Understanding Luther, Zwingli and Calvin on the Lord’s Supper

[Tertiumquid]

In my discussions with Lutherans, this is one of the major disagreements between us. Yet, how many actually understand exactly what Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin held on the Lord’s Supper, where they agreed, and where they disagreed?


The following is based on my notes from a class on Reformation history. It will be in 4 posts.



The Most Controversial Issue of the Early Reformation
This was the most controversial and most divisive in the 16th century. This was the most emotional charged issue. The reasons why:


The issue touched the common people; it wasn’t an abstract issue. The minute you begin to change the worship service and the mass and how it was conducted, common people are affected. The changing of the actual practice of the Mass became a crucial moment in the beginning of the Reformation.

Common people had been convinced the Mass was at the heart of their salvation. Preaching was less important, while the mass became primary. The architecture reflect this. The Mass takes place on high alter. Two great miracles take place on this alter: 1)transubstantiation (bread and wine miraculously changed into the body and blood of Christ); the bread and wine were no longer present. The substances change, only the accidens remains. This was an Aristotelian distinction. The second miracle was the sacrifice of Christ. In some sense Christ is sacrificed anew for the turning away of the wraith of God and for the covering of sins.


The bread at times was put on display (as the body of Christ) in a showcase, where people could come and worship Christ.

Taking the elements meant that one was literally receiving the body and blood of Christ, and this made a difference in you: Christ in you, the hope of glory. (They thus, “had a personal relationship with Christ”!).



THEOLOGICAL CONCERNS:
The Eucharist had been theologically defined at the 4th Lateran council (1215): The council defined 7 sacraments, and transubstantiation. This made it easy for Roman Catholics to respond to the Protestant challenges on the mass: they can point to an ecumenical council’s ruling. The Reformers were much stronger in the area of Justification, where no council had ruled. With Lord’s Supper, Protestants were in a weaker position.


Because the Reformers held to Sola Scriptura, they found the issue of the Lord’s Supper important because it was instituted by Jesus Christ, and it needed to be understood faithfully and fully, when he said, “this is my body.”



Areas Where All The Reformers Agreed About the Lord’s Supper ( a negative statements of belief against the Roman Catholic Church by the Reformers)


1. Rome had not given enough stress to the importance of faith. As long as you don’t oppose the grace that works through the sacraments, one can receive grace. This is called “ex opere operato”= “by the work it has been worked”. As long as you don’t resist the grace of God that comes through the sacraments, that grace will be efficacious and productive. The Reformers say a loud “no!” to this. In order to receive the benefits of the sacraments, they held you must receive them by faith. If you don’t come to them with faith, you receive nothing.


2. All the Reformers rejected the concept of a Eucharistic sacrifice. They all held this was a primary error. The Eucharist is not something we offer to God, but God offers to us. We are not doing a good work to please God, but he is offering something to help us.


3. The error of Transubstantiation: what happens on the alter is not a miracle of changing the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Christ in the form of the bread should not be worshipped.



The Positions of Luther and Zwingli on The Lord’s Supper

The Reformers differ due to their different perspectives.



LUTHER:
We are saved not by our work but God’s. Our works of righteousness will not save us, but God’s work of righteousness in Christ will. This influences Luther in all his work.


Luther evaluates the medieval teaching on the Lord’s Supper: he sees the central error of Rome as the Eucharistic sacrifice, because it teaches that we offer Christ again to God, and that by our offering God is pleased with us and blesses us. Luther condemns this as works righteousness, and therefore a denial of the gospel.


Luther says we must understand the Lord’s Supper as something God does for us. God in this sacrament gives us a gift: Christ himself. Therefore Christ is present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine.” When we receive the elements we literally receive Christ. This isn’t transubstantiation, but an elaboration of what is in the promise of God: it’s better understood as Consubstantiation: the substance of the body of Christ is received with the substance of the bread, which builds us up in faith and commitment to Christ.



ULRICH ZWINGLI:
Ulrich Zwingli shared similar concerns with Luther on the Lord’s Supper, in that both knew the Roman Catholic concept was in error. Luther’s position was based on a critique of the Eucharistic sacrifice, which he understood to be ultimately works righteousness. This was what Luther thought to be Rome’s key error. Zwingli though saw transubstantiation the key error of Rome, but agreed with Luther on Rome’s error of works righteousness.



Zwingli’s position against the Roman Catholic Church:
The idea of a repeated sacrifice of the actual Christ was abhorrent to Zwingli. He reasoned, “you couldn’t have a sacrifice of Christ if Christ were not present, therefore the primary error of the roman Catholic Church is transubstantiation.” Therefore, do away with transubstantiation, because it leads rapidly to idolatry. The error of idolatry is to focus on earthly things, not heavenly things: this was the error of the medieval church, it calls to bread, rather than to Christ, it calls to the alter and the actions of priests, instead of to heaven and the action of Christ. Therefore get rid of the idea that Christ is miraculously called down to the alter and re-sacrificed. Zwingli stressed the ascension of Christ: Christ is risen, ascended and seated at the right hand of the Father. Christ said he was going to depart, therefore transubstantiation is idolatrous and a violation of the Apostles Creed.



