ROUGHLY EDITED COPY LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS LC2 51 Captioning Provided By: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 1924 Lombard, IL 60148 800 825 5234 www.captionfirst.com *** This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. *** >> ERIC: When I talk to my friends at other churches about what we Lutherans believe about the Lord's Supper, sometimes they are surprised at what I tell them. When I read the words of the scripture where Jesus establishes the Lord's Supper, it seems to plain to me. When Jesus says, "This is my body," he means what he says. What do other Christians believe about the Lord's Supper? Why did the Formula of Concord stress this point so strongly? >> DR. RAST: Eric, this is an important point and one with which the church was struggled literally over the course of its existence. The Lord spoke very clearly, he spoke very plainly. We'll take his words as recorded in Matthew as case in point. Chapter 26 starting with verse 26. "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples and said take eat, this is my body. And he took a cup and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them saying drink of it all of you. For this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Over the course of church history the church has understood the Lord's word as they read plainly and simply. Is means is. But there has always been challenges to that understanding, even in the early church, the medieval church and certainly during the time of the Reformation. There were those that said but this doesn't make sense. Or others who would say the plain reading of this, the simple reading of this simply cannot be. We have to explain it in some other fashion. For the Lutheran confessors, both early on in the history of the Lutheran church and then later as we see in the Formula of Concord, this was a pressing issue. And it became a distinctively Lutheran emphasis as they tried to stay with the plain words of Christ while avoiding some of the philosophical errors of Roman Catholicism and at the same time avoiding the other extreme of simply turning the Lord's Supper into a memorial meal and ignoring the import of the Lord's plain words. It was, again, a very careful work of distinguishing what the Lord was saying with these words. Early on in the Reformation this issue of the Lord's presence in the Lord's Supper, the understanding of the word "Is" was not at the forefront. There was controversy about the understanding of the mass. But where Luther and the other Lutheran reformers criticized the Roman Catholics was not in their understanding that Christ was present in the sacrament of the altar, but rather in the way they explained the way that Christ was present in the sacrament of the altar. And then the way they understood the mass itself being an unbloody resacrifice in Christ for sins. This, they rejected. In fact, the Lutherans pointed out very clearly that the doctrine of transsubstantiation about which we've already spoken in this course, that this doctrine was not adopted by the Roman Catholic church until the year 1215 at the fourth Lateran Council. That's when it became the formal position of the church. The Lutherans said well we see here a philosophical innovation that goes beyond the clear words of scripture. And hence, they resisted that move on the part of the Catholics. They said simply take the Lord at his word. But as time went by, did become a point of issue. Already in the late 1520s, it was emerging as an issue between Luther and other reformers. Other reformers like Ulrich Zwingli of Switzerland who were saying things like Luther is not going far enough. He still seems to be too close to the Roman Catholic position. And his position in regard to the Lord's Supper is not a truly biblical or reasonable one. Because of the division theologically on this point among Protestants, some of the political leaders tried to bring the differing theologians together. Luther and Zwingli. In fact it happened in October of 1529 at Marburg, the so called Marburg colloquy. At this meeting Luther and Zwingli were able to agree on many, many points of doctrine. However, when they came to this point, the presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar, they could not agree. Zwingli in the end said this is not terribly important matter. We could still be in fellowship despite our disagreements. Luther said this cuts to the heart of the issue. And, in fact, we are of a different spirit. We understand the person of Christ in a different way and it shows itself within our understandings of the Lord's Supper. Because of that there was a division among the Protestants. And as we move into the year 1530, that division became very apparent at the diet at Augsburg where the Lutherans delivered their Augsburg Confession. In that document, the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession reads this way: "Concerning the Lord's Supper, our churches teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and are distributed to those who eat the Lord's Supper. They disapprove of those who teach