Category: Calvin/Calvinism

Posted on

Revelation 20: The Triumph of the Church and the Humiliation of the Old Serpent; A Brief Exposition, Part 1

The significance of Revelation 20 cannot be underestimated. Scholars have pondered the exegesis of this passage for centuries. Consequently, three positions have emerged. The first position is Premillennialism. The word “millennialism”[1] means a “thousand years” mentioned six times in Revelation 20. “Pre” refers to the time before the “thousand years.”[2] Therefore, Premillennialists[3] argue that Christ will return before the initiation of the aforementioned thousand years. Historically, Premillennialists have been divided over when Christ will return, though they agree it will precede the millennium of Revelation 20. Dispensational Premillennialists[4] contend that Christ will return in two separate stages: first, to rapture His church and second, to end this present world and bring about the prophetic promises[5] of a land of peace and righteousness for a literal thousand years.[6]

Conversely, Historical Premillennialists believe the rapture of First Thessalonians 4 is the same as the “glorious appearing” of Titus 2:13. Therefore, the Rapture and the Second Coming refer to the same event. This position bears much similarity to the Amillenialist viewpoint.

Amillenialism has a long tradition in Reformation history.[7] The “A” negates “millenialist.” Thus, those who defend this position believe that there is no literal millennium. Some consider the term “Inaugurated Eschatology” a more accurate description of this position, since with the First Advent of the blessed Lord; Christ’s millennial reign began in the hearts of believers.[8] Summarily, Amillennialists[9] prefer to see the millennium as a spiritual manifestation of the kingdom of God.[10] During the period from the First to the Second Advent, the Church can expect to see simultaneous growth of justice and injustice, good and evil, Christianity and paganism.[11]

A third position is Postmillennialism.[12] “Post” indicates that Christ will return after the completion of the Millennial Age. This period endures from Christ’s First Coming in the Incarnation to His Second Coming in the Consummation.[13] Unlike Amillenialists and Premillennialists, Postmillennialists believe that the Church can expect to see a great manifestation of the gospel throughout the nations.[14] Nations will be converted to God in abundance, societies will be transformed, and peace and righteousness will reign[15] for a thousand years.[16] Nevertheless, Postmillenarians do not believe in a utopian society where all sin will be banished.[17] Since Postmillennialists are largely Calvinists, they recognize the post-lapsarian results of sin. Continue reading “Revelation 20: The Triumph of the Church and the Humiliation of the Old Serpent; A Brief Exposition, Part 1”

Posted on

From the archives: John Newton’s Rebuke of Calvinists…

Editor’s note: This was originally posted on my blog in June of 2004.

“And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility that they are willing in words to debase the creature, and to give all the glory of salvation to the Lord, yet know not what manner of spirit they are of. Whatever it be that makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit. Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines, as well as upon works; and the man may have a heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with unorthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature and the riches of free grace.”*

Perhaps this rebuke should cause most of us who unashamedly call ourselves “Calvinists” to tremble. We have at times ( and I guilty of it) elevated ourselves so high, that instead of exalting the doctrines of God’s Grace we have made it a stepping stone for the enhancement of our intellect, pride, and even, our self-righteousness.

We lose the beauty and majesty of grace when we reduce it to mere abstract theologicaljohn-newton-1-sized.jpg jargon used to bring glory to ourselves. Remember Paul says that we are the “weak vessels” that bring a great message, not a great vessel that brings a weak message. The message of Grace is lost when presented by one who shows no grace. Sadly, most of us Calvinists have done just that. We have turned our focus on ourselves, our logic, and our abilities instead of stooping low to reveal the giver of Grace.

It is our highest aim to proclaim a doctrine that so diminishes us, as to make us look insignificant to the rest of humanity. And it is our highest aim to make God look so significant and glorious so as to make him the desire of nations. Let us not turn the purpose of Calvinism on its head by missing the goal.
* The Works of John Newton (quoted on pg. 30 of “Reformed is not Enough” by Douglas Wilson.

Posted on

A Reformed View of Apologetics, Part 1

Editor’s Note: In these posts, I have tried to offer a simple introduction to Presuppositional apologetics. Many in our day are unaware of the incredible influence of Professor Cornelius Van Til. These posts serve to distinguish the Reformed View of apologetics from Thomistic approaches and to encourage Christian thinkers to self-consciously presuppose God’s existence in every apologetic encounter.