Zwingli’s position on the Lord’s Supper
Zwingli held the Lord’s Supper is a memorial; a pledge of allegiance. What is received in the supper is by faith, therefore let’s exercise our faith: remember Christ and rest in his accomplished work. Through the Lord’s Supper let’s testify to the world that we belong to Him. Zwingli saw the Lord’s Supper as a “wedding ring”: the wedding ring isn’t the marriage itself; it is only a reminder of a relationship that exists.


end of part one.

James Swan

 

[Tertiumquid]

The Debate Between Luther and Zwingli



Between 1526-1528 Luther and Zwingli debate via written exchanges. Luther stresses the Supper as God’s gift of the Son to us, Zwingli stresses the Supper as our act of remembrance and loyalty to Christ.



Luther criticizes Zwingli:
Zwingli is too rationalistic: he doesn’t really believe what the Word of God says (“This is my body.”) Luther understands Zwingli to be saying, “This signifies my body.” And thus is insisting on submitting what we find in the Bible to his own reason. Luther finds this to be the great error of Rome. Luther therefore viewed Zwingli as not really being freed from the Roman bondage.



Zwingli responds:
Luther is being too mystical; he is refusing to use his mind. The words of the Bible have to be interpreted in the whole context of what it says. Accusations of being a rationalist is refusing to think. For instance, Jesus said “I am the door”….well? Is he really a door? Luther has contented himself with a mystical approach to scripture. Luther has allowed his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper to become too objective. He planted Christ in the elements and has not given enough place to faith. Whatever blessings that come through the Supper come by faith.



Luther responds:
Zwingli is too subjective. He has not given enough stress to God’s gift. God’s promise is to give his own Son to be a blessing to us through the use of the Supper. Zwinlgi has failed to realize there really is a “communion” that occurs in the Lord’s Supper.


Luther grants that it is true that unless there’s faith one doesn’t receive the blessing of Christ; but since Christ is present by the appointment of God, one who receives the elements receives Christ. If one receives him without faith, one receives condemnation.

We have to stress the communion between Christ and the believer... Therefore Zwingli’s approach is too objective.


Zwingli has not given enough stress to the body of Christ in our salvation. Luther feels Zwingli’s position will logically lead to a denial of the cross and the incarnation. Zwingli’s stress on “spiritual realities” leaves no place for the body of Christ as the key to our redemption. Christ has promised that just as He died upon the cross in his body and blood to redeem us, so he continues to strengthen us by his body and blood in the Lord’s Supper. This is the way he continues to be our savior and mediator. We are never freed from the need of the body and blood of Christ. The Lord’s Supper ministers it to us to be built up in the faith.



Zwingli responds:
Luther is forgetting that the Bible says the body of Christ was taken up into heaven. It is not on earth. Zwingli focuses again on the ascension. Luther does not give the ascension its proper place. Christ cannot be present, “In, with, and under the bread” because he has ascended.



Luther responds:
Luther offered this explanation. Ubiquity: Communicatio idiomatum. When Christ was glorified, his two natures (human, divine) began to share attributes (communicatio idiomatum= the communication of properties). With the Lord’s Supper, Luther is interested in the divine quality of omnipresence: The glorified Christ becomes omnipresent not only in his divinity, but also in his humanity…the humanity of Christ is so glorified in heaven, that it takes on the divine attribute of omnipresence. Therefore the body of Christ can be everywhere at once. Since it can be everywhere at once, it can be in the Lord’s Supper. Luther holds Zwingli to be just a rationalist: he doesn’t want to believe the body and blood can be everywhere at once- he doesn’t really believe the Gospel.


Luther would reason, “Don’t say, ‘The body is at the right hand of God.’ Where is God’s right hand? It is everywhere...like every part of Him. The very phrase “right hand of God” supports ubiquity, not Zwingli’s position.



Zwingli responds:
Luther’s doctrine of ubiquity undermines the true humanity of Christ, the very thing Luther wanted to defend and maintain. If you have a human body that is everywhere…is it really a human body?

James Swan

 

[Tertiumquid]

THE MARBURG COLLOQUY 1529


The written debate between Luther and Zwingli led to the Marburg Colloquy in 1529, where Luther and Zwingli met face to face. Luther and Zwingli agreed on 14 articles of doctrine. They disagreed on point 15: The Lord’s Supper. Not many Lutherans will tell you about the 14 they agreed on! Even in that 15th article, there was some agreement: The mass was not a sacrifice; both rejected transubstantiation; both held the bread & wine should be given to communicants; they also agreed in theory in a sacrament of the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, and that every Christian needed to partake spiritually of the body and blood of Christ. Zwingli here seems to be acquiescing to Luther. He does recognize there is something given by God in the Lord’s Supper, it is not merely a “work” (as Luther had criticized him for).


