Pieper, who is to the Lutherans what Hodge or Vos is to us. I've been able to respond to most of his points in my mind but I still need some help before this issue is completely settled in my mind. It would be of help if you guys could reply to two things...

1) Reply to this question: How can body and blood refer to a spiritual presence?

2) Could you point me to any online materials, for reading or listening?

Thanks in advance.

 

[TimV]

Reply to this question: How can body and blood refer to a spiritual presence?

That was one of the first big differences to show up between Protestants. We Reformed and those who are fellow travellers say that Christ's physical body is at the right hand of the Father, since His humanity isn't omnipresent like He is in His divine nature. So, since body and blood are physical, and they can't be everywhere at once (only at the right hand of the Father) we Reformed et. al. insist that the elements are only symbolic. Lutherans however say that Christ's divine nature is attributed is some real manner to His human nature, and the result is that the human nature become omnipresent as well, so to them it's no problem to speak in terms of consubstantiation.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Shane Rosenthal posted parts of a debate here between students at Westminster and Concordia over the Reformed and Lutheran understanding of the Supper.

 

[KensingtonerRebbe]

Tim,

Thanks very much for your reply.

I am aware of the difference that exists between us and the Lutherans concerning the question of the Ascension and what it means for the Lord's Supper. You put it better than I could have, thanks.

My thought is this: The only way we know there is any presence in the Lord's Supper at all is because of Jesus' own words: the so-called Words of Institution. How can we reconcile the words "body" and "blood" with our belief in a merely "spiritual" presence?

 

[jwright82]

A spiritual presence is just as real as a corprial one. Only spritualy regenerate people recieve anything whatsoever, so in this sense it is spiritual. I would say that since we have a mystical union with Christ we can recieve the body and blood of our Lord just not in a physical way, since our union is not actually physical. This issue is largely over differing presupossitions regarding the Word and Sacraments between Lutherans and Calvinists. One day we will have a physical relationship by proximoty with our Lord, by that I mean we will be in His physical presence. So now our relationship is primaraly spiritual in nature.

When we try to understand how the body and blood can be recieved spiritualy we are delving into a great mystery that our Lord never saw fit to explain to us. It is enough for us to know that the Sacrament nourishes and strenghthans our faith in this life. The Lutherans may point out that we border on Platonism in our view but they border on Materialism in theirs. For them a spiritual presence isn't really a presence at all, only a physical presence can be realy real. This just favors the otherside of the coin. For us we are not Platonists in our thinking because we are not making a Platonic distinction between spiritual, which is good, and the material, which is bad. This is what the Gnostics did. We make a distinction between the regenerate and the unregenerate, as well as a distinction between Creator and creature. Since the distinction is different in kind to the Platonic one it cannot be called the same thing.

 

[dannyhyde]

1) Reply to this question: How can body and blood refer to a spiritual presence? 2) Could you point me to any online materials, for reading or listening?

Hi Tom,

As to #1, if I can simplify the heart of the debate as I read Chemnitz, et al on the Lutheran side, and Calvin, Beza, et al on the Reformed side, it comes down to this: it is not whether but how we feed upon Christ. Both Lutheran and Reformed believe that what is eaten and drunk is Christ. The difference is how he is partaken of, either by the mouth or by the mouth of faith. It's this latter point where the Reformed focus attention on the Holy Spirit as the efficient cause of our communion. This is why Calvin says it's not Christ who comes down, but we who ascend by means of the Spirit to feed upon Christ in heaven.

As for #2, here is a great article on the Lord's Supper in the Reformed confessions from Dr. Cornel Venema of Mid-America Reformed Seminary: http://midamerica.edu/resources/journal/12/venema.pdf. I'd also highly suggest you read Jill Raitt's, The Eucharistic Theology of Theodore Beza. It's hard to get a hold of, but worth it, as she details the debate between Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist at the Colloquy of Poissy in the mid-16th century over the Eucharist. On Wordlcat it says it's available at the University of Toronto in the library.

 

[dudley]

I now believe as Calvin taught concerning the Lords Supper

I am Presbyterian and as a Reformed Protestant I now believe as Calvin taught concerning the Lords Supper “That the sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfills what he promises.”

I am nourished when I commune in the Reformed Protestant fold because I believe as Calvin said, "In his Sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I do not doubt that he himself truly presents them, and that I receive them." (Inst. 4.17.32)

Calvin believed it was not just a "matter of faith" but the grace received in partaking in Christ himself was a fruit of faith (cf. 4.17.5).

The bread and wine or juice remain just bread, wine or juice and Christ is not present under the species of the bread and wine as Lutherans believe nor does the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ as Roman Catholics believe. The presence of Christ becomes a nourishing presence to us because of our faith and common fellowship and communion with and in Him and the symbols of bread and wine represent that fellowship which Christ gave us in the ordinance of the Lords Supper as a Passover meal with his apostles.

 

[Grimmson]

There are several issues of consideration at hand concerning the spiritual presence of Christ. The first to consider is the Lutheran union of the human and divine natures of Jesus becoming ubiquitous, which to Calvin would end Jesus truly being human. Another issue was that the supper would only be received positively only for the believer in faith. I think the reason in Book 4, 17, 18 of the Institutes Calvin sees that the believers ascend into Heaven for communion was because that where Jesus’ body is locally compared to coming down in, with, and under. The only way to feed on Jesus together as a church is to ascend up to where he is at as a church together, and since we cannot do that physically then it must be done spiritually by the Spirit (see Book 4,17,10 of the Institutes). Another issue is the bonding of Calvin is the bonding of Christ’s body to the perishable substance of the world by the bread and wine; not to be torn apart carnally (Book 4,17,12 of the Institutes). This is not really a new debate in relation to Calvin, we see elements of it also with the Radbertus (present physically and miraculously) and Ratramnus (by faith spiritually) debate on the Supper in the ninth century. Of course these discussions open up the debate of historical considerations in theological systems like federal covenantal theology within Puritanism and the becoming more popular discussion on union with Christ under legal, substantial, and social-psychological categories.

