On the Lord's Supper
Book 4 of the Institutes deals with the subject of the church. Baptists perhaps wish to disagree with him more here than anywhere else but there is still a great deal that we can agree with. In Chapter 14 he has a general chapter on the sacraments then come in turn two chapters on baptism and two on the Lord's Supper. The second of the two chapters on the Supper is largely negative but the one before it (Chapter 17) is a positive attempt to deal with the subject in a biblical manner. In over 50 sections he sets out his views and what he has to say deserves carefully examination and weighing up. He also published a short practical book on the subject in French in 1540.
The Battles edition covers around 60 pages and is divided into 50 parts. These can be further grouped under some 9 headings. The first three would be
1. The Lord's Supper with the signs of bread and wine provides spiritual food (1-3)
2. The promises sealed in the Supper as we are made partakers of Christ's flesh – a mystery felt rather than explained (4-7)
3. This life giving communion is brought about by the Holy Spirit (8-10)
The chapters that follow concern difficult controversies over the Supper that need to be resolved by the Word. The first of these is the relationship of the bread in the supper to the body of Christ (12-37). Calvin begins by looking at the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation (12-19). He calls it superstition and mocks the very idea (17.12). If it is true why is there no corresponding change in the water of baptism? This is not what the church believed in times past and is a Satan inspired innovation.
Next he turns to the Lutheran doctrine (20-34). Following the lead of Joachim Westphal, many Lutherans tended to believe in what is called the ubiquity of Christ. This teaches that Christ's body has the divine attribute of omnipresence. When Jesus said “This is my body” he was using metonymy (as in John's “Behold the Lamb of God”). Calvin opposes Lutheran consubstantiation as much as Roman transubstantiation. Indeed, it is worse in that it denies the ascension of Christ.
Robert Godfrey points out that Calvin's animus against the Lutheran doctrine was partly because it divided Protestants where there should be no need for division. Though accused of rationalism by the Lutherans, as ever Calvin was simply seeking to be true to Scripture. He says of Christ's drawing near by outward symbol and the inward work of the Spirit “Now, if anyone should ask me how this takes place, I shall not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare. And, to speak more plainly, I rather experience than understand it. Therefore, I here embrace without controversy the truth of God in which I may safely rest.” (17.32). By taking the line that he did Calvin was able to “hold that men bear away from this Sacrament no more than they gather with the vessel of faith” and even if unbelievers partake “just as rain falling upon a hard rock flows off because no entrance opens into the stone, the wicked by their hardness so repel God’s grace that it does not reach them. Besides, to say that Christ may be received without faith is as inappropriate as to say that a seed may germinate in fire.” (17.33)
Calvin's view then can be called a spiritual one. Van der Zee summarises “Through the sacrament we have access to all the blessings of our union with Christ because by the Spirit we are lifted up and brought into his presence.” There is a real reception of the body and blood of Christ in the supper but in a spiritual manner. The sacrament is a real means of grace, a channel by which Christ communicates himself to us. He agreed with Luther the Supper involves communion with a present Christ who actually feeds believers with his body and blood. The question was how Christ's body exists and is given to believers. For Calvin, while Christ is bodily in heaven, the distance is overcome by the Holy Spirit, who vivifies believers with Christ's flesh. Thus the Supper is a true communion with Christ, who feeds us with his body and blood. Elsewhere Calvin wrote “We must hold in regard to the mode, that it is not necessary that the essence of the flesh should descend from heaven in order to our being fed upon it, the virtue of the Spirit being sufficient to break through all impediments and surmount any distance of place.” The real difference between Luther and Calvin lay in the present existence of Christ's body. Calvin held that it is in a place, Heaven, while Luther said that it has the same omnipresence as Christ's divine nature.
As for Zwingli, he did not accept a 'real' presence of Christ in the Supper, and did not see a real feeding of the faithful on him. He believed that Christ was present in and through the faith of the participants, but that this presence was not tied to the elements and depended completely on the faith of the communicants. He interpreted the sacrament as a commemoration of the death of Christ, in which the church responded to grace already given, rather than a vehicle of grace.
Calvin's view has been attacked by later Reformed writers such as Turretin and through him Charles Hodge. R L Dabney said of the view that “it is not only incomprehensible, but impossible.” This seems over harsh.
Finally (35-37) Calvin writes against the idolatrous and superstitious adoration of the elements that is part of the Roman Mass.
The second set of issues tackled (38-42) is the need for faith and love in those who take communion. Rome stressed the need of holiness to come to the table but Calvin rightly puts the stress on a sense of sin and unworthiness. He says “Let us remember that this sacred feast is medicine for the sick, solace for sinners, alms to the poor; but would bring no benefit to the healthy, righteous, and rich - if such could be found. For since in it Christ is given to us as food, we understand that without him we would pine away, starve, and faint - as famine destroys the vigour of the body. Then, since he is given us unto life, we understand that without him in us we would plainly be dead. Therefore, this is the worthiness - the best and only kind we can bring to God - to offer our vileness and (so to speak) our unworthiness to him so that his mercy may make us worthy of him; to despair in ourselves so that we may be comforted in him; to abase ourselves so that we may be lifted up by him; to accuse ourselves so that we may be justified by him”. He also speaks of the importance of expressing our unity in Christ.
As for the proper celebration of the Lord’s Supper (43-50) Calvin says that it should be done “at least once a week”. He quotes Augustine and Chrysostom in favour of regular participation and condemns the practice of communicating only once a year. He unsurprisingly opposes communion in one kind, turning to Scripture and history to make his case.
