Reformed turning to Lutheranism

[saintandsinner77]

In recent times, I have heard of a number of Reformed folks becoming Lutherans for various reasons. One of the reasons given is the issue of the Lord's Supper. The ex-Reformed-turned-Lutheran think the Lutheran interpretation of "this is my Body," is more faithful to the plain and simple teaching of the text. If you are Reformed and are contemplating the move to Lutheranism, please read the following, which In my humble opinion, will make you settled about the Reformed view being the correct interpretation:

The Reformed View of The Lord's Supper, by Shane Rosenthal

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

This is a case where I wholeheardily agree with John Williamson Nevin against Charles Hodge. Calvinism has a much stronger view of the Lord's Supper than has been the case with a large portion of Presbyterianism over the last couple hundred years.

 

[jwithnell]

To some extent, until I came around to an amillennial perspective, I wasn't entirely comfortable with the Presbyterian wording on the Lord's Table -- previously I placed too much in the physical realm and was (more than I would have admitted) uneasy with the reality of something not seen. As you've observed, the Lutheran position had some appeal, however I could not accept it either and held to a "we-can't know" position on the phrase: "this is my body."

 

[saintandsinner77]

The point is, why not first study and examine how Reformed theologians have responded to the ridiculous and absurd notion that Christ's physical body and blood are in, with, and under the bread first, before they make the leap since Luther has been sufficiently answered- people are just unaware of those answers in many cases. Luther, was dead right on some major doctrines, but unfortunately was a papist, for all practical purposes, on the Supper. The ridiculous idea of Christ's physical body being in the Supper opens the door to eucharistic adoration, which is pure idolatry. I mean, what's wrong with kneeling before the wafer or bread if Christ's literal body is there and Christ is to be worshipped? All because "this is my body" must be understood in a wooden, literalistic fashion.

 

[dudley]

The following passage from the article sums up well what is the correct view of the Lords Supper...The Reformed teaching...."The Reformed view of the supper is in complete alignment with other texts of Scripture. The fact that in the sacrament we are truly nourished by Christ's body and blood, by faith, not the mouth, bears a close resemblance to the many texts that describe our Lord's relationship to his church, such as those of the vine and branches, the head and body, and Christ's words about abiding in him. Likewise, it is in accordance with Christ's sending of the Holy Spirit in John 16: "I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer...But when the Spirit of truth, comes...He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you." Therefore, though Christ is not bodily present with us, we nevertheless have access to him and all his benefits because of the work of the Holy Spirit. This is why the author to the Hebrews can describe those who have been baptized and have "tasted of the heavenly gift," as those "who have shared in the Holy Spirit" (Heb. 6:4). It is also why Jesus can refer to himself as "the bread of life" (John 6:48), while also acknowledging that "it is the Spirit who gives life" (John 6:63). It is the Holy Spirit that unites us to Christ and all his benefits."

I have been reading Paul’s letters to the early church but recently read Hebrews for the first time. Although the authorship of Hebrews is disputed; I tend to believe that Paul is the author.

A few important passages that I discovered in reading Hebrews were as follows. I took a course on Pauline Epistles as a student at Marist college in the 1960’s. When I read the following passages it occurred to me that I never heard or was referred to them before in all the years I was a Roman catholic, nor in the course I took which was taught by a Dominican priest.

When I read them it made it more obvious to me that the Lutheran teaching of consubstantiation is as ridiculous and absurd as the Roman church teaching of transubstantiation and worship of the “sacrifice” of the mass is incorrect and a denial of our salvation from the work of Christ alone on Calvary for our Justification and we are made righteous by that connection to Christ by our affirmation of faith; no merit of our own, nor is their anything we can do to merit our salvation.
I read in ………
Hebrews 7:23-24; Hebrews 7:27; Hebrews 10:11-12; Hebrews 10:14; Hebrews 10:18 New International Version (NIV) Copyright © 2011

Hebrews 7:23-24
23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.
Hebrews 7:27
27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
Hebrews 10:11-12
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
Hebrews 10:14
14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Hebrews 10:18
18 And where these have been forgiven, “sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.”

