# Lord's Table - Zwingli and Calvin



## Adam Olive (Dec 26, 2019)

How would you state the difference in Zwingli and Calvin's views simply to someone less familiar with the Reformation era's controversies?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 26, 2019)

This does not cover all aspects of your question (it is a big topic), but I made this comment a few months ago. 


Stephen L Smith said:


> On the Lord's supper Luther and Zwingli agreed on a number of points but could not agree on our Lord's words "this *is* my body." Luther was a hot head and some suggest he had a mental illness. But it seems to me this was a key point on which they broke fellowship.
> 
> Before Luther died, he read a treatise of Calvin on the Lord's supper, and said to his friend Melanchthon "in the matter of the sacrament we have gone too far. Pray do something about this after my death". Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in one of his lectures on the Puritans, describes it as a pathetic situation.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 26, 2019)

Zwingli's position appears (justly) to be a reduction of the Supper to a *bare* memorial, a time of reflection and a commemoration but not an event of immediate spiritual engagement between the man of faith and God himself.

Luther, again I think justly, perceived this about Zwingli's position; although, given the extent of the areas and questions on which the two men agreed it does seem to us (at a great remove from the moment at Marburg) to have been a regrettable (but perhaps unavoidable) impasse.

By way of comparison, imagine if the NAPARC was in a negotiation for membership with a FV denomination, and it seemed as if there was quite a bit of overlap in the doctrinal commitments of both sides, right up to the question of whether justification is past-over-and-done for the believer, or whether it has a component end-of-life evaluation. Just one thing, but a deal-breaker. That's how Luther viewed the importance of the Supper.

Calvin seems to have appreciated Luther's concern. He also seems not to have judged Zwingli as harshly for his lack of sophistication. Lutherans now as then have a tendency to opine that their view is "simply the Bible," and those who disagree with them are in debt to philosophy; but in truth the Lutheran view is simply disguising its own sophistication.

Zwingli's view is the "least sophisticated," and suffers for it, when compared to either Calvin's or Luther's. Zwingli maintained a naive impression of the sacraments generally, and the Supper in particular. And in this, he anticipated the later drift of the anabaptists (and successors) and the Socinians. The "unsophisticated" view is that which simply reckons with the Supper as it is visible to the eye in the current historical hour. How can it be anything other than an "anniversary" of sorts?

This is not Calvin's view, even as the Lutherans make no (modern) distinction between one "Reformed" view and another. Calvin laid an emphasis on an actual (real) spiritual feeding, obtaining nourishment _from Christ_ in his Person through the repeated event of the Supper. Where Calvin gave room to Zwingli (as he sought a viable via media) was that he denied (where Luther and his camp maintained) that there was a carnal partaking by the mouth of the Savior's flesh.

So, the common opinion of Calvin and Zwingli is that there is no carnal eating and drinking of the body and blood of the Lord; but where they differ is that Calvin maintained there was an actual (real) spiritual eating and drinking. The Lutherans maintained that both a carnal and a spiritual eating and drinking was absolutely necessary to affirm (and preferred to break fellowship wherever their opinion was not regarded as sacrosanct).

In other words, Calvin agreed with the Lutherans that *what *was being consumed was vital to affirm (while he did not execrate the memorialist view), namely the true body and blood of the Lord; but he did not agree with the Lutherans that the *mode* of reception was equally as vital to affirm. The memorialist view (Zwinglian) cannot affirm that *what* is consumed is the true body and blood; hence the *mode *is of no consequence; or rather they affirm only a carnal mode of reception of nothing but bread and wine.

As a final note, it seems evident that the Calvinist opinion had some impact on the Lutherans (and possibly Luther himself, although I doubt the version of his concession that is given in Stephen's post). But that impact was shown primarily in a reaction to the Reformed's "spiritual feeding" emphasis, which the Lutherans sought to subsume into their own view. At the same time as they affirm (with us) what they should not deny, the defining Lutheran affirmation of the carnal eating of the substance of Christ's body and blood is couched in impenetrable mystery.

In other words, Lutherans adopt all the Calvinist "spiritual feeding" as their own view--which was nearly their whole opinion of the undivided expression maintained as expressive of their carnal feeding against the memorialists; and yet they maintain the carnal feeding as an ineffable yet necessary affirmation, in order to distinguish them from the (despised) Reformed for daring to disagree with them. "How" worshippers partake of the carnal body and blood is by them practically left unanswered (since it is evidently a spiritually-carnal use), being treated according to the Lutheran interpretation of the _communicatio idiomatum, _i.e. the properties of each nature possessed by Christ. As Calvin supposedly put it in frustration, the mode of partaking as opposed to the substance partaken of was made by them into the primary issue of fellowship.

