Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A curious question, Rev Keister: do you hold to Zwingli's take on communion?
A curious question, Rev Keister: do you hold to Zwingli's take on communion?
Curious is not the word I would use to describe your question. I would use the word churlish.
Lane is a minister in good standing in a Church whose Sacramental views are not Zwinglian. If you have a specific clarification that you wish to be made then ask but don't obliquely ask a man if he's taken an exception that would strike at our fundamentals.
Agreed. All I wanted to ascertain was whether or not Rev. Lane (and others who oppose intinction) happened to hold a symbolic view of communion as opposed to the view taken that there is a true grace administered with the Sacraments a la Calvin, as people in the Reformed camp are not necessarily monolithic on this (thus Zwingli and Calvin, both Reformed).A curious question, Rev Keister: do you hold to Zwingli's take on communion?
Curious is not the word I would use to describe your question. I would use the word churlish.
Lane is a minister in good standing in a Church whose Sacramental views are not Zwinglian. If you have a specific clarification that you wish to be made then ask but don't obliquely ask a man if he's taken an exception that would strike at our fundamentals.
Did not the good Rev. Winzer defend Zwingi's view as essentially Reformed? Or are you distinguishing between Zwingli and the Zwinglianists?
The Lord's Supper - Zwingli's View Question
Zwingli's View of the Lord's Supper?
I doubt that Mr. Dean meant to impugn Rev. Keister, even if his question was "curious."
In answer to previous inquiries, I hold to Calvin's position on the spiritual presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper. Interestingly, Zwingli's views are not as iron-shod as they are often portrayed to be. For instance, I have heard (though not examined the sources themselves), that Zwingli, later in life, came much closer to Calvin's position than his earlier work.
In answer to Ben, my comments were geared entirely towards lowering the temperature of a debate that has, on the internet, at least, been involved in blatant misreading of motives (see ByFaith magazine comments for a good example). In particular, proponents of intinction have been levelling the charge of legalism against their opponents, a ridiculous charge, to be sure, but one well calculated to raise the emotional temperature of the debate. My purpose in the comments in the introduction were therefore to open people's minds (Lord-willing) to talking about the historical, exegetical and systematic concerns raised there, and hopefully to get people's minds off the motive-reading and name-calling of the internet debates. Plus, I am not going to leave the PCA if the PCA decides to allow intinction with no repercussions. This is not a hill on which I am willing to die. I am willing to die on the theistic evolution hill, on the Federal Vision hill, on the doctrine of Scripture hill, but not on the intinction hill.
In answer to previous inquiries, I hold to Calvin's position on the spiritual presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper. Interestingly, Zwingli's views are not as iron-shod as they are often portrayed to be. For instance, I have heard (though not examined the sources themselves), that Zwingli, later in life, came much closer to Calvin's position than his earlier work.
In answer to Ben, my comments were geared entirely towards lowering the temperature of a debate that has, on the internet, at least, been involved in blatant misreading of motives (see ByFaith magazine comments for a good example). In particular, proponents of intinction have been levelling the charge of legalism against their opponents, a ridiculous charge, to be sure, but one well calculated to raise the emotional temperature of the debate. My purpose in the comments in the introduction were therefore to open people's minds (Lord-willing) to talking about the historical, exegetical and systematic concerns raised there, and hopefully to get people's minds off the motive-reading and name-calling of the internet debates. Plus, I am not going to leave the PCA if the PCA decides to allow intinction with no repercussions. This is not a hill on which I am willing to die. I am willing to die on the theistic evolution hill, on the Federal Vision hill, on the doctrine of Scripture hill, but not on the intinction hill.
I don't understand the last sentence. Isn't it obvious that practitioners of intinction aren't offended at the common cup since that is what they almost universally use?Given what happened at the Orlando General Assembly, when people could not partake of the Lord's Supper because of conscience issues, it seems difficult to argue that intinction preserves unity in our denomination. How is intinction, therefore, a symbol of unity when many people cannot partake of Communion in that manner? This could only be the author's impression, but it seems to me that very few practitioners of intinction in the PCA are actually offended at the common cup, or think it wrong.
Did not the good Rev. Winzer defend Zwingi's view as essentially Reformed?
