The Lord's Supper - Zwingli's View Question

Status
Not open for further replies.

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
A hot question for the board to chew on and discuss, for those who could offer some insight.

I am in the midst of speaking with someone about the second point of marks of a true church - it being "the right administration of the sacraments" and what that means.

With the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, Zwingli had a problem. He believed that the sacraments were not something that when they were outwardly performed, something inward takes place. Luther would have added that there is a reality that grace is communicated to men for their benefit in a mysterious way that is non-saving. Luther believed consubstantiation. Calvin, in writing on a middle ground, sent his theoughts to Luther, who said he "liked what" Calvin wrote.

Zwingli believed in a memorial view and Luther believed the doctrine of consubstantiation in regards to the Lord’s Supper.

This gave rise to a very long controversy over the Supper between Zwingli and Luther. Even upon meeting in Marburg, the two reformers could not come to agreement on this one issue that forever divided the Lutherans from the Reformed church. (They agreed on everything else.)

Luther went so far as to say that Zwingli was not a Christian for his view of the Lord's Supper.

Calvin's view is very differnt than Zwingli's. Calvin said, "In his Sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I do not doubt that he himself truly presents them, and that I receive them." (Inst. 4.17.32)

Calvin beleived it was not just a "matter of faith" but the grace recieved in partaking in Christ himself was a fruit of faith (cf. 4.17.5).

He also said, "I say that although Christ is absent from the earth in respect of the flesh, yet in the Supper we truly feed on his body and blood - that owing to the secret agency of the Spirit we enjoy the presence of both. I say that distance of place is no obstacle to prevent the flesh, which was once crucified, from being given to us for food." (Clear Explanation of Sound Doctrine, 31).

He also said, "that by the gift of the Spirit he transfuses into us the vivifying influence of his flesh." (Sound Defence of the Pious and Orthodox Faith).

Calvin's view pleased Luther. It displeased Zwingli.

With that in mind, how important do you think the administration (i.e. the theology and physical administration) of the Supper is to the church?

How far would one have to go to "unchurch themselves" concerning thier beliefs over the Lord's Supper? (Luther for example not only "unchurched" Zwingli, but railed against him as not even being Christian for his view).
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I am yet to see it shown in any historical writing that Zwingli held to a memorial view of the Supper. I know it serves the interests of neat classification to say that he held one thing, Luther another, and Calvin a via media position; but I do not think it is accurate.

On the question of marks of the church, it is the administration of the Supper, not the doctrine of the presence, that is the specific note. If the doctrine of the presence is a problem, then it falls under the first mark of the church. Blessings!
 

dannyhyde

Puritan Board Sophomore
Matthew M.,

FYI, I know of know Lutheran nor Lutheran dogmatician that says they believe in "consubstantiation." Do you? In fact, as Richard Muller points out, this was a Medieval doctrine of which the Lutherans were aware. Lutherans, then, speak of the "real presence" of Christ, not consubstantiation.

Matthew W.,

Have you read Zwingli's "On the Lord's Supper?" It is a matter of common, received knowledge that Zwingli believed what we call "memorialism." Why else do Luther and Calvin rail against him/his view on this very point? It is true that there is some recent scholarship saying Zwingli moved closer to Calvin towards the end of his life, but I'll let Dr. Clark chime in on that one, if he is reading this thread.

Blessings.
 

Larry Hughes

Puritan Board Sophomore
Matthew W.,

"the administration of the Supper, not the doctrine of the presence"

That's an interesting angle I've never thought of. Just for clarity, because I'm chewing on this one: is the abscence of the presence as subset, in this thought, of the presence? Or antithetical. Calvin and Luther argued not the fact of this but the mode of this, but would an abscence be a subset of the same - that is another mode or a flat out denial of a mode?

Because I'm wondering how the supper is administered rightly if the presence is not there? Can it be so administered rightly, I'm reaching back to my old SB days on this one and a brother of mine who is SB and I discuss this very issue? You got me to thinking from a differing angle. A good one to fall asleep on!