The above passages were very enlightening to me ( “sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.” )
as I read them this morning and I believe they give further evidence to me that the Protestant position of the Lords Supper as a memorial is correct as so many things in the Protestant fold and in the Presbyterian church are; which make good sense and have strengthened my faith and my understanding of what it means to be a Christian. To me I now believe as a Presbyterian the Lord's Supper is the sign and seal of eating and drinking in communion with the crucified and risen Lord. That is what we believe as reformed Protestants and what I believe as a Presbyterian. I would never adopt the Lutheran view becuase it is as absurd as the Roman catholic teaching I renounced.

It should be further noted that Consubstantiation is a philosophical theory that, like the competing theory of transubstantiation, attempts to describe the nature of the ChristianEucharist in concrete metaphysical terms. It holds that during the sacrament the fundamental substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. Transubstantiation differs from consubstantiation in that it postulates that, through consecration by the priest, one set of substances (bread and wine) is exchanged for another (the Body and Blood of Christ) or that, according to some, the reality of the bread and wine become the reality of the body and blood of Christ. The substance of the bread and wine do not remain, but their accidents (superficial properties like appearance and taste) remain.

From my studies after leaving the RCC and studying the different Protestant denominations I have found that Consubstantiation is commonly—though erroneously—associated with the teachings of Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon. Lutheran teachings reject any attempt to explain philosophically the means by which Christ is present in the Eucharist. Luther did teach that the body and blood of Christ are present “in, with, and under the forms” of bread and wine, and present-day Lutherans hold to this statement while disagreeing about its exact meaning. Some Lutherans do use the term “consubstantiation” to refer to this belief, but the theology intended is not the same as the philosophical theory described above. Luther illustrated his belief about the Eucharist “by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged,” a concept which he called sacramental union. Consubstantiation is affirmed by a minority of Christians, including some Eastern Orthodox churches.

Finally, the Reformed Confessions ends with a brief rejection of the errors of Rome on the doctrine of the Supper, saying,
Therefore we reject all mixtures and damnable inventions which men have added unto and blended with the sacraments, as profanations of them; and affirm that we ought to rest satisfied with the ordinance which Christ and His apostles have taught us, and that we must speak of them in the same manner as they have spoken.
As one writer says "a simple celebration of our Lord's supper in a barn is richer than a pontifical high mass in a cathedral." We seek to follow the basic descriptions of the Lord's Supper as written in the New Testament -- nothing more, nothing less.

I was a Roman catholic and then an Episcopalian and for a while a Lutheran before becoming a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian. I now also reject all mixtures and damnable inventions which men have added unto and blended with the sacraments, I reject Consubstantiation as well as transubstantiation. Both lead to the abomination of worshipping a piece of bread which becomes idolatry and a blasphemy of what Christ intended by the Super.

 

[yeutter]

Thanks for the link to one side of this Lutheran/Calvinist debate.

 

[moral necessity]

This seems odd to me. I always thought the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper would drive people away rather than attract. It requires more straining in my mind to violate God's laws of nature in having a miracle occur every time the supper is administered, than to simply reason that he was speaking symbolically. After all, he spoke symbollically/figuratively on other occasions. For example, he called Herod a "fox", and no Lutheran that I know of thinks Herod was really a little furry creature.

Blessings!

 

[J. Dean]

Every Lutheran I talk to about this issue has confused me. Like with baptism, they insist that their doctrine is not the Roman Catholic one, but then they phrase the argument with nomenclature that leads me to believe that the differences in baptism and the eucharist are nominal at best.

 

[jwright82]

I have this book and it is great in distinguishing all of the four major views.
Amazon.com: Understanding Four Views on the Lord's Supper (Counterpoints: Church Life) (9780310262688): John H. Armstrong, Paul E. Engle, Russell D. Moore, John Hesselink, David Scaer, Thomas Baima: Books.
It is nice in seperating Lutherans from RC as well Zwinglians from Calvinists. I for one am a Calvinist on this because I think a "real pressence" that is spiritual rather than physical (Lutherans and RCC) is the best of them all. The great Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz said in his book on the Lord's Supper, the only difference between Calvinism and Lutheranism on the Lord's Supper was over the question of wether on not Christ's body and blood are physically received by the participant in the Sacrament.