Just as Calvinism distinguishes itself from other systems of thought in the area of cultural transformation,[1] so too, does Calvinism differ itself in the area of epistemology.[2] The superiority of the Reformed tradition over other philosophical approaches to epistemology is even clearer when we examine the foundation of their thinking.

We are how we reason; we reason how we were made to reason. Though Christian humanity is filled with dignity, we are also filled with sin. This is what some call the “noetic effects of the fall.” Simply put, our minds are in the “valley of the blind.”[3] Our new humanity rescues us from our autonomous epistemology. It is for this very reason that we are to think as God intends us to think.

180px-cornelius_van_til.jpgThe Reformed tradition differs substantially from Roman Catholic, Arminian, and atheistic thought.[4] All three of these systems begin their reasoning process from an autonomous framework. They all follow a Thomistic[5] approach to reason, and hence, do not begin as God intends them to begin. God’s intention is that the Christian begin his thinking with God’s counsel as the presupposition of all reasoning. The consequences of denying God’s counsel as a presupposition to all thought is disastrous. As Van Til summarizes:

Romanism and Arminianism[6] have virtually allowed that God’s counsel need not always and everywhere be taken as our principle of individuation. This is to give license to would-be autonomous man, permitting him to interpret reality apart from God.[7]

The Reformed thinker cannot fathom reality apart from God’s revelation. On the other hand, autonomous man cherishes-for the sake of reason-non-Christian presuppositions. Our standing before God is one of gratitude. We are grateful that God has redeemed our minds to think His ways and not ours. As Van Til powerfully concludes:

The Reformed believer knows that he himself has been taken out of a world of misinterpretation and place in the world of truth by the initiative of God.[8]

—————————————

[1] See my articles on Abraham Kuyper on the Abraham Kuyper archive list.

[2] Epistemology refers to “how we know things.”

[3] This is the language used by Cornelius Van Til.

[4] For instance, consider atheist George Smith’s methodology. In his debate with Professor Bahnsen he stressed that his philosophy is Aristotelian. This form of reasoning was later picked up by Thomas Aquinas.

[5] By Thomistic, I mean the works of Thomas Aquinas, who strongly emphasized the use of natural reason to come to theistic conclusions.

[6] Arminianism is a system of doctrine that teaches that man has the free will to choose or reject God, and his salvation is dependent on a cooperative effort.

[7] Van Til, Cornelius. Common Grace. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947. pg. 7.

[8] Van Til, Cornelius. Common Grace. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947. pg. 7.

Posted on

Calvinism: A Comprehensive Worldview

Calvinism, from its earliest days, has expressed a comprehensive worldview. This does not mean that Calvinism has developed a distinctly Christian identity in every area; neither does it mean that the area Calvinism claims has been fully faithful to Biblical revelation. auge-kleiner.jpgThere has certainly been much abuse by those implementing Calvinism into certain areas of culture. Nevertheless, this does not change the thesis that an exhaustive worldview in a Calvinistic framework requires absolute Lordship in every area, though not every area is covered with absolute Lordship in a praxis (practical) sort of way. Finally, it is the proposition that only Calvinism offers a Biblical approach to the world, though its outworking may not always be as pristine as one may imagine.

Other systems of thought do not wish to make their worldviews comprehensive. Rather, they are satisfied with limiting their worldview to a particular manifestation of the kingdom, such as the church, or even worst, they equate the church with the kingdom. By doing so, they argue that only the church and its peculiar theology is to be transformed. This is the reason you will find many in this tradition seeking to diminish the influence of other churches in the world or they will condemn certain ecclesiastical practices.[1] They do this, not out of envy (though this may play a part in any tradition), but out of concern for purity. Denominations that adopt such attitude are generally small in membership. Some in fact, even pride in their size, because “smallness” equals “purer.”[2]

But what is the cause of this way of thinking?

Any student of the Reformation history will conclude that Lutheranism has been highly influential in developing this thinking, even outside its own tradition. Lutheranism tends to be highly critical of a worldview thinking that goes beyond ecclesiology. It is not the influence and greatness of Luther that is in question, but rather his particular theology that excluded cultural engagement as a means of redeeming society. As Abraham Kuyper summarized:

Lutheranism restricted itself to an exclusively ecclesiastical and theological character, while Calvinism put its impress in and outside the Church upon every department of human life. Hence Lutheranism is nowhere spoken of as the creator of a peculiar life-form; even the name of “Lutheranism” is hardly ever mentioned; while students of history with increasing unanimity recognize Calvinism as the creator of a world of human life entirely its own.[3]

It is an explicit Calvinism that gives impetus to societal transformation, for catholicity, and for ecclesiastical purity. The church is only pure when it is not abandoning its covenantal responsibilities (Genesis 1:26-28; Matthew 5:14-16).