Take Care,

Larry
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Have you read Zwingli's "On the Lord's Supper?" It is a matter of common, received knowledge that Zwingli believed what we call "memorialism." Why else do Luther and Calvin rail against him/his view on this very point? It is true that there is some recent scholarship saying Zwingli moved closer to Calvin towards the end of his life, but I'll let Dr. Clark chime in on that one, if he is reading this thread.

If Zwingli held to the memorial view, that is, that the Supper is ONLY a memorial, then Lutherans correctly call all Calvinists and their confessions memorialist. Zwingli stressed the symbolic nature of the Eucharist in opposition to the physical presence. At times he calls it a pledge, which British theology calls a seal; and he occasionally speaks of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. When Zwingli spoke of the supper only being a symbol, he was concerned to show that the Supper is not a sacrifice, but a commemoration of a sacrifice. His language of commemoration is often taken out of this context, and made to apply to the question of sacramental instrumentality.

For what it's worth, my opinion is, that as soon as you deny the opus operatum and real (physical) presence, you are bound into a view of the Supper which requires symbolism to explain its essential meaning. One might insist (as our Confession does) that the Supper is more than a symbol to the elect, but as soon as "election" or "faith" is used to qualify the nature of sacramental instrumentality, it is clear that the Supper IN AND OF ITSELF is essentially a sign and that it does not IN AND OF ITSELF convey spiritual blessings.
 

Larry Hughes

Puritan Board Sophomore
Now that’s interesting, because its at the crux of the line of thinking.

Because as I understand Lutherans, and it is limited, Luther would say only faith can “see” this sacramental reality or “mask of God’s back side”. But it is none-the-less objectively still in and of itself conveying spiritual blessing. Luther seemed to say that the GIFT is really there but unbelief will eschew the gift, that is it suffers to be rejected, much like the Cross itself, and so it is in and of itself a real gift with real spiritual blessing. Yet without faith one, passes by the food that heals so to speak or “turns one’s dying nose up at it. One might say this is foolish, but this is the nature of fallen man, to reject the gift IS foolish.
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
This may help to understand the Reformed view:

