Zwingli's View of the Lord's Supper

[psycheives]

From another thread:

Zwinglians, or those who hold to a simple memorial view do not understand the imparting of any spiritual gift in virtue of the meal; it is a mere commemorative occasion. For them all that is present is bread, period.

Bruce, great posts and very helpful on this subject. Thank you. To not derail that thread, I thought I should start a new post. So, I'm just learning that some Reformed have believed Zwingli did not actually hold to a mere commemoration? But did acknowledge the Supper is a means of grace? Can you please speak to this? Are some correct in their claim that Charles Hodge agreed with Zwingli against R.L. Dabney? Can you please help us understand the differences between Zwingli and Reformed and Lutherans? (I have read the other threads on PB about this but still don't really understand) Anyone, feel free to chime in please

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Last I heard, Dr. Clark (WSC) was not persuaded that Zwingli was not as the Lutherans read him. I think its fair to think that Calvin felt some further revision of the "Swiss" view was in order, to address some of Luther's points and to acknowledge the validity of those concerns, given the stance (and stature) of Zwingli as Luther's contemporary reformer, but perhaps given too much to rationalism.

I knew one church-historian, a learned (even brilliant) man of the Reformed persuasion, influenced by I know not what, who ventured his own private opinion that Zwingli might not have even been a Christian, though greatly used by God--so deeply did he see him imbued with the humanistic rationalism of the day. So, indeed, the arguments abound as to where Zwingli falls on the spectrum, some pushing him in one direction, others in another. My uneducated guess is that he falls approximately where he has most often been found: within the Christian fold, and truly the father of the memorialist position. And Luther was probably right to peg him as he did.

So, without reading Zwingli himself I will not venture as to whether he ever used such terms (or similar terms) to "means of grace," as the Reformed or Lutherans have traditionally understood those terms. Only a thorough acquaintance with the man, his culture, and the currents of language in that day could yield anything like an accurate assessment; and I do not know enough of the secondary literature to point you to the best analysis available today. For that, you will have to see your professor.

I am slightly (but not much) more familiar with the 19th century Presbyterians, such as Hodge and Dabney. As I understand both men, based upon their respective Systematic Theologies, Hodge seems to take all the Swiss, and the later Reformed of both the Continent and the Isles, as holding to the same essential view. He puts only a very small space between Zwingli and Calvin. From what I encounter, it is Dabney who separates himself most from Calvin's view:

Is the vital union then, only a secret relationship between Christ and the soul, instituted when faith is first exercised, and constituted by the indwelling and operation of the Holy Spirit: or, is it a mysterious, yet substantial conjunction, of the spiritual substance, soul, to the whole substance of the mediatorial Person, including especially the humanity? In a word, does the spiritual vitality propagate itself in a mode strictly analogous to that, in which vegetable vitality is propagated from the stock into the graft, by actual conjunction of substance? Now Calvin answers, emphatically: the union is of the latter kind. His view seems to be, that not only the mediatorial Person, but especially the corporeal part thereof, has been established by the incarnation, as a sort of duct through which the inherent spiritual life of God, the fountain is transmitted to believers, through the mystical union. His arguments are, that the body of Christ is asserted to be our life, in places so numerous and emphatic (John. 1:1, 14; 6:27, 33, 51–59; Eph. 5:30; 1 Cor. 6:15; Eph. 4:16) that exegetical fidelity requires of us to understand by it more than a participation in spiritual indwelling and influences purchased for believers by His death; that the incomprehensibility of a spiritual, though true and literal, substantial conjunction of our souls with Christ’s flesh in heaven, should not lead us to reject the word of our God; and that faith cannot be the whole amount of the vital union of believers to Christ, inasmuch as it is said to be by faith. The union must be more than the means which constitutes it.

..........
[After stating that the Westminster Confession does not strictly follow Calvin--a debated point among Historical Theologians of his day--but hews closely to the description of Turretin; Dabney adds:]

We reject the view of Calvin concerning the real presence, [recognizing our obligation to meet and account for the Scriptures he quotes, in a believing, and not in a rationalistic spirit]; first, because it is not only incomprehensible, but impossible.

And he adds another four reasons he objects to Calvin's understanding.

Basically, Dabney thinks Calvin's yearning for reconciliation between the German and Swiss Reformations caused him to accommodate too far toward the Lutherans, thus sacrificing coherence. Dabney does not let Zwingli's view pass without criticism, writing, "The defect of the Zwinglian view is, that while it hints, it does not distinctly enough assert, the sealing nature of the sacraments." By this statement, I find him to habilitate Zwingli to the Reformed practically as far as Hodge does.