[1] Those who embrace a robust Calvinism will also condemn dangerous and compromising practices in various Christian churches, though the difference is, they will not make it their primary goal.

[2] This is not always the case, but case after case proves this rule. This is not to say that all small denominations hold to this position, but it is to say that small denominations who have been around for over 30-100 years share in an implicit anti-Calvinism in their worldview.

[3] Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1931. pg. 23.

Posted on

Abraham Kuyper: Calvinism as a life-system

In his lecture entitled Calvinism a Life-System, Abraham Kuyper argues that

Two life systems are wrestling with one another, in mortal combat. Modernism is bound to build a world of its own from the data of the natural man, and to construct man himself from the data of nature; while on the other hand, all those who reverently bend the knee to Christ and worship Him as the Son of the Living God, and God himself, are bent upon saving the ‘Christian Heritage.’ (Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1931. pg. 11)

This “Christian Heritage” Kuyper spoke so strongly about was nothing more than Calvinism. It was Calvinism that had liberated European countries and that brought about prosperity to the United States (Ibid. pg. 14). In order to preserve the Christian Heritage, Kuyper would call the church to abandon any modernist approach to life and embrace the all-encompassing worldview of Calvinism. There were only two options: those who follow man’s ways and those who bend their knee to Christ’s ways. As Cornelius Van Til once said: “There is only autonomy or Theonomy.” (Page. 134 of Christian Theistic Ethics; many thanks to John Muether for the reference)

Kuyperian thought teaches that Calvinism “claims to embody the Christian idea more purely and accurately” (Lectures on Calvinism, 17) than other religious manifestations. Instead of placing the Christian religion alongside other religions such as Paganism and Islamism, Kuyper sees that Calvinism itself embodies true Christianity for it provides an entire life-system; a life-system that seeks to furnish human society with a different method of existence, and to populate the world of the human heart with different ideals and conceptions (pg. 17).

The great disputes of the sixteenth-century centered primarily on John Calvin and Martin Luther. The two Reformers differed in their understanding of the sacraments, and for the sake of this study, on their view of Christianity and Culture. The Reformational tradition of Martin Luther has focused much of their attention in the two-kingdom perspective. According to Professor John Frame: a “that view states that there are two kingdoms of God, one, as Luther put it, the kingdom of God’s left hand, the other the kingdom of his right hand. The former is secular, the latter sacred. In the former, God rules by law, in the latter, by his word and Spirit.� b In the Lutheran view, the two shall not mix. The sacred kingdom focuses on sacred things like the sacraments and the preaching of the Word; whereas the secular kingdom propagates an antithetical message. Hence, any attempt to sacrilize the secular is in vain. Any idea of a Christian culture is anathema to Lutheranism. On the other hand, the Calvinian (or Calvinistic) worldview denies so strong a dichotomy. Though Calvinistic teaching would heartily emphasize a strong view of the church, nevertheless, Calvinism would also affirm the application of Scriptural principles in all of society, including the civil sphere. As Frame writes: �The biblical view of civil government does not require us to force unbelievers to behave as Christians in every way, but it does call upon us to restrain their (and our!) sin in certain areas. We should be active in society to promote those godly standards.� c Though Kuyper praised Luther�s heroic initiative in the Reformation, nevertheless, Kuyper saw Luther�s position as incomplete in terms of applying a full Reformation. Hence, Kuyper writes: �But when the question is put, Who has the clearest insight into the reformatory principle, worked it out most fully, and applied it most broadly, history points to the Thinker of Geneva and not to the hero of Wittenberg? d

  1. Frame teaches at RTS/Orlando  (back)
  2. John Frame. The Chalcedon Foundation. Online. Law and Gospel. 4 January, 2002. http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0201/020104frame.php  (back)
  3. See Law and Gospel  (back)
  4. Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1931. pg. 22  (back)
Posted on

Every Self-Respecting Calvinist should be what?

