THE BREAKING OF GOD: SHOULD CHRISTIANS DIVIDE OVER THE EUCHARIST?

__________________

A Thesis Presented to Dr. Owen Strachan The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for HS202A

__________________

by, Benjamin Stanhope October 10, 2012

THE BREAKING OF GOD: SHOULD CHRISTIANS DIVIDE OVER THE EUCHARIST?

Introduction Our modern minds curiously stagger to fathom how our otherwise godly Reformation heroes could paint their Christian passion in so genius fits of elegant pejorative and brutality. Our apathy condescends to Luther like the deranged aunt decorum bids us love but whom we would often wish to lock in the basement until the guests have left. We moderns who clamor for Christian humility do not know what to do when he calls Zwingli an un-Christian theologian over what smacks us as negligible doctrinal hair splitting:1 For this is what they say, he rages, If I believe in Jesus Christ, who died for me, what need is there for me to believe in a baked God? Wait and see, he will bake them when the time comes, so that their hides will sizzle.2 That the Reformers were sometimes unnecessarily cruel and critical is certainly incontrovertible. They found themselves staving wildly at transmogrified shadows and revenants which would seek to extinguish their new flame of Christ in a forest of millennial darkness. But like Jesus own thundering offense and excoriation, the theological excoriations of the Reformers should at least shock us pause, exhorting our modern penchants for inclusivism and compromise. For the Reformers, the Eucharist was a delicate colonnade strutting the weight of a

1

D. Steinmetz, Scripture and the Lord's Supper in Luther's Theology, Interpretation 37, no. 3. (1983),

253. Quoted by Thomas Davis, This is My Body: The Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2008), 41-42.2

1

Christological edifice.3 An examination of the three views of the Eucharist represented by Rome, Luther and Zwingli (Transubstantiation, Real Presence and Memorialization) is, I have argued here, an examination of three distinct Christologies. The animadversions of the Reformation were concerned with the edificenot the trimming of its colonnade.

Transubstantiation With its implications for Justification, Transubstantiation was considered the primary blasphemy of Rome by the Reformation.4 The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist was codified early in the thirteenth century Fourth Lateran Council and perspicuously reaffirmed since. 5 Aquinas hermeneutic adopted by Rome utilized Aristotles metaphysic propounding objects contain elements perceivable by the senses (accidents) and an irreducible quality intrinsic to the objects categorical ontology (substance), in order to allow for a literal understanding of Jesus words, this is my body at the Last Supper.6 The substance of the bread and wine at Communion is exchanged by miracle with the substance of Christs very flesh and blood. Since the substance of a thing is the logical container of its accidents, the moment of transubstantiation reflects also a second miracle whereby God ascribes to the substance of Christs flesh and blood the accidents of the bread and wine. Recondite? Plenty! But it is the philosophic formulation Pope Paul VI declared should remain Catholic commitment as recently

3

D. Steinmetz, Scripture and the Lord's Supper in Luther's Theology, 263. Thomas Davis, This is My Body: The Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought, 40. D. Steinmetz, Scripture and the Lord's Supper in Luther's Theology, 254. C.f., Steinmez, 254.

4 5 6

2

as 1965.7 Given this solemn understanding of the Communion elements, Rome considers the Mass to be an authentic, propitiatory sacrifice of Christ to God which acts to justify both those living and in purgatory. As Trent says, The mass is propitiatory, both for the living and the dead.8 And you had better believe it! If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat: let him be anathema.9 By perpetuating Christs sacrifice, Catholic Transubstantiation rejects the cross as a once-for-all event circumscribing salvation to the exclusion of sacrament. And thus, Rome, without reserve, anathematizes all those who believe shear faith alone is sufficient for salvation: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema"10 Rome is a marmoreal colossal; every monument gathers graffiti. Given Catholic theology, it is obvious to see why the Reformers white fisted at the Mass. We can fairly identify the following distinctions Transubstantiation frictions against our two other views of the Lords Supper: 1. 2. Faith is necessary but not practically sufficient for salvation. Reception of the Mass is a means of Justification (like other sacraments).117

R.C. Sproul, The Battle for the Table, Ligonier Ministries, the Teaching Fellowship of R.C. Sproul (2006), accessed 7 October 2012; Ligonier.org/learn/articles/battle-table/; Internet. The Council of Trent, Canon I, Session XXII, Chapter II, accessed 6 October 2012; TheCouncilofTrent.com/ch22.htm; Internet.9 8

Ibid., Trent, Canon IX, Session XXII, Chapter II.

