Lutherans & the Lord's Supper

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Peter,

For what it's worth, I copied some sections of the Formula of Concord below and I think they show clearly that while there is much we as Reformed can say "amen" to, unless we are willing to confess a local, corporal presence, we are not in agreement with the Lutherans. I think the Lutherans address the question of Reformed folks claiming we confess the same doctrine in section 3, 4 & 5 below:

3] For the explanation of this controversy it is to be noted in the beginning that there are two kinds of Sacramentarians. Some are gross Sacramentarians, who declare in plain (_deutschen_), clear words as they believe in their hearts, that in the Holy Supper nothing but bread and wine is present, and distributed and received with the mouth.
4] Others, however, are subtle Sacramentarians, and the most injurious of all, who partly speak very speciously in our own words, and pretend that they also believe a true presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, however, that

5] this occurs spiritually through faith. Nevertheless they retain under these specious words precisely the former gross opinion, namely, that in the Holy Supper nothing is present and received with the mouth except bread and wine. For with them the word spiritually means nothing else than the Spirit of Christ or the power of the absent body of Christ and His merit, which is present; but the body of Christ is in no mode or way present, except only above in the highest heaven, to which we should elevate ourselves into heaven by the thoughts of our faith, and there, not at all, however, in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, should seek this body and blood [of Christ].

_AFFIRMATIVA._

Confession of the Pure Doctrine concerning the Holy Supper against the Sacramentarians.

6] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, and are truly distributed and received with the bread and wine.

7] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the testament of Christ are not to be understood otherwise than as they read, according to the letter, so that the bread does not signify the absent body and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that, on account of the sacramental union, they [the bread and wine] are truly the body and blood of Christ.

8] 3. Now, as to the consecration, we believe, teach, and confess that no work of man or recitation of the minister [of the church] produces this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that this is to be ascribed only and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9] 4. But at the same time we also believe, teach, and confess unanimously that in the use of the Holy Supper the words of the institution of Christ should in no way be omitted, but should be publicly recited, as it is written 1 Cor. 10, 16: The cup of blessing which we bless, etc. This blessing occurs through the recitation of the words of Christ.

10] 5. The grounds, however, on which we stand against the
Sacramentarians in this matter are those which Dr. Luther has laid down in his Large Confession concerning the Lord's Supper.

The first is this article 11] of our Christian faith: Jesus Christ is true,
essential, natural, perfect God and man in one person, undivided and
inseparable.

12] The second: That God's right hand is everywhere; at which Christ is placed in deed and in truth according to His human nature, [and therefore] being present, rules, and has in His hands and beneath His feet everything that is in heaven and on earth [as Scripture says, Eph. 1, 22], where no man else, nor angel, but only the Son of Mary is placed; hence He can do this [those things which we have said].

13] The third: That God's Word is not false, and does not deceive.

14] The fourth: That God has and knows of various modes of being in any place, and not only the one [is not bound to the one] which philosophers call _localis_ (local) for circumscribed].

15] 6. We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14, 23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10, 16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify.


_NEGATIVA._


26] 5. That in the Holy Supper the body of Christ is not received orally
with the bread; but that with the mouth only bread and wine are received, the body of Christ, however, only spiritually by faith.

27] 6. That the bread and wine in the Holy Supper are nothing more than [symbols or] tokens by which Christians recognize one another.

28] 7. That the bread and wine are only figures, similitudes, and
representations of the far absent body and blood of Christ.

29] 8. That the bread and wine are no more than a memorial, seal, and pledge, through which we are assured that when faith elevates itself to heaven, it there becomes partaker of the body and blood of Christ as truly as we eat bread and drink wine in the Supper.

30] 9. That the assurance and confirmation of our faith [concerning
salvation] in the Holy Supper occur through the external signs of bread and wine alone, and not through the true, [verily] present body and blood of Christ.

31] 10. That in the Holy Supper only the power, efficacy, and merit of the absent body and blood of Christ are distributed.