Hodge actually seems less uncomfortable with Calvin's terminology in his ST, and with reference to a number of original sources (which he quotes, usually in the Latin) he shows the harmony of Calvin's statements, whether in his sacramental treatises, or in the creedal formulae which he either authored or signed.

In my humble opinion (which I'm happy to be otherwise shown), Hodge and Dabney both seem a trifle squeamish when it comes to giving room for Calvin's mystical bent. It was an inclination, I think, of their era; an inclination that saw reactions that didn't always maintain the mean. One of the reactions was in the person of John Williamson Nevin, originally a Princeton trained Presbyterian, and the substitute professor for none other than Charles Hodge (1926-28); who soon moved out to western PA and the Western (later, Pittsburgh) Theological Seminary (thank you, wikipedia John Williamson Nevin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

I'm not qualified to judge whether Nevin's was an obvious overreaction to the rationalist tendencies of the era, but in his transfer to the German Reformed Church, to be professor at Mercersburg, he self-consciously repudiated what he felt was rationalizing tendencies in the Presbyterian Church. His mystical turn was by no means an embrace of pietism, enthusiasm, and revivalism (all the same thing); for he opposed them vigorously. I think he erred badly along with his associate Philip Schaff in elevating doctrinal development and historical theology to the status of secondary canon (in which he showed that he was also a man of his time, succumbing to an evolutionary, rationalist doctrine of "progress"); but he is now remembered for defending a doctrine of Christ's mystical presence in the Supper as Calvin's view, and was responded to by Hodge. So, here is Hodge resisting such a mystical view. I don't know if he frankly disputed Calvin's position ala Dabney, or maintained as he did in the ST that Calvin was not so mystical in fact.

I believe that the successes seen by the revivalists of the "2nd Great Awakening" (such as Finney) have something to do with Romanticism and the reaction to Rationalism. Insofar as the church's theology, piety, and practice completely sidelines or eliminates every wisp of a thought of mystical realities, in service of the idea that religion is a perfectly reasonable science; she thereby encourages her members to find it elsewhere. To the extent that men believe they have no need of the mystical and mystery contained within their legitimate faith-expression, they reduce all religion to that which sits comfortably within the confines of their rational faculty. And to the extent that men react against that radical exclusion, they run the risk of accepting the Kantian dualistic categories that shove spirituality into the "noumenal" realm, whence we have the advent of the Mystic, one who is All mysticism all the time with regard to religion. There follows another reaction with those same Mystics, as their external forms of religion (when they are maintained) are obsessed with social-gospel concerns in the vacuum of absent doctrine.

I understand Calvin's mystical position to be one that accepts enough mystery to be inoculated against the reduction of religion by Rationalism, and against the Mystic's equivalent reduction of religion to a place "beyond all claims of reason." For Calvin, the sacraments, and indeed corporate worship as a whole, are necessarily Spiritual, ineffable, transcendent experiences. They are beyond our unaided reach, and full comprehension.

To the extent that Zwingli came too near a reductionist position, he deserves the criticism leveled at him. As a Reformed theologian, I don't think the Lutheran position is correct either, since I judge it verges on Eutychianism (and they think we verge on Nestorianism). Our respective views of the sacraments is inseparable from our Christologies, and our diverse understandings of the manner of the Communicatio idiomatum, which is how the properties of each of Christ's two natures are related to each other.

************************

I find both Lutherans and Reformed understand worship in terms of Heb.12:22ff. There is a book on worship written by a Lutheran theologian titled, "Heaven on Earth." The Reformed man looks at the same verse and asks, "What is the direction of travel?" In worship we have been brought to heaven, according to v22.

For Luther and the Lutherans, the nearness of Christ to them in worship, especially in the sacrament, is very precious. It is the best way they understand Jesus' promise, "Lo, I am with you alway." Christ (they understand) has come down to them in, with, and under the sacrament, even in his body. And some of them mock us, that we, Reformed, have "the real absence" of Christ.

For the Reformed, the nearness of Christ to us in worship is an exercise of Holy Spirit's energy upon the believers, raising us up to be seated with Christ in the heavenlies, Eph2:6. The manner of our attendance in the heavenly courts (Ps.100:4) is visually rather mundane; because it takes the eyes of faith to understand the foretaste of glory into which we are transported. Ps.122:1-4 is our song of ascents.