The Council of Trent, Canon IX, Session VI: Justification Canons Hanover College, accessed 3 October 2012; available from history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06jc.html; Internet.11

10

Ibid., The Council of Trent, Session XXII, Chapter II.

3

3.

Justification is corruptible and must be maintained, 12 in part, through reception of the Eucharist. Christs human nature must be ubiquitous in order to be transubstantiated. (The philosophical gymnastics are daunting.) The Eucharist is central to the Catholic faith. So long as we define the Gospel in accordance with how one is justified before God, Transubstantiation represents a different Gospel from Protestantism.

4.

5. 6.

Luther We are disposed to racket over Luthers doctrine of the real bodily presence of Christ as most important to his understanding of the Lords Super given its distinctiveness (or bizarreness, rather). Thomas Davis, a Calvin scholar, has argued at glorious length Luthers integral theological zeal and leading squabble with Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy concerned, not the real presence of Christ, but his doctrine of the Word of God.13 It is astonishing how this should hardly represent a profound revelation within Luther scholarship. Given the way we usually relate the Colloquy with so great emphasis on the divine presence, it actually is! It is obvious when reading the Marburg transcript, that it was not Zwinglis rejection of the real presence in the Eucharist that Luther most abhorred (for the doctrine is so ancillary to be almost

And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect, that if we, contrite and penitent, draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid. For, appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. Wherefore, according to the tradition of the apostles, it is rightly offered not only for sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departed in Christ but not fully purified. C.f., Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1446 accessed 6 October 2012; available from Vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm; Internet.13 12

Thomas Davis, This is My Body: The Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought, 41ff.

4

accidental in entirely), but that rejecting the real presence, in his mind, was an exaltation of human reason above the perspicuous Word of God.14 Luther, for this reason, assiduously gesticulated at Jesus words, this is my body as all he needed to deflect Zwinglis syllogistic arguments (most targeted at the intractability of a ubiquitous human nature).15 If it is indeed the case the scripture is so irrefragably literal and we are in an un-Christian manner rationalizing it away, sacrificing the word of God on the altar of our reason as Luther believed, adherence to Zwinglis memorial doctrine represents assent to an idolatrous epistemology (much the same type of indictment Reformed epistemologists in our day charge Evidentialists). The primary concern often leveled against Luther is the charge that his view implies Eutychian heresy. For Luther to maintain that the body of Christ is in the sacramental elements, he must maintain the body of Christ is in some way ubiquitous, that is, not circumscribed to a discrete location as Zwingli maintained. Since the nature of a human body demands geographic circumscription, it is unimaginable how Luther can maintain his position without comingling the divine and human natures of Christ or creating a nature novum. It sincerely appears Luther is not taking Jesus humanity seriously. Although I find this implication a sockdolager to Lutherian theology, there is no use vaunting it too far. Running with this critique of Luther seems unfair considering his epistemology afore described. Luther rejected the use of philosophizing in the stead of scripture and so, it would be unlikely his system would lead (at least) him to logically derive many implications in the spite of scripture, even though his theology demands an apparent logical paradox:

14

Ibid., Davis, 62.

Ben Witherington III, Making a Meal of it: Rethinking the Theology of the Lords Supper (Waco: Bayor University Press 2007), 123.

15

5

Prove that Christ's body is not there where the Scripture says, "This is my body"! Rational proofs I will not listen to. Corporeal proofs, arguments based on geometrical principles I repudiate absolutely, like those [of the Swiss] that a door cannot be made into a gate or a fingerhold into a pillory [any more than the body of Christ can be interpreted as residing in two places at once]. God is beyond all mathematics, and the words of God are to be revered and carried out in awe. It is God who commands, "Take, eat, this is my body." I request, therefore, valid scriptural proof to the contrary.16 In considering the Colloquy, it is impossible to conclude that the following distinctions between Luther and Zwingli necessitate denial of anything cardinal to salvation as with Transubstantiation: 1. At worst, those who reject a literal interpretation of Christs words are guilty of an idolatrous epistemology since His words are clearly un-metaphorical in Luthers mind. The Eucharist creates faith in those receiving it whether they believe or not. Otherwise, faith is a work. We can view this in the same way the physical act of preaching imparts faith.17 Christs body is everywhere. Given Luthers epistemology, we have no business reasoning how this notion is coherent or circumvents Eutychian heresy.

2.

3.

