/
RSS Feed
On today’s episode, Brett, Brian, and Jason begin their examination of the Sacrament of Holy Communion from Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms. Today, they address the first of Luther’s three questions from the LC: “What is Holy Communion?”
Another great episode. I was especially moved to tears when listening to Brian talk about the great pastoral advise he gave to a young church member who was struggling with knowing whether he was worthy to participate in Communion. I had a similar situation when I was an elder of a small PCA church. A wife of another elder pulled me out of a worship service concerned that her anger at another elder for his attacks on her husband during our Session meetings disqualified her from taking Communion that morning. I asked her if she believed she had the right to be angry at that brother. She said “no”. I asked her if she believed she had the spiritual strength on her own to not be angry at that brother. She said “no”. I told her “it sounds like you need a spiritual meal to give you spiritual strength to fight this spiritual battle.” She smiled and you could just see the weight lift off of her shoulders. I made sure I was the one to give her the elements that morning. When she reached for the bread she tore off a very small piece. I told her to take a larger piece because of how spiritually hungry she was that morning. But, of course, we emphasize the meal nature of “The Lord’s Supper”. 🙂
I did want to address one concern that came up in this podcast: not going beyond what Scripture says. I think it is unfair to portray Calvin as unconcerned about this issue. I think it is charitable to agree that both Luther and Calvin had those exact same concerns. I also think it is fair to say that they, and we, try to have this as a guiding principle. I think this is clearly seen in Calvin’s Institutes (btw, its not “Institutions” 😉 ) where he writes:
“Let us, I say, allow the Christian to unlock his mind and ears to all the words of God which are addressed to him, provided he do it with this moderation—viz. that whenever the Lord shuts his sacred mouth, he also desists from inquiry. The best rule of sobriety is, not only in learning to follow wherever God leads, but also when he makes an end of teaching, to cease also from wishing to be wise.” Calvin’s Institutes, III, xxi, 3 (btw, this quote is from his section on predestination)
So, Calvin clearly has an understanding that we should not go beyond what is revealed. However, when he addressed the Ten Commandments in the Institutes he argued that this should not mean that we should “restrict the spirit of the Law to the strict letter of the word” when we try to understand, interpret, and apply Scripture.
” We must, therefore, if possible, discover some path which may conduct us with direct and firm step to the will of God. We must consider, I say, how far interpretation can be permitted to go beyond the literal meaning of the words, still making it apparent that no appending of human glosses is added to the Divine Law, but that the pure and genuine meaning of the Lawgiver is faithfully exhibited. It is true that, in almost all the commandments, there are elliptical expressions, and that, therefore, any man would make himself ridiculous by attempting to restrict the spirit of the Law to the strict letter of the words. It is plain that a sober interpretation of the Law must go beyond these, but how far is doubtful, unless some rule be adopted. The best rule, in my opinion, would be, to be guided by the principle of the commandment—viz. to consider in the case of each what the purpose is for which it was given. For example, every commandment either requires or prohibits; and the nature of each is instantly discerned when we look to the principle of the commandment as its end. Thus, the end of the Fifth Commandment is to render honour to those on whom God bestows it. The sum of the commandment, therefore, is, that it is right in itself, and pleasing to God, to honour those on whom he has conferred some distinction; that to despise and rebel against such persons is offensive to Him. The principle of the First Commandment is, that God only is to be worshipped. The sum of the commandment, therefore is that true piety, in other words, the worship of the Deity, is acceptable, and impiety is an abomination, to him. So in each of the commandments we must first look to the matter of which it treats, and then consider its end, until we discover what it properly is that the Lawgiver declares to be pleasing or displeasing to him. Only, we must reason from the precept to its contrary in this way: If this pleases God, its opposite displeases; if that displeases, its opposite pleases: if God commands this, he forbids the opposite; if he forbids that, he commands the opposite.” – Calvin’s Institutes, II, viii, 8.
So, there is this balance that must be struck by all of us when interpreting and applying Scripture. I have no doubt that each of us, including Luther and Calvin, at some point(s) of our doctrine go beyond what Scripture is telling us. I don’t think we can avoid it when we are trying to, for instance, explain how the body of Jesus is actually present in the elements. If we argue, as the Roman Church does, for transubstantiation we would be going beyond what Scripture says about this topic. The same can be said about the Lutheran explanation of the Real Presence and Reformed explanation of the True Presence. So, in this sense, all of us go beyond Scripture when we engage in this discussion because Scripture says absolutely nothing about how He is present in the elements. Scriptures only assure us that He is there, In this, it seems to me, that there is a basic agreement between Lutherans, Reformed, and Rome: Jesus is present in the elements. Working out the particulars of what exactly that means requires us to go beyond what Scripture tells us and we all need to be very careful when doing it. That is why I love that quote by Calvin I posted in response to last week’s podcast:
“Now, should any one ask me as to the mode, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is too high a mystery either for my mind to comprehend or my words to express; and to speak more plainly, I rather feel than understand it. The truth of God, therefore, in which I can safely rest, I here embrace without controversy. He declares that his flesh is the meat, his blood the drink, of my soul; I give my soul to him to be fed with such food. In his sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I have no doubt that he will truly give and I receive.”