Book 4 of the Institutes deals with the subject of the church. Baptists perhaps wish to disagree with him more here than anywhere else but there is still a great deal that we can agree with. In Chapter 14 he has a general chapter on the sacraments then come in turn two chapters on baptism and two on the Lord's Supper. The second of the two chapters on the Supper is largely negative but the one before it (Chapter 17) is a positive attempt to deal with the subject in a biblical manner. In over 50 sections he sets out his views and what he has to say deserves carefully examination and weighing up. He also published a short practical book on the subject in French in 1540.
The Battles edition covers around 60 pages and is divided into 50 parts. These can be further grouped under some 9 headings. The first three would be
1. The Lord's Supper with the signs of bread and wine provides spiritual food (1-3)
2. The promises sealed in the Supper as we are made partakers of Christ's flesh – a mystery felt rather than explained (4-7)
3. This life giving communion is brought about by the Holy Spirit (8-10)
The chapters that follow concern difficult controversies over the Supper that need to be resolved by the Word. The first of these is the relationship of the bread in the supper to the body of Christ (12-37). Calvin begins by looking at the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation (12-19). He calls it superstition and mocks the very idea (17.12). If it is true why is there no corresponding change in the water of baptism? This is not what the church believed in times past and is a Satan inspired innovation.
Next he turns to the Lutheran doctrine (20-34). Following the lead of Joachim Westphal, many Lutherans tended to believe in what is called the ubiquity of Christ. This teaches that Christ's body has the divine attribute of omnipresence. When Jesus said “This is my body” he was using metonymy (as in John's “Behold the Lamb of God”). Calvin opposes Lutheran consubstantiation as much as Roman transubstantiation. Indeed, it is worse in that it denies the ascension of Christ.
Robert Godfrey points out that Calvin's animus against the Lutheran doctrine was partly because it divided Protestants where there should be no need for division. Though accused of rationalism by the Lutherans, as ever Calvin was simply seeking to be true to Scripture. He says of Christ's drawing near by outward symbol and the inward work of the Spirit “Now, if anyone should ask me how this takes place, I shall not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare. And, to speak more plainly, I rather experience than understand it. Therefore, I here embrace without controversy the truth of God in which I may safely rest.” (17.32). By taking the line that he did Calvin was able to “hold that men bear away from this Sacrament no more than they gather with the vessel of faith” and even if unbelievers partake “just as rain falling upon a hard rock flows off because no entrance opens into the stone, the wicked by their hardness so repel God’s grace that it does not reach them. Besides, to say that Christ may be received without faith is as inappropriate as to say that a seed may germinate in fire.” (17.33)
Calvin's view then can be called a spiritual one. Van der Zee summarises “Through the sacrament we have access to all the blessings of our union with Christ because by the Spirit we are lifted up and brought into his presence.” There is a real reception of the body and blood of Christ in the supper but in a spiritual manner. The sacrament is a real means of grace, a channel by which Christ communicates himself to us. He agreed with Luther the Supper involves communion with a present Christ who actually feeds believers with his body and blood. The question was how Christ's body exists and is given to believers. For Calvin, while Christ is bodily in heaven, the distance is overcome by the Holy Spirit, who vivifies believers with Christ's flesh. Thus the Supper is a true communion with Christ, who feeds us with his body and blood. Elsewhere Calvin wrote “We must hold in regard to the mode, that it is not necessary that the essence of the flesh should descend from heaven in order to our being fed upon it, the virtue of the Spirit being sufficient to break through all impediments and surmount any distance of place.” The real difference between Luther and Calvin lay in the present existence of Christ's body. Calvin held that it is in a place, Heaven, while Luther said that it has the same omnipresence as Christ's divine nature.
As for Zwingli, he did not accept a 'real' presence of Christ in the Supper, and did not see a real feeding of the faithful on him. He believed that Christ was present in and through the faith of the participants, but that this presence was not tied to the elements and depended completely on the faith of the communicants. He interpreted the sacrament as a commemoration of the death of Christ, in which the church responded to grace already given, rather than a vehicle of grace.
Calvin's view has been attacked by later Reformed writers such as Turretin and through him Charles Hodge. R L Dabney said of the view that “it is not only incomprehensible, but impossible.” This seems over harsh.
Finally (35-37) Calvin writes against the idolatrous and superstitious adoration of the elements that is part of the Roman Mass.
The second set of issues tackled (38-42) is the need for faith and love in those who take communion. Rome stressed the need of holiness to come to the table but Calvin rightly puts the stress on a sense of sin and unworthiness. He says “Let us remember that this sacred feast is medicine for the sick, solace for sinners, alms to the poor; but would bring no benefit to the healthy, righteous, and rich - if such could be found. For since in it Christ is given to us as food, we understand that without him we would pine away, starve, and faint - as famine destroys the vigour of the body. Then, since he is given us unto life, we understand that without him in us we would plainly be dead. Therefore, this is the worthiness - the best and only kind we can bring to God - to offer our vileness and (so to speak) our unworthiness to him so that his mercy may make us worthy of him; to despair in ourselves so that we may be comforted in him; to abase ourselves so that we may be lifted up by him; to accuse ourselves so that we may be justified by him”. He also speaks of the importance of expressing our unity in Christ.
As for the proper celebration of the Lord’s Supper (43-50) Calvin says that it should be done “at least once a week”. He quotes Augustine and Chrysostom in favour of regular participation and condemns the practice of communicating only once a year. He unsurprisingly opposes communion in one kind, turning to Scripture and history to make his case.
1 comment:
Having fluctuated a bit over the years I'm now firmly with Zwingli on the "sacraments".
Post a Comment