The Consensus Tigurinus

-- John Calvin (1549) translated by Henry Beveridge

Mutual Consent in Regard to the Sacraments Between the Ministers of the Church of Zurich and John Calvin, Minister of the Church of Geneva. Now published by those who framed it. MDLIV
Article 1. The Whole Spiritual Government of the Church Leads us to Christ.
Seeing that Christ is the end of the law, and the knowledge of him comprehends in itself the whole sum of the gospel, there is no doubt that the object of the whole spiritual government of the Church is to lead us to Christ, as it is by him alone we come to God, who is the final end of a happy life. Whosoever deviates from this in the slightest degree, can never speak duly or appositely of any ordinances of God.
Article 2. A True Knowledge of the Sacraments from the Knowledge of Christ.
As the sacraments are appendages of the gospel, he only can discourse aptly and usefully of their nature, virtue, office, and benefit, who begins with Christ: and that not by adverting cursorily to the name of Christ, but by truly holding for what end he was given us by the Father, and what blessings he has conferred upon us.
Article 3. Nature of the Knowledge of Christ.
We must hold therefore that Christ, being the eternal Son of God, and of the same essence and glory with the Father, assumed our flesh, to communicate to us by right of adoption that which he possessed by nature, namely, to make us sons of God. This is done when ingrafted by faith into the body of Christ, and that by the agency of the Holy Spirit we are first counted righteous by a free imputation of righteousness, and then regenerated to a new life: whereby being formed again in the image of our heavenly Father, we renounce the old man.
Article 4. Christ a Priest and King.
Thus Christ, in his human nature, is to be considered as our priest, who expiated our sins by the one sacrifice of his death, put away all our transgressions by his obedience, provided a perfect righteousness for us, and now intercedes for us, that we may have access to God. He is to be considered as a repairer, who, by the agency of his Spirit, reforms whatever is vicious in us, that we may cease to live to the world and the flesh, and God himself may live in us. He is to be considered as a king, who enriches us with all kinds of blessings, governs and defends us by his power, provides us with spiritual weapons, delivers us from all harm, and rules and guides us by the sceptre of his mouth. And he is to be so considered, that he may raise us to himself, the true God, and to the Father, until the fulfilment of what is finally to take place, viz., God be all in all.
Article 5. How Christ Communicates Himself to Us.
Moreover, that Christ may thus exhibit himself to us and produce these effects in us, he must be made one with us, and we must be ingrafted into his body. He does not infuse his life into us unless he is our head, and from him the whole body, fitly joined together through every joint of supply, according to his working, maketh increase of the body in the proportion of each member.
Article 6. Spiritual Communion. Institution of the Sacraments.
The spiritual communion which we have with the Son of God takes place when he, dwelling in us by his Spirit, makes all who believe capable of all the blessings which reside in him. In order to testify this, both the preaching of the gospel was appointed, and the use of the sacraments committed to us, namely, the sacraments of holy Baptism and the holy Supper.
Article 7. The Ends of the Sacraments
The ends of the sacraments are to be marks and badges of Christian profession and fellowship or fraternity, to be incitements to gratitude and exercises of faith and a godly life; in short, to be contracts binding us to this. But among other ends the principal one is, that God may, by means of them, testify, represent, and seal his grace to us. For although they signify nothing else than is announced to us by the Word itself, yet it is a great matter, first, that there is submitted to our eye a kind of living images which make a deeper impression on the senses, by bringing the object in a manner directly before them, while they bring the death of Christ and all his benefits to our remembrance, that faith may be the better exercised; and, secondly, that what the mouth of God had announced is, as it were, confirmed and ratified by seals.
Article 8. Gratitude.
Now, seeing that these things which the Lord has given as testimonies and seals of his grace are true, he undoubtedly truly performs inwardly by his Spirit that which the sacraments figure to our eyes and other senses; in other words, we obtain possession of Christ as the fountain of all blessings, both in order that we may be reconciled to God by means of his death, be renewed by his Spirit to holiness of life, in short, obtain righteousness and salvation; and also in order that we may give thanks for the blessings which were once exhibited on the cross, and which we daily receive by faith.
Article 9. The Signs and the Things Signified Not Disjoined but Distinct.
Wherefore, though we distinguish, as we ought, between the signs and the things signified, yet we do not disjoin the reality from the signs, but acknowledge that all who in faith embrace the promises there offered receive Christ spiritually, with his spiritual gifts, while those who had long been made partakers of Christ continue and renew that communion.
Article 10. The Promise Principally to Be Looked To in the Sacraments.
And it is proper to look not to the bare signs, but rather to the promise thereto annexed. As far, therefore, as our faith in the promise there offered prevails, so far will that virtue and efficacy of which we speak display itself. Thus the substance of water, bread, and wine, by no means offers Christ to us, nor makes us capable of his spiritual gifts. The promise rather is to be looked to, whose office it is to lead us to Christ by the direct way of faith, faith which makes us partakers of Christ.
Article 11. We Are Not to Stand Gazing on the Elements.
This refutes the error of those who stand gazing on the elements, and attach their confidence of salvation to them; seeing that the sacraments separated from Christ are but empty shows, and a voice is distinctly heard throughout proclaiming that we must adhere to none but Christ alone, and seek the gift of salvation from none but him.
Article 12. The Sacraments Effect Nothing by Themselves.
Besides, if any good is conferred upon us by the sacraments, it is not owing to any proper virtue in them, even though in this you should include the promise by which they are distinguished. For it is God alone who acts by his Spirit. When he uses the instrumentality of the sacraments, he neither infuses his own virtue into them nor derogates in any respect from the effectual working of his Spirit, but, in adaptation to our weakness, uses them as helps; in such manner, however, that the whole power of acting remains with him alone.
Article 13. God Uses the Instrument, but All the Virtue Is His.