A Song of Ascents. Of David.
I was glad when they said to me, "Let us go to the house of the LORD!"
Our feet have been standing within your gates, O Jerusalem!
Jerusalem—built as a city that is bound firmly together,
to which the tribes go up, the tribes of the LORD, as was decreed for Israel, to give thanks to the name of the LORD.​

One big reason why the Reformed have no real love for the ornate in worship (not that we bless tastelessness) is because all that tricks the eyes of our heads with religious iconography, smells, bells, glitter, and all--is a distraction from the action. The glories of the Mosaic Covenant had a blinding, as well as a pedagogical function, according to 2Cor.3:7ff. Now, all the distraction of earthly glory has been stripped away. All we have to glory in is the cross, Gal.6:14.

Christ's presence with us in the world is by and through his Holy Spirit. We do acknowledge the bodily absence of our dear Lord, but not his Spiritual absence. He actually left us when he was lifted up before our eyes, and the clouds received him out of our sight. That means he's gone, bodily. But he kept his promise, and sent us his Spirit.

And now, that Spirit brings us week by week, "in the Spirit on the Lord's Day," as close as we can possibly be to the bodily presence of our Lord, by means of worship. And when we partake of the Supper, it is Jesus who hands over to us his bread and wine, by which we partake of him spiritually in body and blood. This is what it means to us to sit with him, and sup with him "in his kingdom." There is but one small step between us, and that even richer reality that he promises lies waiting just beyond that gauze. Can't you see it? Don't you want to finish your journey?

Sometimes, you know, right after you read the love letter, or hang up the phone, absence does make the heart grow fonder. Your Savior's Supper (even all the means of grace) is a better communion than every human work. And properly used it makes us long for what is not yet within our grasp.

 

[oeco]

Great answer, Bruce, and great question as well, OP. I have found, in my experience, that the average person in the pew on a Sunday morning will probably be closer to Zwingli rather than Calvin, Luther or Dabney et al. I know before I started reading that I probably was.

 

[joebonni63]

these are great answers wow a lot study was put into this. Here is my take on this communion is a very special part of our faith is it not......

Ok here it is...........

Catholics - believe is actual body and blood of Christ

Luther - believed that Christ is present during communion

Zwingli - communion is like a pledge or memorial

Calvin - believed it was the memory of Christ passion
therefore Calvin is the winner.

it can't be the actual body and blood even as a non-believer that just sounds wrong. but communion is not to be taken lightly do to the warning in 1 cor that you are taking on judgment if you are in a sinful life style.

I would agree with oeco that most people fall into Zwingli's position ...........

 

[aadebayo]

these are great answers wow a lot study was put into this. Here is my take on this communion is a very special part of our faith is it not......

Ok here it is...........

Catholics - believe is actual body and blood of Christ

Luther - believed that Christ is present during communion

Zwingli - communion is like a pledge or memorial

Calvin - believed it was the memory of Christ passion
therefore Calvin is the winner.

it can't be the actual body and blood even as a non-believer that just sounds wrong. but communion is not to be taken lightly do to the warning in 1 cor that you are taking on judgment if you are in a sinful life style.

I would agree with oeco that most people fall into Zwingli's position ...........

I subscribe to Calvin's view, though Zwingli has much truth too.

 

[joebonni63]

these are great answers wow a lot study was put into this. Here is my take on this communion is a very special part of our faith is it not......

Ok here it is...........

Catholics - believe is actual body and blood of Christ

Luther - believed that Christ is present during communion

Zwingli - communion is like a pledge or memorial

Calvin - believed it was the memory of Christ passion
therefore Calvin is the winner.

it can't be the actual body and blood even as a non-believer that just sounds wrong. but communion is not to be taken lightly do to the warning in 1 cor that you are taking on judgment if you are in a sinful life style.

I would agree with oeco that most people fall into Zwingli's position ...........

I subscribe to Calvin's view, though Zwingli has much truth too.

no totally that's why your original point was so valid........

 

[psycheives]

Bruce, thank you so much for such a detailed response! I SUPER appreciate it. Great background info and this should help give me direction in comparing the views further. Thank you!!!!

 

[yeutter]

A helpful resource for understanding the Lutheran position [besides wading through The Book of Concord] is to consult Mueller's Christian Dogmatics
Some primary resources for understanding Zwingli are the 1523 Sixty-Seven Articles of Huldrych Zwingli, and A Short Christian Instruction, Sent By The Honorable Council Of The City Of Zurich, and Zwingli's 1530 Fidei Ratio

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Well, someone's got to be the naysayer sometimes. I, too, am not a Zwinglian scholar as such, but in my M.Div. thesis I had occasion to study his viewpoints, or rather, discovered Calvin's opinion of the man and his beliefs (in the opening preface to the Consensus Tigurinus)

"f the two excellent doctors, Zuinglius and Oecolompadius, who were known to be faithful servants of Jesus Christ, were still alive, they would not change one word in our doctrine."