Luther accused Zwingli of being of a different spirit entirely, on account of his unwillingness or inability to permit the reality of a mystical element of the Christian faith in a Christian ritual (a sacrament). If we can pardon Zwingli we should, for his absolute overreaction to the mystical fog which defined medieval Rome's piety. The RCC had choked their chapels and cathedrals with blinding clouds of the incense of "strange fire." No wonder some would-be reformers felt it would be better and possibly more faithful to have no shred of the mystical left in the church.

Luther thought it best to maintain whatever was beneficial (even mystical) in the church, if it could be kept without doing offense to the truth. Calvin thought it best to get rid of everything that was not ordained by God, but keep whatever God ordained (even mystical) in the church, as necessary to maintain the truth.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 2


----------



## Adam Olive (Dec 27, 2019)

Thanks Bruce I appreciate the time taken to respond with a very clear explanation.


Contra_Mundum said:


> So, the common opinion of Calvin and Zwingli is that there is no carnal eating and drinking of the body and blood of the Lord; but where they differ is that Calvin maintained there was an actual (real) spiritual eating and drinking.


To say that a spiritual eating/drinking is negatively not the physical consumption of flesh and blood in the mouth is clear. But how would you personally positively describe spiritual eating/drinking? 
e.g. as we express our faith by taking part in the Table, the Spirit works in us strengthening us in our spirit in faith and applying the benefits of Jesus' death and resurrection. 
Hmm... I'm not sure my statement is clear and simple. 
How do you describe *spiritual* eating/drinking?


----------



## Adam Olive (Dec 27, 2019)

Would Zwingli not have thought the Spirit works to strengthen us in someway as we partake? Or is it just a memorial that benefits us by remembering but God doesn't actually do anything in us.


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 27, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> This does not cover all aspects of your question (it is a big topic), but I made this comment a few months ago.


By any chance did Lloyd-Jones name the source for this?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 27, 2019)

Adam Olive said:


> To say that a spiritual eating/drinking is negatively not the physical consumption of flesh and blood in the mouth is clear. But how would you personally positively describe spiritual eating/drinking?
> e.g. as we express our faith by taking part in the Table, the Spirit works in us strengthening us in our spirit in faith and applying the benefits of Jesus' death and resurrection.
> Hmm... I'm not sure my statement is clear and simple.
> How do you describe *spiritual* eating/drinking?


There are times when a negative is all that can be said of the truth, and so the position is defined against one which positively states an error. So, my first counsel is not to disparage definition-by-denial as if intrinsically unworthy.

The spiritual communion we have with the true body and blood of the Savior is *not *carnal, not: as if Christ in the Supper is between our teeth and without such having he is not had. If this be all we might say, or possess the knowledge to say, it would be correct to maintain it; leaving the rest to the realm of mystery.

But as surely as the carnal bread nourishes my carnal body, and by the act of faithful partaking (affirming the sacramental union of sign and signification according to Christ's own appointment); just as surely does Christ feed and nourish my soul with his spiritual essence, the _virtue_ of his body-and-blood presence and reality in the power of his resurrection (1Cor.15:44; Rom.1:4; Php.3:10), an effect and expression of our full-and-complete (body and soul) union with Christ.

And we may as well distinguish from the memorialist view that simply looks back at the First Supper, and ponders its meaning and reverberations into the present. And instead: reckon with our own invitation to sit down and sup with Jesus and his disciples (and the rest ever since) as he, presiding, passes us the bread and cup also (his ministers being his serving hands in our midst). Our Supper is whole-cloth with the First Supper, and Jesus is our host still, by his Spirit.

It's not that here or there or then is the one-millionth commemoration or the two-thousandth anniversary of the Lord's Supper in the world; but that in our sitting we are joining with the original celebrants, and are joining the inaugural New Covenant meal.

By way of comparison, remember what Moses said to the second generation of the Exodus, who were about to enter the land: "The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive," Dt.5:3. The fathers to whom he refers are the first generation of the Exodus; and they _were _the ones who personally and bodily made covenant at the foot of Sinai.

Moses is not confused here; he's using hyperbole to emphasize that the people of this new generation are standing _in the Spirit _with their parents not so much on the plains of Moab, but at the foot of Sinai. Theirs is no new oath (as Jehovah himself makes no new oath again), I'd say not even a renewal strictly speaking; but the later generation adds a fresh vocal harmonic to the rumble of the thousands swearing the original oath.

So then, the fellowship we have with _Jesus-in-the-flesh _at our Suppers is comparable with the experience the original disciples had with _Jesus-by-their-side_ at the First Supper. The differences are 1) that we must look with the eyes of faith to see what they saw with their carnal eyes; and 2) our ability to reach over and touch our dear Lord is mediated 100% by the bread and cup which he passes to us. We are _this close _to heaven and the Supper of the Lamb at our Communion meal, but still we aren't in heaven yet.