Wherefore, as Paul reminds us, that neither he that planteth nor he that watereth is any thing, but God alone that giveth the increase; so also it is to be said of the sacraments that they are nothing, because they will profit nothing, unless God in all things make them effectual. They are indeed instruments by which God acts efficaciously when he pleases, yet so that the whole work of our salvation must be ascribed to him alone.
Article 14. The Whole Accomplished by Christ.
We conclude, then, that it is Christ alone who in truth baptizes inwardly, who in the Supper makes us partakers of himself, who, in short, fulfils what the sacraments figure, and uses their aid in such manner that the whole effect resides in his Spirit.
Article 15. How the Sacraments Confirm.
Thus the sacraments are sometimes called seals, and are said to nourish, confirm, and advance faith, and yet the Spirit alone is properly the seal, and also the beginner and finisher of faith. For all these attributes of the sacraments sink down to a lower place, so that not even the smallest portion of our salvation is transferred to creatures or elements.
Article 16. All Who Partake of the Sacraments Do Not Partake of the Reality.
Besides, we carefully teach that God does not exert his power indiscriminately in all who receive the sacraments, but only in the elect. For as he enlightens unto faith none but those whom he hath foreordained to life, so by the secret agency of his Spirit he makes the elect receive what the sacraments offer.
Article 17. The Sacraments Do Not Confer Grace.
By this doctrine is overthrown that fiction of the sophists which teaches that the sacraments confer grace on all who do not interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. For besides that in the sacraments nothing is received except by faith, we must also hold that the grace of God is by no means so annexed to them that whoso receives the sign also gains possession of the thing. For the signs are administered alike to reprobate and elect, but the reality reaches the latter only.
Article 18. The Gifts Offered to All, but Received by Believers Only.
It is true indeed that Christ with his gifts is offered to all in common, and that the unbelief of man not overthrowing the truth of God, the sacraments always retain their efficacy; but all are not capable of receiving Christ and his gifts. Wherefore nothing is changed on the part of God, but in regard to man each receives according to the measure of his faith.
Article 19. Believers Before, and Without the Use of the Sacraments, Communicate with Christ.
As the use of the sacraments will confer nothing more on unbelievers than if they had abstained from it, nay, is only destructive to them, so without their use believers receive the reality which is there figured. Thus the sins of Paul were washed away by baptism, though they had been previously washed away. So likewise baptism was the laver of regeneration to Cornelius, though he had already received the Holy Spirit. So in the Supper Christ communicates himself to us, though he had previously imparted himself, and perpetually remains in us. For seeing that each is enjoined to examine himself, it follows that faith is required of each before coming to the sacrament. Faith is not without Christ; but inasmuch as faith is confirmed and increased by the sacraments, the gifts of God are confirmed in us, and thus Christ in a manner grows in us and we in him.
Article 20. The Benefit Not Always Received in the Act of Communicating.
The advantage which we receive from the sacraments ought by no means to be restricted to the time at which they are administered to us, just as if the visible sign, at the moment when it is brought forward, brought the grace of God along with it. For those who were baptized when mere infants, God regenerates in childhood or adolescence, occasionally even in old age. Thus the utility of baptism is open to the whole period of life, because the promise contained in it is perpetually in force. And it may sometimes happen that the use of the holy Supper, which, from thoughtlessness or slowness of heart does little good at the time, afterward bears its fruit.
Article 21. No Local Presence Must Be Imagined.
We must guard particularly against the idea of any local presence. For while the signs are present in this world, are seen by the eyes and handled by the hands, Christ, regarded as man, must be sought nowhere else than in Heaven, and not otherwise than with the mind and eye of faith. Wherefore it is a perverse and impious superstition to inclose him under the elements of this world.
Article 22. Explanation of the Words "This Is My Body."
Those who insist that the formal words of the Supper, "This is my body; this is my blood," are to be taken in what they call the precisely literal sense, we repudiate as preposterous interpreters. For we hold it out of controversy that they are to be taken figuratively, the bread and wine receiving the name of that which they signify. Nor should it be thought a new or unwonted thing to transfer the name of things figured by metonomy [modern spelling: metonymy] to the sign, as similar modes of expression occur throughout the Scriptures, and we by so saying assert nothing but what is found in the most ancient and most approved writers of the Church.
Article 23. Of the Eating of the Body.
When it is said that Christ, by our eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, which are here figured, feeds our souls through faith by the agency of the Holy Spirit, we are not to understand it as if any mingling or transfusion of substance took place, but that we draw life from the flesh once offered in sacrifice and the blood shed in expiation.
Article 24. Transubstantiation and Other Follies.
In this way are refuted not only the fiction of the Papists concerning transubstantiation, but all the gross figments and futile quibbles which either derogate from his celestial glory or are in some degree repugnant to the reality of his human nature. For we deem it no less absurd to place Christ under the bread or couple him with the bread, than to transubstantiate the bread into his body.
Article 25. The Body of Christ Locally in Heaven.
And that no ambiguity may remain when we say that Christ is to be sought in Heaven, the expression implies and is understood by us to intimate distance of place. For though philosophically speaking there is no place above the skies, yet as the body of Christ, bearing the nature and mode of a human body, is finite and is contained in Heaven as its place, it is necessarily as distant from us in point of space as Heaven is from Earth.
Article 26. Christ Not to Be Adored in the Bread.
If it is not lawful to affix Christ in our imagination to the bread and the wine, much less is it lawful to worship him in the bread. For although the bread is held forth to us as a symbol and pledge of the communion which we have with Christ, yet as it is a sign and not the thing itself, and has not the thing either included in it or fixed to it, those who turn their minds towards it, with the view of worshipping Christ, make an idol of it.
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
ASIDE from Zwingli - let's go back to the original quesiton.