In this quote Calvin provides us with a perfect example of what it means to not go beyond what Scripture tells us and to accept exactly what it does tell us even if we cannot explain the mystery.
So, to portray the situation as if Luther never did and Calvin was never concerned about it is, in my opinion, not really painting an accurate picture of either man. I am sure that you guys do not have any interest in wrongly portraying anyone and I just wanted to bring this to your attention.
Any way, I am loving this section on Communion as I loved your section on Baptism. Keep up the good work.
Your brother in Christ,
JT
JT,
Thanks for the feedback and kind words.
Our intention is never to mis-characterize what someone says, but rather to provide a Lutheran interpretation/understanding/assessments of varying theological positions (such as Calvin/Calvinism). To the extent that we have mis-represented Calvin’s words or views, we apologize.
And, as far as Luther goes, I think we will all admit that he was quite frequently prone to overstatement (especially because of, but not limited to, his bombastic nature). I find myself reading through his commentaries during sermon and Bible study prep and disagreeing with him on various points of interpretation.
Jason,
I don’t think there is any need to apologize. I presume you didn’t know and that is the problem. I find that when we start to comment about people from other traditions we tend to not totally represent them fairly especially when we are in an echo chamber with other people from our own traditions. I am probably overly sensitive about this since I have experienced it so much as a Calvinists. This ends up with me frequently correcting people in my church when they make false statements about other traditions. As an elder in a PCA Church I was responsible for what was said from the pulpit. So, I even had to correct my pastor when he over-reached on statements about Catholics.
Being a Calvinists, I am used to people making statements about Calvin, and us, that are less than accurate. So, I try my best to be careful how I talk about other traditions and their leaders. One of the best ways of avoiding this problem is reading them. So, I have tried to read a lot of Orthodox, Catholic, and Lutheran documents and books. What I have found is that in my Reformed Churches and Sunday Schools we are prone to misrepresent these traditions because we hear a teacher make a statement that we take as fact and then we repeat it especially if it makes our tradition look good in comparison. I suspect that we in the Reformed community are not the only ones engaging in this activity.
So, I think it would be great if you guys would actually read all of Calvin’s Institutes to see what he actually wrote. I know that is in all likelihood asking way too much because that would be a mammoth undertaking and you probably don’t have either the time or the inclination. But I would suggest that you at least use it as a resource realizing that if you start in the middle you have missed the arguments he has made building up to that point. Read the sections of his having to do with whatever you guys are talking about. For instance, Book 4, Chapters 14-19 are on the Sacraments. Chapter 14 lays out Calvin’s definition of what a Sacrament is. It is very informative and thought-provoking. Read that and then read Chapter 17 titled “Of The Lord’s Supper, and The Benefits Conferred By It.” and then read Chapter 18 titled “Of The Popish Mass. How It Not Only Profanes, But Annihilates The Lord’s Supper.” I have no doubt you will disagree with him on parts. However, you might find that your disagreements are not as big as you might have thought. I hope you will also grow in your appreciation for Calvin especially the level of pastoral concern he had. I suspect that would be near and dear to all of your hearts seeing that you are all pastors.
Again, I have no doubt none of you had any intent on misrepresenting Calvin. I am sure you were repeating what you have read and heard. In fact, I believe it was a quote of an author who compared Calvin to Luther on their comparative interest in going no further than where Scripture stops that motivated me to write the original post.
Any way, I look forward to the upcoming podcasts on Communion. I am sure I will disagree. But, I hope that they help me understand our differences at a very nuanced level so I don’t mispresent you guys ever again. I can tell you one thing, I stopped using the term “consubstantiation” in describing your view after hearing and reading many Lutherans deny that was their view.
One other thing, I might so bold as to suggest that you reach out to a Reformed professor like Carl Trueman to see if he would come on the podcast to discuss the differences. I find him to be very fair and he is a HUGE fan of Luther. Just a thought.
Your brother in Christ,
JT
May I be so bold as to comment, also? JT raises a good point in that the three traditions try to make sense of the “is.” JT quotes Calvin, “The truth of God, therefore, in which I can safely rest, I here embrace without controversy. He declares that his flesh is the meat, his blood the drink, of my soul…” and suggest Calvin does not go beyond Scripture in his view of the “is.” I might suggest that he actually does. I think there is a difference between “his flesh is the meat, his blood the drink, of my soul” and the Lutheran understanding “This (the bread) is my body” and “This (the cup) is my blood” and “for the forgiveness of sins.” Calvin reversed the grammatical order (flesh is meat instead of bread is my body and blood is drink instead of cup is my blood) and qualifies it with “of my soul.” Luther takes the words themselves and says they are true. He does add in places other than the Small Catechism that the “is” means “in, with, and under,” but there is no qualification or spiritualization as there is with Calvin’s “of my soul.” There is not philosophical separating, as it were, of the human into body, mind, soul in Lutheranism. I don’t know that there is in Calvin, but his qualification “of my soul” would seem to imply that the application is only spiritual and not of the whole human person. Thus we do have a difference, it seems, between the spiritualized “true presence” in Calvin and the whole human “real presence” in Luther.