No simple memorialist view regards the Lord's Supper as the believer's actual occasional drawing on his benefits of union with Christ for nourishment in this special manner. No simple memorialist view regards the Supper as the active engagement of the present day participant in the singular event of New Covenant inauguration.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 27, 2019)

In _Given for You_, Keith Mathison has an excellent discussion regarding the Reformer's views on the Lord's Supper. Robert Letham also has a good discussion in his little book on the topic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 28, 2019)

It is always helpful to have some primary sources when discussing someone's theological stance. Below are two quotes from Zwingli and Calvin. They are both commenting on 1 Cor. 11:24

THE LORD’S SUPPER IS A COMMEMORATION OF Christ’S DEATH. HULDRYCH ZWINGLI:_ Paul repeats the exact words of Christ, where it is clear (if we pay close attention) that we are not given his body in memory of his body, but bread [in memory of his body]. Now it is by metonymy that the bread is called his body and the wine his blood, by which the name of a thing assumes a symbolic figure and a designated sign. Since excellent books have been written about this matter, it is not necessary to write more here. Therefore this is the sense of the words “Take, eat, this is my body,” that is, “this represents my body, or is a remembrance of my body, which is given for you.” For it immediately follows, “Do this in remembrance of me.” By this clause we perceive that this eating should not be understood as a feeding on the body of Christ for the strengthening of our soul or faith, but as a commemoration. ANNOTATIONS ON 1 CORINTHIANS 11:24.30_

_Manetsch, Scott M., Timothy George, and David W. McNutt, eds. 1 Corinthians: New Testament. IXa. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017. Print. Reformation Commentary on Scripture._


BELIEVERS FEED ON Christ’S BODY IN HEAVEN. JOHN CALVIN: _Let it be beyond controversy that Christ is speaking about the bread in this passage. Now we ask, in what sense? In order to arrive at the meaning, we must insist that the expression is figurative—for a person would have to be exceedingly wicked to deny that. Why then is the term “body” attributed to the bread? Everyone, I think, would agree that for the same reason John calls the Holy Spirit a dove. Thus far we are agreed. Further, the reason the Spirit was so-called was that he appeared under the form of a dove. Therefore the name Spirit is transferred to the visible sign. Why, then, should we not say that metonym is used in this passage in a similar fashion, and that the term body is attributed to the bread, because it is a sign and symbol of the body?… And so I take it as a settled point, that this is a sacramental way of speaking, when the Lord applies to the sign the name of the thing signified.
We must now proceed further and ask the reason for the metonym. My answer is that the name of the thing signified is not only applied to the sign because it represents it, but even more because it is a symbol by which the reality is presented to us. For I do not agree with those comparisons that some people borrow from secular or earthly things. The statue of Hercules is called Hercules, but what is this other than a bare and empty representation? But the dove is called the Spirit, because it is a certain pledge of the presence of the invisible Spirit. Therefore the bread is the body of Christ, because it testifies with certainty that the body it represents is offered to us.… Accordingly, it appears incontrovertible to me that the reality is here joined to the sign; that is, we really do become partakers in the body of Christ (as far as spiritual power is concerned) when we eat the bread.…
I conclude that Christ’s body is really (as people commonly say)—that is, truly—given to us in the Supper as health-giving food for our souls. I am using the common expression, but my meaning is that our souls are fed on the substance of his body so that we are truly made one with him. Or, what amounts to the same thing, that a life-giving power from the flesh of Christ is poured into us by the Spirit, even though [his flesh] is a great distance from us and not mixed with us.…
But that participation in the Lord’s body that (I maintain) is presented to us in the Supper does not demand a local presence, nor the descent of Christ, nor an infinite extension, nor anything of that sort. For since the Supper is a heavenly act, there is nothing absurd in saying that Christ, while remaining in heaven, is received by us. For the way that he communicates himself to us is by the secret power of the Holy Spirit, a power that is not only able to bring together, but also to join together, things that are separated by distance and are far from one other. _COMMENTARY ON 1 CORINTHIANS 11:24.31


Manetsch, Scott M., Timothy George, and David W. McNutt, eds. 1 Corinthians: New Testament. IXa. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017. Print. Reformation Commentary on Scripture.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 28, 2019)

Below is a short article discussing Calvin and Zwingli's doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/calvins-doctrine-lords-supper/


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 28, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> By any chance did Lloyd-Jones name the source for this?


No. The comments came from Dr Lloyd-Jones 1969 lecture "Can we learn from history" in his book on the Puritans.

Lloyd-Jones points out something I found quite interesting. When Luther said to his friend Melanchthon "in the matter of the sacrament we have gone too far. Pray do something about this after my death", Luther had been reading Calvin's book "A little treatise on the Holy Supper of our Lord".


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Dec 28, 2019)

William Cunningham also has a lengthy discussion on the Reformers and the Lord's Supper in _The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation_. You can read it free below:
https://www.monergism.com/reformers-and-theology-reformation-ebook

Here is the section on Zwingli and the sacraments:
https://www.monergism.com/zwingli-and-doctrine-sacraments


----------