otherwise." What this shows is that in fact there was not a great deal of divergence between Roman Catholics and Lutherans in respect to the presence of Christ. They disagreed vehemently as to how that took place. The Lutherans saying we simply take the scripture at its word. The Roman Catholics trying to explain this in terms of transsubstantiation. But what it also shows is that there is an impending greater and deeper division between the Lutherans and the emerging Reformed tradition. And that becomes more and more evident as time goes by. Now Zwingli's position was a rather simple one. Later on the formulators will call it crude sacramentarianism. Zwingli and others believed that the Lord's Supper was simply a memorial meal. That the bread and the wine were simply bread and wine. Nothing more, nothing less. They were symbolic. They helped remind us, merely remind us of what Christ had done at the Maundy Thursday meal. Nothing beyond that in terms of the presence of Christ. However, over the 1530s, another position began it to emerge. And it would largely be carried forward by the important Swiss theologian French born named John Calvin. Calvin at Geneva would do remarkable work in the Reformation but would develop his own perspective in regard to the presence of Christ. He argued for a spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar. In his great works the institutes, in his many commentaries on the books of the liable and the like, he consistently held to a position saying that the person of Christ, the God man is now centered at the right hand of God in heaven. And specifically in regard to the human nature of Christ, it must remain localized there. So the human nature of Christ remains seated at the right hand of God. However, according to his divine nature, Christ is omnipresent. Thus, if we are to feed on Christ, we must ascend to where he and the manner in which this happens is for us to ascend by faith to feed upon the glorified human nature of Christ which is localized in heaven. This happens said Calvin through the functioning of the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit dwells in Christ who is seated at the right hand of God and it dwells us, the spirit bridges the gap, if you will. And hence, this notion of a spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Calvin's position became more and more dominant over time. Certainly within the Swiss Reformation in the 1550s and early 1560s, it would find its way into England through some of his followers who had been present in Switzerland during the time of Mary Tudor, when she was Queen of England. It would also begin to make its way into Germany and into certain parts of the Lutheran tradition. We already mentioned how Frederick the III of the palatinate became reformed in his understandings in the early 1560s. He was influenced by Calvinistic theology. And the document that he had published, the Heidelberg catechism shows very clearly the influence of the Reformed theology. Most importantly perhaps in question 76 of the Heidelberg catechism which states that we are united to Christ spiritually. For Christ is in heaven, we are on earth and the spirit who indwells us both provides the linkage between those who would otherwise be widely separated. At the same time Calvinism is expanding, there is also within a portion of the Lutheran tradition a rethinking in Calvinistic directions in regard to the presence of Christ. Luther in his great confession of 1528 spoke very concretely, very clearly as to the nature of his understanding in regard to Christ's presence. And at Marburg he was clear on this point as well. He was reported to have carved the word "est" into the table. And, when he and Zwingli would argue, he would simply point at the word. Est, is, how do you explain is. Is means is. Some Lutherans however, began to take on Calvinistically influenced understandings of the presence of Christ. Some of have argued that Melanchthon began to move in this direction. Already in 1540 and 1542 in the verate or the varied or changed versions of the Augsburg Confession that he produced. Certainly after Melanchthon's death, this tendency became even more pronounced. And, among his followers, some of which were called cryptoCalvinists. Other times they've been called cryptoPhilippists. Whatever the terminology one may use in this respect, the fact becomes that by the early 15 70s, some Lutherans, many of whom had been influenced by Philipp Melanchthon had moved in this particular direction, taking elements of Melanchthon's theology and pushing them to their radical extremes. In this context, the spiritual presence seems to come to the forefront. And in a series of documents 1571, the Wittenberg Catechism, 1571 as well, The Person and Incarnation of Christ, the 1571 Dresden Recess, and 1574 exegesis perspicua (ph) or the clear exogesis. In these documents a spiritual presence of Christ is advanced. Now, what's the problem here? Well, let's look back once more at Augsburg Confession 10. Again, reading, "Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and are distributed to those who eat the