I had the unfortunate privilege of listening to John MacArthur’s lecture on Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist should be a Pre-millenialist. a It was undoubtedly the worse lecture I have ever heard from John MacArthur. If I had paid $300 for this conference I would be asking for a re-fund and some apologies. I am rather convinced that the late Jack Hyles was not as arrogant as MacArthur was on this disgraceful sermon. I must admit at the outset that this post is somewhat odd in comparison to my usual writing, however, I feel compelled to share a few thoughts in light humor, anger and theological conviction. Be aware that every bold word or italicized phrase bears a crucial amount of significance to this critique of MacArthur’s abstruse message. The following requirements are necessary to understand the crux of this message: a) A fundamentalist background. b) A familiarity with fundamentalist evangelists. c) And finally, you must have a great love for dispensational brothers from all stripes, while at the same time despising their hermeneutic and what they have done in destroying the evangelical church (If you are not able to strike a perfect balance in this respect, then you are probably not prepared to read this post).

I do remember that in earlier days I was extremely attracted to John MacArthur. On a hot summer afternoon in college, b I sat down with his introduction to Lordship salvation entitled Saved Without a Doubt. While my forehead perspired profusely, I read the 200 pages in about 5 hours or so. I recall how impressed I was with his exegetical skills and ability to shatter antinomian reasoning. Since then, I still find many of his arguments compelling. c Over the years my theological convictions have changed immensely and I dare say continue to change in some respect. Nevertheless, here is one element that has not changed, and that is, the insatiable opposition to self-professed calvinists who claim to be a Calvinist while at the same time affirming a relentless affection for things anti-Calvinistic. Allow me to asseverate a few troubling contradictions in this MacArthuresque dilemma:

a) Dispensationalism is the most consistent approach to eschatology available today.

b) Dispensationalism offers a literal approach to the Scriptures that is not found in any other system.

c) Dispensationalism does full justice to ethnic Jews.

Anytime anyone affirms that a particular system that is not older than 200 years is the most consistent form of anything has made the most puerile assertion in the last 2,000 years. What leads someone to throw away Church History to embrace his autonomous self-professed calvinistic d hermeneutic. Tom Farrell, the evangelist, once mentioned that if you don’t embrace the Lordship of Christ now, there will be no time for you in the Tribulation to do so. Believe it or not, I was sitting there in the front row when I heard that staggering statement. I froze and wondered, as I still freeze and wonder 7 years later and ask: what does the idea of Lordship and a Dispensational scare tactic called the Tribulation have in common? e Answer: dictatorship. These two ideas can have no connection with each other. The idea of Christ as a dictator fits much better with this hermeneutic. Christ says submit to my way f and you will not feel the terror of a one-world order dominated by an anti-christ figure who will scar you with a man-made tattoo or a chip, if you prefer. Gary North was right when he said many years ago that Dispensationalism was on its deathbed. Professor Bruce Waltke was also right when he said in 1991 that Dispensationalism is destined to die unless some academic hero saves it from its predestined doom. So far, MacArthur does not fit the bill…maybe Tommy Ice, but again Ice is a calvinist, who works with Tim Lahaye. Try figuring that one out.

MacArthur asserted in his infamous sermon that Amillennialism is better fitted for Arminians. In his words, it is a much better eschatology since Arminians believe that you can be saved and then not saved. According to MacArthur, since Amillennialism believes that there is no longer a future plan for ethnic Israel, then they must be denying the exhaustive sovereignty of God in election. Did you follow this logic? This must make perfect sense for MacArthur…at least to him and the dozens of fans at his Shepherd’s conference. It is somewhat ironic that even when he appears to be minimizing the abuses of Dispensationalism like the Left Behind Series and the Clarence Larkin charts g one still wonders in what serious ways would MacArthur disagree with these men? Of course, Phil Johnson probably can’t write as good a novel as Tim Lahaye or Jenkins. I guess in the end MacArthur is probably not as artistically inclined to draw intricate charts, though I assume someone at Master’s must be gifted with that desirable gift. Lest I forget, it should be noted that Arminians are not, well, at least for the most part, they are not Amillennialists. Nevertheless, the invitation is open for some Amillennialist to affirm Arminianism in the comment section. h

A second devastating critique of Amillennialism i according to MacArthur is that Dispensationalism offers a literal approach to the Bible. A literal approach indeed! According to one reliable source “literal” means: “being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical.” MacArthur says that if we take the first few chapters of Genesis literally then we have no right to take Revelation in any other fashion. I am curious to hear MacArthur’s literalism triumph when he encounters phrases like “for the time is near.” j Well, of course, this cannot refer to a first century event since Revelation was referring to a future event. Well, that is only if you believe that “near” and “quickly” and “soon” are not literal, that is, not a strict meaning of the word.