I would start off by reading Calvin’s Institutes (Book 4, but the rest would be good too) to create a baseline of Calvin’s categories; including against Andreas Osiander. That way you can start comparing and contrasting what other people are saying about Calvin’s position.

 

[dudley]

I found the following article very good and helpful and I hope you will also.

I found the following piece to be very helpful when I was contemplating becoming a Presbyterian. I have adopted besides the Westminster standards and Confession of faith the teachings on Calvin, Knox and Zwigli and those three Protestant reformers had more of a basis on what I now believe as a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian. I was an Episcopalian for a while after leaving the roman catholic church, I also explored other Protestant denominations during my first year as a Protestant after leaving Roman catholicism. I did not become a Lutheran for the same reasons Zwigli renounced Luther's teaching on the sacrament. I did attend services with a Methodist congregation for a brief period while exploring Protestantism. I was invited to the Lords Supper with them on one occasion, they open their table to all believers even if not yet officially a member of the Methodist church. I did like and think their position and teaching while very Protestant theologically on the Lords Supper that it is primarily a memorial, and not a sacrifice anew as Roman catholicism teaches, the service of the Lords supper is a re-representation of the one and only needed sacrifice of Christ on Calvary for all who accept him in faith. I also believe that is a fine view for Protestants to take even Reformed Protestants, as long as we see it as symbolic of Christs sacrifice and not the sacrifice which Rome claims and which I now and Reformed Protestants and Presbyterians reject. I did decide to become a Presbyterian because I believe like Calvin as well as Knox and Zwigli that the Roman church was so corrupted the only way to return to the truth was to renounce her and her pope and its false teachings and return the Gospel and the Church to its true roots and foundation and teachings. I am a Prebyterian becuse I came to believe the only way to return to the truth was to also renounce Roman catholicism and all her apostate teachings.

I found the following article very good and helpful and I hope you will also.

In grace,
Dudley

Luther vs. Zwingli 3: Zwingli on the Lord's Supper
By Trevin Wax on Feb 12, 2008 in Lord's Supper, Reformed Theology

Zwingli did not see the need for a “sacramental union” in the Lord’s Supper because of his modified understanding of sacraments.

According to Zwingli, the sacraments serve as a public testimony of a previous grace. Therefore, the sacrament is “a sign of a sacred thing, i.e. of a grace that has been given.” For Zwingli, the idea that the sacraments carry any salvific efficacy in themselves is a return to Judaism’s ceremonial washings that lead to the purchase of salvation.

Whereas Luther sought to prune the bad branches off the tree of Roman Catholic sacramentalism, Zwingli believed the problem to be rooted at least partly in sacramentalism itself. The only way to legitimately resolve Roman excess was to reinterpret the nature of the sacraments. Pruning the tree was not enough; pulling the tree up from its roots was the only action that could actually fix the problems.

Applying his modified understanding of the sacraments to the Eucharist led Zwingli to affirm its primary purpose as the proclamation of salvation and the strengthening of faith in the hearts of believers. Zwingli insisted that the biblical text taught that the Lord’s Supper was a sign, and that to make it something more violated the nature of the sacrament. However, this caution did not keep Zwingli from strongly affirming a “spiritual presence” of Christ in the Eucharist brought by the “contemplation of faith.”

What Zwingli could not accept was a “real presence” that claimed Christ was present in his physical body with no visible bodily boundaries.

“I have no use for that notion of a real and true body that does not exist physically, definitely and distinctly in some place, and that sort of nonsense got up by word triflers.”

Zwingli’s theology of the Lord’s Supper should not be viewed as an innovation without precedent in church history. Zwingli claimed that his doubts about transubstantiation were shared by many of his day, leading him to claim that priests did not ever believe such a thing, even though “most all have taught this or at least pretended to believe it.”

Had Zwingli’s modified doctrine of the “real presence” been an innovation, it would probably not have been so eagerly accepted by his parishioners. The symbolic view spread rapidly because Zwingli had given voice and legitimacy to an opinion that was already widespread.

In Zurich, the mass was abolished in 1525. The Lord’s Supper was celebrated with a new liturgy that replaced the altar with a table and tablecloth.

The striking feature of the Zwinglian observance of the sacrament was its simplicity. Because the bread and wine were not physically transformed into Christ’s body and blood, there was no need for spurious ceremonies and pompous rituals. The occasion was marked by simplicity and reverence, with an emphasis on its nature as a memorial.

Zwingli’s denial of the “real presence” did not result in the neglecting of the sacrament that would characterize many of his followers in centuries to come. He saw seven virtues in the Lord’s Supper that proved its importance for the Christian life.

First, it is a sacred rite because Christ the High Priest has instituted it.

Secondly, Communion bears witness to something already accomplished.

Third, the action takes the place of the thing it signifies.

The Lord’s Supper is valuable because of what it signifies (communion with Christ for strength and communion with others for unity).

Sixth, observance of the Lord’s Supper increases and supports faith, and finally, its power is its keeping of an oath of allegiance.

 

[Staphlobob]

We Reformed and those who are fellow travellers say that Christ's physical body is at the right hand of the Father, since His humanity isn't omnipresent like He is in His divine nature.

As a Presbyterian who was once Lutheran, I would caution against using this argument. The response is, as Luther himself once asked, "And where is the right hand of God?" (Ans: It's omnipresent)

John 16:7 is what got me to move over to the Reformed side of things.