That may lead some in the Reformed camp to say "oh, well that's not so bad. Why can't I be a Lutheran on this?" They would be mistaken though. This may seem like a small difference but the theological presupositions that are employed by both sides to reach their conclusions are fundementaly different. So although they may be getting a small thing in going to Lutheranism they are unkowingly getting a new theology as well. I think that Lutheranism is a validly christian tradition but mistaken on many issues. There is a world of difference between Calvin and Luther on this because their repective theologies are world's apart.

 

[saintandsinner77]

It's interesting that the Lutherans accuse the Reformed of exalting reason above the plain words of institution, but then do theological gymnastics when I have pointed out Scriptures such as "He is not here, but is risen," "I go away to my Father," in order to escape the plain meaning of those texts. Not only that, but if Jesus comes down in the Supper every Sunday, then it takes away the uniqueness of the Second Coming since He comes down bodily thousands of times every Sunday...and yet I continue to read former ex-reformed blogs which argue that the Reformed view is unsatisfactory in dealing with words of institution and so they were driven to leave a Reformed Presbyterian church and join the LCMS.

 

[Philip]

Not only that, but if Jesus comes down in the Supper every Sunday, then it takes away the uniqueness of the Second Coming since He comes down bodily thousands of times every Sunday...and yet I continue to read former ex-reformed blogs which argue that the Reformed view is unsatisfactory in dealing with words of institution and so they were driven to leave a Reformed Presbyterian church and join the LCMS.

This is why we need to stress the reformed teaching: it is not Christ who is brought to us in the LS---we are brought into the presence of Christ through the means of grace. It's a sacramental demonstration of our union with Christ.

There is a world of difference between Calvin and Luther on this because their repective theologies are world's apart.

Careful here: they're more similar than you think.

 

[JM]

Lutherans understand the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper as Nestorian, it starts at the 10 min. mark:
[video=youtube;-Nh3-7bTNT0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nh3-7bTNT0[/video]
PS: Yes, the jerky video will drive you crazy, but I posted it for the content.

---------- Post added at 10:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 PM ----------

[video=youtube;aGJKiU90JHs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGJKiU90JHs[/video]

 

[Philip]

Lutherans understand the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper as Nestorian

Which is odd, given that our view is intended to preserve the unity of Christ, while not going to the monophysite extreme of the Lutherans.

 

[Pilgrim]

These Reformed that turn Lutheran then also must reject being a "Five Pointer" (at least if they're going to be a good Lutheran,) embrace baptismal regeneration and must be ok with closed communion.

But if they must deviate on the first two, (especially) better to leave than remain and purport to be Reformed as we've seen with recent controversies.

 

[jwithnell]

he was speaking symbolically

This doesn't capture the reformed view either. The Lord's Table is far more than a mere symbol.

 

[moral necessity]

he was speaking symbolically

This doesn't capture the reformed view either. The Lord's Table is far more than a mere symbol.

Thanks for your reply. I wasn't trying to say, however, that the bread and wine were mere symbols, but rather that he was not speaking literally. Perhaps it would have been more acceptable to say that he was speaking metaphorically instead.

Blessings!

 

[Andres]

Not only that, but if Jesus comes down in the Supper every Sunday, then it takes away the uniqueness of the Second Coming since He comes down bodily thousands of times every Sunday...and yet I continue to read former ex-reformed blogs which argue that the Reformed view is unsatisfactory in dealing with words of institution and so they were driven to leave a Reformed Presbyterian church and join the LCMS.

This is why we need to stress the reformed teaching: it is not Christ who is brought to us in the LS---we are brought into the presence of Christ through the means of grace. It's a sacramental demonstration of our union with Christ.

 

[yeutter]

Elizabeth Tudor or maybe John Donne said "He was the Word that spake it. He took the bread and brake it. And what that Word did make it. I do believe and take it." Lutherans and Reformed in the State Kirche of Wuerttemberg, both affirmed a very similar affirmation.

 

[JM]

...while not going to the monophysite extreme of the Lutherans.

I think the video explains that they don't.