This distinction between literal and allegorical is one of the most faulty theological distinctions ever made. It is so ridiculous that to make such distinctions is to nail your theological grave. Every system, if they intend to be in any sense Biblical, will apply both methods. To assert that Dispensationalism is literal and other systems are allegorical or symbolic is pure non-sense. In the words of Vern Poythress, the main difference between these systems is not literal vs. allegorical, but how one system sees the anticipation and the fulfillment of certain events taking place. Dispensationalism sees national Israel as a distinct body from the church, whereas Covenantal Theology sees the Israel of the Older Covenant as a type of the New Israel, or the Israel of God as Galatians 6:16 makes clear. But of course, MacArthur has a perfect response for Galatians 6:16. He believes that it refers to saved Jews. But how can this be when the letter is addressed to the churches k of Galatia? (Galatians 1:2) Somehow that did not make it into his critique.

The final assertion is that Dispensationalism does full justice to ethnic Jews. This is truly bizarre. How many Jews die in the Tribulation period anyway? The beauty of Covenant Theology is that the ethnic Jew saved by grace is adopted into the universal church. The distinctions have been erased; the walls of partition are torn down like the walls of Jericho, and the Jew no longer can claim exclusive privileges except for the fact that they speak Hebrew and then there is the Romans 11:36 dispute between Amils and Post-Mils, which MacArthur seems to believe are the same system. Beyond that, where is the justice in dividing the church of Christ? It appears, rather, that Dispensationalism minimizes the unspeakable sacrifice of our Lord to bring the church into oneness. l Speaking of Christ’s sacrifice, why are the sacrifices re-instated in the Millennial age, when the ultimate sacrifice has already taken place?

The absurdities could continue for ever and ever and a millennium. Suffice to say, MacArthur has proven once and for all why every self-respecting Calvinist should never be a Dispensationalist.

Sincerely,

A Self-respecting Calvinist.

  1. You can find some links about the sermon here and here.  (back)
  2. Though I refuse to make mention of what college I went to; I will say that its initials are CCC  (back)
  3. Please note that I have just given him a compliment here  (back)
  4. If I am consistent enough in this post I will refer to MacArthur’s calvinism with a little “c.” That is only because I have not yet figured out how to diminish the “c” to a 2 font.  (back)
  5. For those wondering, my understanding of the Tribulation goes back to a particular date in the first century…anyone familiar with the date?  (back)
  6. For MacArthur, submission to Christ’s Lordship also means don’t drink and don’t smoke and support Israel  (back)
  7. Enjoy Dispensational humor? click here  (back)
  8. Maybe Hank Hanegraaff will drop a note  (back)
  9. Have I mentioned that since MacArthur does not know the difference between Post-Mil and A-mil, he lumps both theologies together; well, I am at least glad he mentioned the ever dangerous Post-millennial theology of victory  (back)
  10. Revelation 1:3  (back)
  11. Notice a bold and italicized word means very important  (back)
  12. John 17  (back)
Posted on

This is My Body: A Reformational Comparison of Calvin and Luther’s Sacramentology, Part VI CONCLUSION

Calvin and Luther had many things in common. Both believed firmly that the Eucharist was a means of grace. 1 The elements nourished the believer and prepared them for their labors in the Lord. Calvin says that the Eucharist is needful because of our “dullness.” Similarly, Luther opines by stating that the sacrament, like the Word of God Almighty, has been given and ordained so that our weak consciences may be encouraged to faith and love. This common bond ought to have unified these two and their respective followers.