Luther "unchurched" Zwingli.

Calvin "unchurched" the Romanists and the Lutherans (like Westphal).

How can one "unchurch" themselves based on the the Lord's Supper?

In other words, if the second mark of a true church is having those ducks in a row, what knocks the ducks aside historically and theologically?
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Hi Larry, I may have misunderstood you, but I think I can see what you are getting at. For Luther the "is" in "This is my body" could only be understood literally. For the Reformed, however, it was sacramental language -- the thing signified being referred to by use of the sign. In reformed theology, when the sacrament is administered according to Christ's institution, it is valid. Hence, when there is giving and receiving of bread and wine according to Christ's appointment, His death is showed forth. But it is only worthy receivers who partake of the body and blood of Christ, and this is only spiritually, not after a corporal and carnal manner. Blessings!
 

DTK

Puritan Board Junior
Luther believed consubstantiation.
Muller has noted that the Lutheran view of the Lord's supper has often been confused with consubstantiation. But he has sought to distinguish between this and the Lutheran view, emphasizing that the Lutheran view argues for "a real, but illocal presence." See Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 80.

I think that Dr. Clark has noted previously the effort of W. P. Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, to acquit Zwingli of having held to a purely "memorial" view, but has expressed his opinion that he hasn't done so successfully. Stephens argues (p. 256) that as his view developed, "Zwingli moves to faith-presence...under Bucer's influence." Stephens said of Zwingli's view that "It rejects a bodily and real presence and stresses a spiritual real presence by the contemplation of faith." (Ibid.).