But of course there was disagreement: Is there a bodily presence of Christ? Luther tried one last time for harmony with Zwingli: “Jesus is present in his body essentially and substantively, but not qualitatively, quantitatively, or locally.” Luther in this statement is appealing back to his medieval training. He is saying, “Let’s say Christ is really present in his body in the bread, but let’s not get that presence there in such a way that it could conceivably be an object of worship.” Zwingli said no. The formulation still too close to the Roman transubstantiation.


Luther and Zwingli, though agreeing on majority of points of doctrine, disagree on the Lord’s Supper, and part ways antagonistically.

James Swan

 

[Tertiumquid]

JOHN CALVIN’S VIEW ON THE LORD’S SUPPER


And now we come to John Calvin. Calvin agreed with both Luther and Zwingli on certain aspects of the Lord’s Supper.

Calvin agreed with Zwingli: the doctrine of Christ’s ascension must be very central in our understanding of the Eucharist. Therefore he disagreed with Luther’s ubiquity & communicatio iddiomatum. (Recall Zwingli stressed the Ascension of Christ: He is risen, ascended and seated at the right hand of the Father. Christ said he was going to depart, therefore transubstantiation is idolatrous and a violation of the apostles creed).


Calvin agreed with Zwingli: There needed to be a central place given to faith as the reception of blessing. Some of the later Lutheran theologians were not stressing faith enough as the avenue of blessing in the reception of the Supper.


Calvin agreed with Luther: The Lord’s Supper must primarily be seen as a gift that God gives to his people. The Supper is not primarily something we do, but is primarily something God does for us in the gift of his Son.


Calvin agreed with Luther: There must be a stress of the vital importance and centrality of the body of Christ in our redemption. Our salvation is accomplished by the sacrifice of Christ’s body. We are united to Christ, including his body and blood by the work of the Holy Spirit.


“Calvin held that Christ is the only food for our souls. We are nourished spiritually by Christ just as our bodies are nourished by the visible signs of the bread and wine. While we cannot truly grasp the mystical, unseen yet real union of Christ with believers, God demonstrates it in the visible terms of the believer's participation in the Lord's Supper. Clearly Calvin believed that the Lord's Supper was more than just a memorial or an empty sign, but would not agree with Luther regarding the physical presence of Christ around the elements.”


Calvin’s position is closer to Luther’s, but incorporates the concerns of both. Calvin sees the Lord’s Supper as “a visible word.”(an Augustinian phrase). What God says in the preached word, he shows in the visible word of the sacrament.


The visible word assures us that Christ is ever with us, forgiving us, and encouraging us in growth. The elements (bread and wine) speak of our spiritual nurture in Christ…our spiritual development in him. It is a nourishing sacrament….it nourishes us with Christ. The nourishment is Christ himself. Bread and wine represent the invisible food that we receive from the flesh and blood of Christ. Christ is the only food of our soul.


We need to use the sacrament to be strengthened. Just as we receive the bread and the wine, so, by faith we receive the body and blood of Christ to the nourishment and strengthening of our body.


Calvin holds that when we receive the bread and wine by faith, we receive the body and blood “with” the bread and the wine. Calvin not going as far to say that the body is always “in” the bread and the wine (this is where Calvin is not going with Luther). Where he does go along with Luther: he says what we need is Christ and his flesh and blood which are for our salvation. God has promised Christ to us in the visible word, just as he has promised Christ to us in the spoken word. Just as the spoken word offers Christ to us (if we receive him by faith), so the visible word offers Christ to us (if we receive him by faith). Luther would say God does more than just offer Christ in the Lord’s Supper, he actually gives Christ in it. Calvin, in effect, is willing to get close to Luther’s point.


A question arises: If Calvin says that Christ is truly offered and given in the supper, but that Christ is not “in with and under” the bread, how is Christ given? If Calvin wants to stress the importance of the ascension, how is it possible that Christ who is in heaven at the right hand of God can be the Christ that we will meet actually in the sacrament?

Calvin answers: There is a great mystery here. This mystery of Christ’s secret union with the devout is by nature incomprehensible. But we can say, Christ descends to us both by the outward symbol and by his spirit that he may truly quicken our souls by the substance of his flesh and his blood; he who does not perceive that many miracles are subsumed in these few words is more than stupid.


But what is the miracle?

Somehow in the mystery of the Lord’s Supper by the power of the spirit Christ does not come down from Heaven but we are taken up to heaven, and there we commune with our ascended Lord himself.


James Swan