Though there were substantial differences, Luther and Calvin understood that the words of Christ had to be taken seriously. Zwingli’s memorial view did not do justice to the words of Christ and the Roman Catholic position relied too much on Aristotelian categories. Luther and Calvin’s level of sacramental and Biblical seriousness ought to pervade the Church of Christ today. It is a futile attempt for the church to “succeed” 2 in every area, but fail to see the essence of the apostolic church. 3 Calvin listed the proper administration of the sacraments, along with the preaching of the Word and Church discipline as the three marks of the church. The church is an unhealthy body if it does not keep and administer that mark faithfully, for in the Lord’s Supper the children of the King sit at His royal table to experience the glories of that sovereign union the King has made with His people. To deny such a glorious banquet would be to deny His children the true assurance that they belong to the King. Children 4 come because they are needy; they come because they hear the great Shepherd’s call. Indeed, the Lord’s Table is for those who labor and are heavy laden, and Christ the Lord will give them rest.

 

  1. See Stephen Nichols’ discussion on page 124 in Martin Luther: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought. [↩ back]
  2. The standards of “success” today are in total disagreement with God’s standards of “faithfulness,” which demands a holy reverence to His means of grace for the church. [↩ back]
  3. Acts 2:42 –And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. [↩ back]
  4. My reference to “children” refers to the church. “Children” is here used as in John’s address to the “dear children” in I John 2. Nevertheless, I believe that “covenant children” should be admitted to the table of the Lord. This topic is not the intent of this paper, though a logical consequence of it. [↩ back]
Posted on

This is My Body: A Reformational Comparison Between Calvin and Luther’s Sacramentology, Part V

For Luther, Jesus’ words were simple and clear. And for those who would oppose its literal rendering he had strict condemnation. According to Luther’s crucial work on the words of Jesus called: “That these words of Christ, ‘This is my Body,’ Etc., stand firm against the fanatics,” 1 he argues vociferously against his opponents whom he calls “fanatics.” He writes: “Now you demand Scripture from us, dear fanatics? Here it is: ‘Take, eat, this is my body.’ Torment yourselves for now with this text; later you shall have more.” 2

Turning back to the matter of the ubiquity of Christ, what is Luther’s reasoning behind it? General reference is made to the fact that Christ is seated at the right hand of God. This would entail that he is in one place. But Luther contests this idea when he says that “the right hand of God is not a specific place in which a body must or may be, such as on a golden throne, but is the almighty power of God, which at one and the same time can be nowhere and yet must be everywhere. It cannot be at any one place, I say. For if it were at some specific place, it would have to be there in a circumscribed and determine and measured, for it is uncircumscribed and immeasurable, beyond and above all that is or may be.” 3 Luther goes on to give a more thorough defense of his position. Though there are legitimate responses to Luther, it must be acknowledged that he dedicated a substantial amount of his writings to answering them. 4 Further, like Calvin, Luther, too, saw a strong connection between Word and Sacrament. Hence, Christ was not alone in the Sacrament, but was accompanied by His word. Listen to Luther’s insightful words: “ For there stands God’s words, ‘This is my body,’ which grasp, comprehend, and give us physically the body of Christ; therefore the body of Christ must be useful through the Word. Indeed, even if it were true that Christ’s flesh were merely a piece of beef, and yet God’s Word were there bidding us to eat of it, it would nevertheless be useful on account of the Word.” 5 The Word is therefore in Luther’s view inseparable from the body.

As it has been stressed in so many ways, Martin Luther drew extensively from the words of institution given by our Lord in the Last Supper. If no other passage solved the matter appropriately, then according to Luther one need only turn to “This is my body.” There, he believed, was incontrovertible evidence that Christ’s body was truly present in the Eucharist. On the other hand, though Calvin was more sympathetic to Luther than Zwingli, he saw in Luther’s interpretation a fundamental error, namely a confusion of the natures of Christ. If Christ’s body was present in the Eucharist He could no longer be seated at the right hand of the Father as the exalted Lord. For Calvin, believers partook of the body of Christ by faith and in so doing they were elevated to the heavens. 6 Calvin believed that the saints enjoyed him in heaven whereas Luther saw it necessary that Christ’s words in the gospel meant that his physical body descended to the Eucharist. 7 Luther believed in a mystical union between the recipient and Christ himself, but Luther’s emphasis is that the believer can be sacramentally united to the body of Christ himself in the Eucharist.