DTK
 

Larry Hughes

Puritan Board Sophomore
Matthew,

That’s helpful and the way I think I’ve understood the two positions. Is the focus really on the “is”? I know traditionally that’s where the debate is, but is not the real issue first what is “given for you”? And I cannot say I know on this, its above me. I’ve wracked my pea brain and prayed for understanding many long hours and years on this one coming at it as neutral as I could on all three positions. It occurred to me that another crucial aspect is the “…given for you”. It seems there could be at least three understandings of this, that is what is given for you. I was trying to avoid the term “sacramental” because this term finds itself defined depending upon who uses it at the time of debate and more trying to get at the base definitions per se underlying and that make up the elements of that term. I reflect on this having been a Baptist now reformed and having read much of Luther too.

1. If it is pure memorial, the “is” means “represents”, then the “given for you” seems to psychologically or spiritually (I’m not sure of the appropriate term here but the effect on faith perhaps???) always pointing backwards and there the mind goes. So there is a reaching back so to speak. My language is limited at this point. The given for you is “reflective” backwards in time perhaps is the way to speak of it and their the mind goes and rests? The emphasis here is time. Space is almost if not entirely gone here.

2. If the “is” is Spiritual, then the “given for you” is ‘psychologically’, I suppose by linking to Christ more immediately but the “given for you” is reflective in that sense, heavenward maybe? The emphasis here is more in the present and lesser as to time but a presence.

3. If the “is” is the real body then the “given for you” is immediate to the bread, I think? And the emphasis here is even more to the present and locally closer.

I guess all of that confusion to say all three are trying to feed from Christ it is just where and when is the “is” “given for you”.

Anyway, thanks much. I’m headed to bed! Have good night or I suppose for you day.

Larry
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Have you read Zwingli's "On the Lord's Supper?"

Is this the same as the work in the Selected Writings edited by Bromiley? If so, then yes, but it was many years ago. If I remember correctly the Introduction to this work takes the same view of Zwingli's position as I have represented here. Blessings!
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Larry, the way I see it there are not three views, but only two. The "is" can only be literal or representative. There does not appear to me to be any difference between Zwingli and Calvin here. Calvin's spiritual view is still only representative, and does not interpret the "is" literally. Hence Calvin had the same memorial view as Zwingli so far as what the Supper is IN AND OF ITSELF. The "given for you" can only refer to the literal body of Christ. The question is, whether the sacramental bread is literally or only representatively the body of Christ.
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
ASIDE from Zwingli - let's go back to the original quesiton.

Luther "unchurched" Zwingli.

Calvin "unchurched" the Romanists and the Lutherans (like Westphal).

How can one "unchurch" themselves based on the the Lord's Supper?

In other words, if the second mark of a true church is having those ducks in a row, what knocks the ducks aside historically and theologically?

Couldn't you ask the same questions about their theological views of baptism? What view on baptism will "unchurch" you?
 

Staphlobob

Puritan Board Sophomore
I am yet to see it shown in any historical writing that Zwingli held to a memorial view of the Supper. !

I am yet to see that Luther held to consubstantiation.

Both our statements show that eisegesis - whether deliberate or through ignorance - does not honor God.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
The WCF ch 29 reads:

II. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to his Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead;[2] but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same:[3] so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of his elect.[4]

2. Heb. 9:22, 25-26, 28; 10:10-14
3. I Cor. 11:24-26; Matt. 26:26-27; Luke 22:19-20
4. Heb. 7:23-24, 27; 10:11-12, 14, 18

com·mem·o·ra·tion /kəˌmɛməˈreɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-mem-uh-rey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act of commemorating.
2. a service, celebration, etc., in memory of some person or event.
3. a memorial.
4. (in many Christian churches) a special service or prayer for commemorating the lesser feast on days on which two feasts of unequal rank are celebrated.

The LBC ch 30 reads:

II. In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to His Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of Himself by Himself upon the cross, once for all;[3] and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same.[4] So that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ's own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

3. Heb. 9:25-26, 28
4. I Cor. 11:24; Matt. 26:26-27

me·mo·ri·al /məˈmɔriəl, -ˈmoʊr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-mawr-ee-uhl, -mohr-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. something designed to preserve the memory of a person, event, etc., as a monument or a holiday.
2. a written statement of facts presented to a sovereign, a legislative body, etc., as the ground of, or expressed in the form of, a petition or remonstrance.
–adjective
3. preserving the memory of a person or thing; commemorative: memorial services.
4. of or pertaining to the memory.