The Consensus Tigurinus is an interesting read. It was a short confession to help unify the Calvinists and the second generation Zwinglians.

After outlining the history of debate between Luther and Zwingli, Calvin contends that Zwingli‘s true view of the Supper was obscured by his focused attack upon anything that hinted at sacerdotalism: "The other party [Zwingli] also offended, in being so bent on declaiming against the superstitious and fanatical opinion of the Papists…that they labored more to pull down what was evil than to build up what was good; for though they did not deny the truth, they did not teach it so clearly as they ought to have done." [emphasis added] ―A Short Treatise…, Tracts Part 2, 184.

Again:
"I had said, that Oecolompadius and Zuinglius were induced by the best of reasons, nay, compelled by urgent necessity, to refute a gross error which had
long before become inveterate and was connected with impious idolatry, but that while intent on this one object, they, as often happens in debate, lost sight of another. This passage Westphal endeavors to blacken, as if I had said, that they contended for the empty symbols, without thinking that the reality was combined with them. This is the reason why he asks pardon for using my own testimony against me." (286, Tract Part 2: ―Second Defense Of The Pious And Orthodox Faith Concerning The Sacraments, In Answer To The Calumnies Of Joachim Westphal,‖ Selected Works of John Calvin. Vol. 2, Tracts Part 2. Albany: AGES Digital Library, 1998.)

"When Westphal invidiously says, that Zuinglius left nothing in respect of substance but bread and wine, it is easy to answer, that he was only contending against a carnal presence, which we are determined to oppose with our last breath." (Ibid, 287)

Peter Martyr was of a similar mindset while differentiating himself from the Roman Catholics and Lutherans, asserting: "For I know for a fact that in his books Zwingli considers the signs in this sacrament to be far from empty or useless, as we said above…" The Oxford Treatise…, 121

Three respected theologians contend that Zwingli was not a mere memorialist: Herman Hoeksema‘s Dogmatic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Reformed
Free Publishing Association, 1976), 719. Translated by Ronald Hanko. Also,Berkhof, p. 653. And Hodge deals with Zwingli at length, p. 626, with more evidence.

I'll end with Calvin's words about how to deal with disagreements among Calvinists about the Supper:

"Meanwhile it should satisfy us…that all agree in so far as is necessary for meeting together…that on receiving the sacrament in faith [we receive Christ‘s body and blood]…How that is done some may deduce better, and explain more clearly than others…on the one hand…we must raise our hearts upwards to
heaven, not thinking that our Lord Jesus is so debased as to be enclosed under some corruptible elements…on the other hand, not to impair the efficacy of this holy ordinance, we must hold [its efficaciousness by the Spirit]…." ("A Short Treatise…", Tracts Part 2, 185ff.)

 

[Peairtach]

If I remember rightly from my reading of the Institutes, Calvin seems to forget that we receive Christ's broken body and shed blood in the sacrament. I.e. Christ is not particularly ministering by His Spirit His body as it is presently in Heaven to us, but is ministering to us His death and all the benefits that flow from that - including that one day we will be in His near physical presence.

The Lord's Supper is a spiritual sacrificial meal in symbols which replaces the sacrificial meal of the Passover. The sacrifice itself was completed almost 2,000 years ago. The benefits of that sacrifice are ministered to us by Christ through the Holy Spirit. At the Supper, they are ministered to us in a special way.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Captain Picard]

I really have to say that as Calvinists, we should be educating people about the traditional understanding among Calvin and the heirs of his legacy regarding the supper. Just because the majority of American evangelicals have a Zwingli-ite understanding, I don't think that means we should just let that be the prevailing doctrinal wind.

 

[aadebayo]

I really have to say that as Calvinists, we should be educating people about the traditional understanding among Calvin and the heirs of his legacy regarding the supper. Just because the majority of American evangelicals have a Zwingli-ite understanding, I don't think that means we should just let that be the prevailing doctrinal wind.

I conpletely agree. Our role is to educate, it is the Holy spirit that gives understanding, though we are all accountable to God for what we believe.

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

Ronald S. Wallace, Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament.

William M. Blackburn, Ulrich Zwingli. – You'll get a sense of how late 19th-century Presbyterians were thinking about Zwingli and the Lord's Supper, especially chapter 20.

Peter J. Wallace has an informative article on Hodge's view of the Lord's Supper:
"History and Sacrament: Nevin and Hodge on the Lord's Supper."

 

[Captain Picard]

Googling Ryan's above article for y'all yields this. Might read it and comment later. History and Sacrament