Lord's Supper." Now those who held to the spiritual presence of Christ would say yes, we believe that the body and blood of Christ are truly spiritually present in the Lord's Supper. Lutherans, on the other hand, had been arguing that the body and blood of Christ were truly present. Well, said these inclined towards this more spiritualizing position, we believe in a presence as you do. The difference is we disagree as to the mode of Christ's presence. Whether it's a corporeal sacramental union that occurs here or whether it's a spiritual presence of the body or blood of Christ. We can't explain it but we'll leave it at that and agree to disagree on this point. This was what led to the great concern, the great division as a matter of fact within Lutheranism. In fact, the Wittenberg theologians for many years were able to develop their position under the aegis of saying we still accept the Augsburg Confession. However, later on, when a letter is misdelivered, their schemes are uncovered. The political leaders become very upset. And many of the leaders of this movement are dismissed. That opens the way then for the formulators to speak directly to the issue and to provide a clear answer as to what Lutherans believe in regard to the Lord's Supper on the basis of what the scriptures teach. And that's what we get then in the Formula of Concord article 7 on the Lord's Supper. It begins by stating very clearly, paragraph 2 of the epitome. "In the Lord's Supper are the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, truly and essentially present, distributed with the bread and the wine and received by mouth by all those who avail themselves of the sacrament. Whether they are worthy or unworthy, godly or ungodly, believers or unbelievers, to bring believers confident and life, to bring judgment upon unbelievers." This was their position. Now there's a lot in there. And you can see that they've gone beyond what the Augsburg Confession said. The reason is very simple. They want to be clear on this point especially. This is key. They say very bluntly, the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present. Here there is a crystal logical point that they are making in regard to the personal of Christ. They're concerned over the Reformed separating the two natures. Keeping the body of Christ, the human nature at the right hand of God while allowing the divine nature to move anywhere it wants to, to be present anywhere it sees fit Well, what does this do to the unified person of Christ, they ask? It seems to compromise it. Instead, the Lutherans say what you have with the God man Christ is one being, one person. So that where the divine nature is present, there the human nature is. Where the human nature is present, there the divine nature is as well. That is his word, that is what he is as a matter of fact. For us. In addition to that, you see that they're also concerned about Christ being received by all who receive the sacrament here. Within the Reformed tradition, they had come to understand that in the Lord's Supper, it was only those who had faith that received the body of Christ. Or if you didn't have faith, you could not ascend to heaven and feed upon Christ there. So only believers received the body of Christ. The Lutherans pointed out here that this made the efficacy of the Lord's Supper dependent upon the faith of the believer. Instead, they said, what we look to is the word of Christ. The centrality of the word coming to the forefront. And what does the word say? This is my body, this is my blood. Beyond that Paul stating in 1 Corinthians that those who eat and drink without faith receive the body and blood of Christ but unfortunately to their judgment. So the Lutherans criticize the Calvinizing or spiritualizing party for putting the emphasis then on the faith of the individual rather than on the word of Christ. That, they said, really made the distinction between Zwinglians and spiritualizing Calvinists indifferent. What we had with Zwinglians were crude sacramentarians, as they called them. They said it's simply symbolical and if there's any benefit to be gained from participating in the Lord's Supper, it's because we by faith recall what he has done. The more subtle sacramentarians or the cunning sacramentarians as they call them, are, as they put it, the more dangerous kind. Because they say this: They claim or pretend that they also believe in a true presence of the true essential living body and blood of Christ and the holy supper, but that this takes place spiritually through faith. Yet under the guise of such plausible words, they retain the former crude opinion that nothing more than bread and wine is present in the holy supper are and receive there by the mouth. Strong words. Strong words. But there's a point here they're making. Bread and wine was all the Zwinglians saw. In fact, in the supper bread and wine is all there is in the Calvinist tradition, but by faith one ascends to feed upon Christ, if one is a believer. For the unbeliever there is nothing but bread and wine. Nothing at all. So as they continue, this is paragraph 5 of the epitome. "For