 

  1. These long titles were common in the 16th century Reformation. One need only look through the myriad of titles Calvin had for his Institutes. I would favor a return to long titles as opposed to cliché titles given to modern books. With long titles you can give an exact demonstration of your intention throughout the book, whereas titles like “1984” by Orwell say nothing about the content of the book. [↩ back]
  2. Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works Volume 37 Word and Sacrament, Ed. Robert H. Fischer. Muhlenberg Press, Philadelphia, 1961, pg. 50. [↩ back]
  3. can be nowhere and yet must be everywhere. It cannot be at any one place, I say. For if it were at some specific place, it would have to be there in a circumscribed and determine and measured, for it is uncircumscribed and immeasurable, beyond and above all that is or may be.” [↩ back]
  4. The majority of Luther’s works are dedicated to responding to his opponents. The majority of his critiques are against the Roman Catholic apologists and Zwinglians. [↩ back]
  5. Ibid., pg. 134. [↩ back]
  6. Reference to Ephesians 2:6. [↩ back]
  7. Christ is in, with, and under the elements. This has traditionally been called: “Consubstantiation.” Though as Keith Mathison has pointed out, Lutherans prefer the language of “Sacramental Union.” [↩ back]
Posted on

This is My Body: A Reformational Comparison Between Calvin and Luther’s Sacramentology, Part IV

In his commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians he expands on the words of institution. 1 At the outset he acknowledges the diverse trials the church has faced due to the meaning of these words. According to Calvin, Jesus was not presenting the bread to his disciples but his very body. Indeed, the bread is the center of the Paschal event. 2

Nevertheless, the question is “in what sense is the bread the body of Christ”? Calvin writes: “Christ calls the bread his body; for I set aside, without any disputation, that absurd contrivance, that our Lord did not exhibit the bread to the Apostles, but his body, which they beheld with their eyes.” 3 Calvin says that the “expression is figurative.” 4 As an illustration of this figurative language Calvin uses the Holy Spirit. Just as John called the Spirit a dove,5 Jesus uses the bread as a representation of himself. When the bread is exhibited the body is also there (when the parishioners take the elements by faith). This to Calvin is a “sacramental form of expression,” in which the Lord gives the sign the name of the thing signified.” 6

Though Calvin did not attend the Marburg Colloquy 7 he wished he could have been there. 8 Calvin thought Zwingli and Luther took extreme positions, and that perhaps his understanding of the “spiritual presence” view would bring the discussion to a more mediating position. But what exactly was it that Luther believed concerning Christ’s words? Luther expounds deeply his understanding of “This is my body” in the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. 9 There he writes that on those words “we must rest; on them we must build as on a firm rock, if we would not be carried about with every wind of doctrine.” 10 For Luther the words of institution were deterrents to heresy.

In the Formula of Concord (1577) there is a more detailed explanation of the developed Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as it applies to the “is” of Christ’s institution. Article 7, section 2 reads:

We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the Testament of Christ are not to be otherwise received than as the words themselves literally sound, so that the bread does not signify the absent body of Christ and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that on account of the sacramental union the bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ.

Once again there is a clear denial of the Zwinglian idea that “is” means “signifies.” Luther believed those words had to be taken literally. But this is not to be understood as absolutely literal. In other words, Luther does not mean that the bread is Christ’s body, but rather the bread remains bread and that Christ’s body is present simultaneously with the bread. Therefore, Luther’s doctrine interprets Christ’s words to mean, ‘This accompanies my body.’ 11 For Luther, Christ was present alongside the bread; therefore he is “in,” “with” and “under” the elements. This is, of course, substantially different from the Roman idea of “transubstantiation” where bread and wine are changed into that of the body of Christ.

Luther, however, faced a dilemma. How can Christ’s body be present in the Eucharist in numerous locations? This led Luther to formulate the “Doctrine of Ubiquity.” 12 Keith Mathison summarizes this doctrine in the following words:

“According to Luther and the Lutheran church, there is a real communication of divine attributes to the human nature. The divine attribute that is communicated to the human body of Christ in order that it may be in more than one place at one time is the attribute of omnipresence or ubiquity.” 13

Mathison offers several valid critiques of Luther’s doctrine of ubiquity. Among them he writes that to assume that a divine attribute is given to Christ’s body so that He may be in more than one place is a mixing of the two natures. Mathison writes:

It stands in opposition to the definition of Chalcedon, which asserts that the two natures of Christ exist in one person without mixture, confusion, separation, or division. The communication of omnipresence to the human body of Christ is a confusion of the attributes of one nature with the other. 14

Keith Mathison makes these concluding observations:

The doctrine of ubiquity not only distorts orthodox Christology, but also is inconsistent with scriptural teaching about the divine nature of Christ’s human body. The union of the human and divine natures in the person of Christ began at his conception, and this union existed throughout his entire life and continues today…the Gospels continually speak of Christ’s body in terms of specific locality. He is in Galilee, or he is in Judea, or he is in Jerusalem.15

This is not an exhaustive critique, but sufficient enough to raise some doubts concerning Luther’s sacramentology.