Both confessions seem to call it the same thing.
 

Staphlobob

Puritan Board Sophomore
Muller has noted that the Lutheran view of the Lord's supper has often been confused with consubstantiation. But he has sought to distinguish between this and the Lutheran view, emphasizing that the Lutheran view argues for "a real, but illocal presence." See Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 80.

I think that Dr. Clark has noted previously the effort of W. P. Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, to acquit Zwingli of having held to a purely "memorial" view,

This should give one pause before declaring something like, "Zwingli was a strict memorialist", or "Luther believed in consubstantiation." Since I know so little of Zwingli I simply can't say anything about his view.

However, Luther is another thing altogether. Should someone be able to trace a direct line between Aristle's ontology (matter, substance, accidens), Aquinas' adoption of Aristotlelian categories (i.e., transubstantiation), and make a clear linkage with Luther's use of of the term "consbustantiation" I would be willing to concede. But the fact is, it simply can't be done. (In fact, I'd like to see where Luther ever even used the word. Not simply "consubstantial" as in a discussion of Christology, but "consubstantiation" in explicating sacramentology.)

Goes to show we ought to live with a bit of humility and tread lightly before attributing (or accusing) some historical personage of holding any particular controversial view.
 

tewilder

Puritan Board Freshman
ASIDE from Zwingli - let's go back to the original quesiton.

Luther "unchurched" Zwingli.

Calvin "unchurched" the Romanists and the Lutherans (like Westphal).

How can one "unchurch" themselves based on the the Lord's Supper?

In other words, if the second mark of a true church is having those ducks in a row, what knocks the ducks aside historically and theologically?

Richard Hooker argued that if the Puritans were consistent they would have to say that the Lutherans were not true Christians. He knew that the Puritans did not want to go that far, which is why he insisted on this argument against Puritan ecclesiology as contradictory.
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
Scott,

The WCF in section 2 of chapter 29 deals against Roman Catholicism. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli would all agree with that paragraph. ITs this one they fought over:

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament,a do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are, to their outward senses.b

This is the controvery over the "real presence" question.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Scott,

The WCF in section 2 of chapter 29 deals against Roman Catholicism. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli would all agree with that paragraph. ITs this one they fought over:

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament,a do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are, to their outward senses.b

This is the controvery over the "real presence" question.

What is there to controvert? Christ and His benefits are present only to the faith of believers. The elements remain elements to the outward senses. The Romanist teaching of a real presence is denied.
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
I'm curious as to others views that treat 29:7 as untrue.

For many, they think the supper to be a "commerative meal" and that's it.
They would not agree with section 7 at all. I've personally been in churches that made it a point to remind everyone that it is simply a memorial and nothing more.

I was just curious as to the question of how deviant the view could be before Calvin or Luther were right.
This would hold great weight in discussing the marks of a true church, #2 concerning the sacraments.
 

justingrid

Inactive User
Couldn't you ask the same questions about their theological views of baptism? What view on baptism will "unchurch" you?

I know that there are a few baptists on PB....so I hope that this comes across in the right way.

As a former baptist, this is a question that I have asked myself. I think that it is a valid question to ask. Whilst it does not related directly to the Lord's Supper, the issue is still regarding the right administration of the sacraments as a mark of the true church.

Men like Calvin and Luther had a high view of the sacraments and were willing to follow it to its logical conclusions i.e. unchurch men who held the wrong view regarding the signs and seals that God gave His Church.

This question regarding the sacrament of baptism then comes back to the issue of consistency. If we are willing to unchurch men based on their administration of the Lord's Supper, should we not also unchurch them based upon their administration of baptism (or their neglect to administer it those whom God has commanded it to be administered to)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top