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).
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).