spiritually means to them nothing other than the spirit of Christ that is present or the power of the absent body of Christ and his merit. The body of Christ, according to this opinion is, however, in no way or form present, but it is only up there in the highest heaven. To this body we lift ourselves into heaven through the thoughts of our faith. That we should seek his body and blood but never in the bread and wine of the supper." Here's the key: Note the pronouns within that particular paragraph. "That we should seek, that we must exercise our faith, that we must be the ones who find Christ." Whereas, the Lutherans will emphasize what the word of Christ says so plainly and what the catechism summarizes so beautifully. What is the sacrament of the altar? It is the true body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine given to us Christians to eat and drink for the forgiveness of sins. Christ present in our midst, seeking us, finding us, coming to us with his gifts of forgiveness and thereby strengthening our faith. On the Lutheran side Christ for us, on the spiritualizing and Calvinistically inclined side, us acting to find Christ. The pronouns make all the difference in the minds of the Lutherans. So what do we teach in this regard? Well very simply, the Lutherans say, we hold that the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present as we already heard, distributed and received. That Christ's words are to be taken literally and plainly as they read. This is my body. That there is a sacramental union of the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine. That the centrality of the consecration has to be maintained. In fact, as the Lutheran theologians will put it, "In addition, we believe, teach, and hold that with one accord that in the use of Holy Supper, the words of Christ's institution may under no circumstances be omitted but must be spoken publicly.". Very clear. Why? Because the word of God is at the center. And the word of God gives what it promises. We must not look to ourselves for this because then what are we thrown into? Perhaps we question. Did I believe fully? Did I truly have faith in Christ, that Christ was present? Is my faith strong enough? In the words of the Lutheran authors come back, that is not the point. The sacrament is for those who are weak in faith, all of us in the sure word of Christ comes to us saying your sins are forgiven. And by that good word, our faith is strengthened. His work for us, Gospel. On the other side our work, law. Thus, in conclusion, Lutherans make four basic points. And here they draw these from Luther himself. Again, from his great confession of 1528 saying Luther captured this so well in that context. It still applies today. First off, says Luther, the right hand of God is everywhere. Secondly, the word of God is not false or deceitful. We can take Christ at his word. When he says, "Is" he means is. And that God can be present everywhere. Because Christ is true God and true man he can be present everywhere. According to his one person including both natures. Now obviously the implications for fellowship are obvious here. The Lord's Supper is a great gift of Christ to the church and it is his supper. We must never forget that. But in its institution as in its application, we also must consider the words that are here. And not flippantly pass them aside saying, well, do you believe Christ is present? What this gives us is a great opportunity to confess the gospel to the world, to focus in on Christ and his merciful character and love for people who are in need. I was a pastor in Tennessee for a number of years. And I would often ask people of a variety of different backgrounds, what do you believe about the Lord's Supper? And they'd say well, you know, I believe that there's a certain way in which Christ is present, that kind of thing. And I'd press them a little more carefully, and usually what came out is that they ultimately believed it was a symbolic meal or there was a spiritualizing presence there but they really didn't grasp the full import of the true and essential presence of the body and blood of Christ and what that meant for them. I think in this context, we Lutherans have a great opportunity to speak the word of God clearly, to be a blessing to the church for broadly as we recapture a focus on the gracious presence of Christ within the sacrament of the altar. Because this is not just an indifferent matter. This really moves us to the heart of the Christian religion. St. Paul says great is the mystery of our religion that God is man, that man is God. And in fact, Luther himself anticipates that. And the formulators anticipate that as they prepare to move on to our next article. Article 8. Luther's final point from the great confession. Actually, it's the first and foremost that he makes. He says this: "Jesus Christ is true, essential natural, complete God and human being in one person, undivided, inseparable." That's the basis for our teaching in regard to the preps of Christ in the sacrament of the altar. That will be the basis for article 8 as well. And we'll turn to that next.