32] 11. That the body of Christ is so enclosed in heaven that it can in no way be at once and at one time in many or all places upon earth where His Holy Supper is celebrated.

33] 12. That Christ has not promised, neither could have effected, the
essential presence of His body and blood in the Holy Supper, because the nature and property of His assumed human nature cannot suffer nor permit it.

34] 13. That God, according to [even by] all His omnipotence (which is
dreadful to hear), is not able to cause His body to be essentially present in more than one place at one time.

35] 14. That not the omnipotent words of Christ's testament, but faith, produces and makes [is the cause of] the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper.

36] 15. That believers must not seek the body [and blood] of Christ in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, but raise their eyes from the bread to heaven and there seek the body of Christ.
 
what is the difference between consubstanation, and transubstantion.

And from what you are describing here with the physical presence of the *body* of Christ, it sounds much like the view of what the CC teaches as well.

Thanks for the welcome.

I think Adam answered your question quite well.

BTW, what is "the CC"?
 
:ditto: Yet didn't Calvin sign the Formula Concord?

Really? I know it was about 1580, but I'd never heard Calvin signing it. This is a new item to me. Can it be verified?
 
Originally posted by AdamM
The Formula of Concord specifically rejects the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper. The bottom line issue between Lutherans and Reformed is over local, corporal presence.

I'm not disagreeing, but think we need to add something to this.

The local, corporal presence is specifically the *human* nature of Christ. Reformed equally assert the local, corporal, ubiquitous presence of the divine nature. There's no issue there. But it boils down to a question regarding the human nature.
 
Originally posted by Globachio
:ditto: Yet didn't Calvin sign the Formula Concord?

Really? I know it was about 1580, but I'd never heard Calvin signing it. This is a new item to me. Can it be verified?

I think (I stand to be corrected) that the Formula of Concord was drawn up around 1577. Calvin could not have signed it since he passed from the affairs of this world in the year 1564. He did sign The Augsburg Confession.

DTK
 
The local, corporal presence is specifically the *human* nature of Christ. Reformed equally assert the local, corporal, ubiquitous presence of the divine nature. There's no issue there. But it boils down to a question regarding the human nature.

In my meager lay person understanding this has been the conclusion I've come to. Sad in a way because what I've found coming from the out side in (atheist>Christian conversion>reformed) was the refreshing and complete strengthening of my faith that both sides view on this in the communication of Grace via the Supper. It is a far cry from empty versions that I experienced and endured on the more so called "evangelical" side during many many many terrors of my soul, assurance and a plethora of altar calls, this and that "other means of grace" works, "sincerity of my praying the prayer" and so forth. You know all those inward curving false means of grace.

I tend to agree with M. Horton that there is more together than apart on this given the "wider" view of the Lord's table in today's climate.

When my wife and I were looking for a new church I told her, "I'm more reformed in my other doctrines", but I'll join ANY church that communicates Christ to me afresh in Word, baptism and the Lord's Table.

The greater point I think is, "Does the denomination's view bear witness to the Gospel in the Sacraments", because I'm here to tell you those outside of Reformed (broadly) and Lutheran circles do not. AND that is why many of us have come into either of the two camps - our souls hunger for Christ.

My plead to both Lutheran's and Reformed (which I now belong among) would be this: Keep the Gospel and the Cross highest in your denomination, because 'He aint there' in most others.

Grace and peace,

Larry

[Edited on 12-4-2005 by Larry Hughes]
 
I'm not disagreeing, but think we need to add something to this.

The local, corporal presence is specifically the *human* nature of Christ. Reformed equally assert the local, corporal, ubiquitous presence of the divine nature. There's no issue there. But it boils down to a question regarding the human nature.

Thank you Pastor for bringing much helpful clarity (and charity) to this discussion. Your presence on this board is blessing to us all.
 
Originally posted by AdamM

Thank you Pastor for bringing much helpful clarity (and charity) to this discussion. Your presence on this board is blessing to us all.

:amen: We are very happy to have you here, Pastor Guillory!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top