Joel, my paper was published online for the first time on Tuesday. I seriously doubt that there is any reply out there this quickly. The only modern defense of the practice I know of is the Grigg-Smith paper, noted in my paper, aside from Rae Whitlock's response to the Ohio Presbytery report, and the Henry Smith piece from the Southeast Alabama Presbytery. None of these are full-blown defenses of the practice. The Grigg-Smith is the longest, is out of print, and argues nothing from Scripture. Rae's piece argues a few points from Scripture, but is more of a response to the Ohio Presbytery report rather than a full-blown defense of the practice. I don't know of any full defense of intinction. If you read the chapter on intinction in the Freestone book, you will find a 12th century defense of the practice, written by Ernulph, bishop of Rochester (look on pages 157ff). The Freestone book is available on Google books.
Did not the good Rev. Winzer defend Zwingi's view as essentially Reformed?
There is none good but one!
I understood the question of Mr. Dean to require something unique in Zwingli's view, which is counter-productive to what I wrote concerning Zwingli. If Mr. Dean does not think there is something distinctive in Zwingli's view, with a hint that Rev. Keister might share that distinctive, why draw attention to it in the first place?
I will defend Zwingli's view of the Supper as basically the same as the Reformed with respect to the nature and instrumentality of the sacrament, but would also accept the Reformed view, as expressed in the WCF, has the advantage of hindsight and mature deliberation. So, formally, I would not say Zwingli's is the Reformed view, though there is much that is materially common.
Can you show me in the WCF where the Zwinglian view is present?Agreed. All I wanted to ascertain was whether or not Rev. Lane (and others who oppose intinction) happened to hold a symbolic view of communion as opposed to the view taken that there is a true grace administered with the Sacraments a la Calvin, as people in the Reformed camp are not necessarily monolithic on this (thus Zwingli and Calvin, both Reformed).
Perhaps "esteemed" is more accurate, Rev. Winzer! I hope I did not misrepresent what you wrote. I agree that you were pointing to a basic unity between the positions while Mr. Dean's question was premised on the existence of significant differences. I was just questioning whether "Zwingi" means "out of bounds."
Perhaps "esteemed" is more accurate, Rev. Winzer! I hope I did not misrepresent what you wrote. I agree that you were pointing to a basic unity between the positions while Mr. Dean's question was premised on the existence of significant differences. I was just questioning whether "Zwingi" means "out of bounds."
That's OK; wires are easily crossed on these kinds of threads. My reading of Zwingli leads me to believe that he would not be out of bounds; however, in popular theology, Zwingli is regarded as holding something less than the Reformed position, so identification with his supposed position -- i.e., mere memorialism without -- would obviously be out of bounds. I hope that clarifies. Blessings!
I was thinking that it might be illustrated by another controversy. There is no doubt that Nestorianism is a heresy, though quite a few scholars have questioned whether Nestorius was actually a Nestorian. In the same way, it might turn out that Zwingli's position is distinguishable from Zwinglianism - but within Reformed communions there can be no doubt that Zwinglianism is an error. The historical question of the particular theologian's views, in other words, is distinguishable from the theological question of which view is correct.
The Westminster Standards issue- At last year's General Assembly, many people voted against the amendment on the basis of their belief that our standards (both the Westminster Standards and our Book of Church Order) were already clear in forbidding the practice. I would strongly dispute this, for two reasons. Firstly, intinction was not practiced anywhere in Christendom except for the Greek Orthodox Church at the time of the Westminster Assembly. The Greek Orthodox were hardly regular targets of the divines' polemics. Although there would be a few of the divines who might have known about the practice, it was definitely not on the radar screen at the time of the Assembly. Secondly, if our standards are so crystal clear, then why are we having this debate? And why are some churches practicing intinction?
The paper gives a strong exegetical presentation and is to be commended on that account. Historically, however, there are two points of concern. First, Antiquaries have merely assumed a paedo-communion reference in Cyprian and paedo-communion advocates have laid claim to it. Careful reading of the sources demonstrates that there is no actual observance of it; and if that is the case there could be no basis for a mode of celebrating the communion based upon the practice, contrary to a suggestion made in the paper. Secondly, it matters not if a Greek orthodox practice was a target of the Westminster divines. The fact is, the mode of receiving communion was intricately debated after the Elizabethan Settlement, as a result of polemic against Romanism on the one hand and Puritan dissent on the other. These debates directly contributed to the final formulation of the Westminster Standards relative to the practice of the Lord's supper, to the effect that those Standards must be regarded as positively rejecting inconsistent modes of administration even though such modes are not explicitly barred.
As an aside, the common cup is part of the Reformed communion rite, which warrants a more cautious handling of the point.