 

  1. Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by J. T. McNeill, translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, pg. 1360. [↩ back]
  2. The Paschal Event is the fulfillment of the Passover in the Old Testament. The “Bread” is synonymous for the Eucharist event. [↩ back]
  3. Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries Volume XX Translated b Rev. John Pringle, Grand Rapids: MI, 1979, pg. 376-377. [↩ back]
  4. Ibid., 377. [↩ back]
  5. John 1:32 [↩ back]
  6. Ibid., 377. [↩ back]
  7. Luther and Zwingli met at Marburg to discuss their views concerning the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. [↩ back]
  8. Of course, young Calvin was still pursuing his studies in France in 1529 when the Colloquy took place. [↩ back]
  9. In this work Luther examines the seven sacraments of the medieval Church in light of the Bible. [↩ back]
  10. Basic Theological Writings, pg. 293 [↩ back]
  11. Mathison A. Keith, Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2002, pg. 259. [↩ back]
  12. “Ubiquity” means the capacity of being everywhere at the same time. [↩ back]
  13. Ibid., pg. 257-258. [↩ back]
  14. Mathison 258. [↩ back]
  15. Ibid., 258. [↩ back]
Posted on

This is my Body: A Reformational Comparison between Calvin and Luther’s Sacramentology, Part III

Calvin spends a significant amount of time responding to his opponents. Though the majority of his efforts are spent responding to transubstantiation, 1 he spends time in the Institutes of Christian Religion interacting with some apologists for the Lutheran view. There is no direct positive commentary on Jesus’ words of institution in the Institutes, but in his commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels he spends a short time dealing with the meaning of the phrase. He begins his commentary on the words “This is my body” by commenting that some “entertain” what the phrase means. This is an unfortunate element of Calvin’s discussion, namely that he spent a major part of his treatments responding to his opponents instead of making a positive case for the meaning of Jesus’ words of institution. 2

Calvin takes a few sentences to give adequate treatment of those words of institution in the gospel of St. Matthew. Concerning the words of our Lord he writes, “that it is not an empty or unmeaning sign which he held out to us, but those who receive this promise by faith are actually made partakers of his flesh and blood.” Further he notes “that Christ presents himself to be enjoyed by us in the Lord’s Supper; for, though we perceive nothing in it but bread, yet he does not disappoint or mock us, when he undertakes to nourish our souls by his flesh. The true eating of the flesh of Christ therefore, is not only pointed out by the sign, but is likewise exhibited in reality.” 3 Therefore, when Jesus says, “This is my body” he means that he is truly present in the eating. Calvin assures the reader that Christ has not fooled us when he said his body is present.

In another place Calvin writes that God will “nourish us throughout the course of our life.” And the sacrament is a “spiritual banquet, wherein Christ attests himself to be the life-giving bread, upon which our souls feed unto true and blessed immortality.” 4 His body is the life-giving bread. Calvin sees a divine banquet in an earthly table. There are many mistakes in interpreting Jesus’ words, but one thing is clear in Calvin: it is a reality. Simply put, the body of Christ is mysteriously present and those who partake by faith partake of Christ himself. Calvin rejected outright Zwingli’s view that the table served only as a memorial. Rather, the recipient had the assurance that the body of Christ would be spiritually present at the Holy Meal.

 

  1. Transubstantiation is the change of the substance of bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ that, according to the belief of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church believes that the underlying reality was changed in accordance with what Jesus said, that the “substance” of the bread was converted to that of his body. [↩ back]
  2. It is unmistakable that as one responds to the arguments of another, he is at that very moment making a case for his position. Nevertheless, it appears that Calvin spent too much time responding to opponents, while Luther spent much time exploring the text itself. This is certainly not to say that Luther did not have “choice” words to his opponents, but merely to point out that he dedicated more of his attention to his text. [↩ back]
  3. Calvin, John. Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. III. Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids: MI, Reprinted 2003, pg. 209. [↩ back]
  4. Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by J. T. McNeill, translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, pg. 1360. [↩ back]