Zwingli Zwingli considered Jesus words this is my body metaphor. For him, the chief purpose of Communion was a commemorative celebration saturated in the cross which served to

Transcript of the Marburg Colloquy, The AdHoc Image and Text Database on the History of Christianity, p. 1, accessed 6 October 2012 available from divdl.library.yale.edu/dl/ FullText.aspx?qc=adhoc&q=3163&qp=2; Internet. D. Steinmetz, Scripture and the Lord's Supper in Luther's Theology, 263-4. There is no objection to the Eucharist as a means of grace which cannot equally well be lodged against preaching. When Zwingli (in an attempt to underscore the once-for-all character of the cross) protested against Roman Catholic and Lutheran doctrines of the Eucharist by citing John 6:63, he took hold of a sword which cuts both ways. Preaching itself is a physical act; speaking and listening no less than eating and drinking involve biological processes. One could as easily say of preaching as of the Eucharist: "the flesh profits nothing." Zwingli, however, is not willing to downgrade the public reading and interpretation of Scripture.17

16

6

unify the church.18 In Zwinglis mind, Luther was compromising the human nature of Christ central to His gospel.19 As previously argued however, there is no need to run too far with this charge. Zwingli believed the divine nature of Christ to be present at the Eucharist, but not Christs human nature. He viewed Luther and Romes doctrine of bodily presence idol worship since the material elements very literally are said to contain Godthe creation adulated as Creator. And just as Luther constantly appealed to the phrase this is my body inscribed on the table at Marburg, Zwingli struck riposte with John 6:63: Its the spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail.20 This was the response Christ gave the Jews who sought physical food and deserted Jesus after He commanded them to eat his flesh and drink His blood, saying, The words I have spoken to you are spirit. For Zwingli, this passage made Luther and Romes whole notion of a bodily presence of Christ to be ideologically antithetical to Jesus entire analogy. Luther was in a sense believing the very mistake the Jews abandoning Jesus had made; interpreting His parable as a call to zombieism! The spirit of a man must be edified by spiritual things, not some inane physical eating of Christ. Zwingli was the calmer at the Colloquy: I beg you for the love of Christ not to burden anyone with the crime of heresy because of these differences. The fathers certainly did not condemn one another in this way when they disagreed.21 He himself did not take the issue to be

John B. Payne, Zwingli and Luther: The Giant vs. Hercules, Christian History Institute (2010), accessed 6 October 2012; available from chinstitute.org/index.php/chm/sixteenth-century/zwingli/3/; Online Magazine, 1.19

18

Ibid., Payne, 1. Ibid., Payne, 1. Transcript of the Marburg Colloquy, 11.

20

21

7

as cardinal as Luther and there is no insistence in his apologetic that his opponent is outside salvation and the gospel. If his system is the truth we can make these distinctions: 1. To insist, as Luther does, the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ is to commit idolatry, to ascribe to the creature (that is, bread and wine) the glory that belongs only to the Creator.22 The primary focus of the Eucharist is a memory of grace rather than a means of it. The two natures of Christ embargo comingling, and Christs body is not ubiquitous. (The practical extent of believing either of these in distinction against Luthers system is relatively negligible.)

2. 3.

Conclusion We can see that Roman Catholics and Protestants ought to divide over the Eucharist, for they represent two radically different gospels with two different means of salvation. They cannot and should not be reconciled, nor are they peripheral enough to ignore for the sake of unity. Let God take mercy on anyone who falls under the imprecation of Galatians 1:8, Catholic or Protestant, for knowingly assuaging Transubstantiation as a negligible matter for the sake of unity. The Reformers and Rome were morally demanded to divide and we moderns are as well. What of the two Protestant views represented at Marburg? Are they dissonances meritorious of division? The gravest charge Luther can seem to wage upon Zwinglis head is an un-Christian epistemology. For Zwingli, at worse, Lutherans are committing an idolatry when they take Communion. These types of charges are indeed the solemn divisions denominations should be justified in splitting and arguing over. We may clamor that forming denominations over theological distinctions un-central to salvation is deleterious to unity, but that type of

22

Thomas Davis, This is My Body: The Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought, 255-56.

8

bleating is itself a great theological distinction which would abrogate unity. There is no moral sense binding in a Communion you consider to represent an idolatry of the elements (Zwingli) or imbibing with others in an understanding of Scripture that you consider idolatry (Luther). The one who councils the two to imbibe of Christ together for the sake of unity aggresses the conscience of both with idolatry. This said, considering Christ commanded all Christians to be unified, we have been unable to identify any reason to embargo sheer real-presence believers and sheer Memorialists from worshiping together. Ceteris paribus, they both agree on what it is to be a Christian in that their theologies maintain the same Gospel. The gospel is the chief core of unity Christ spoke of and the relentless sword of division. Let it remain the highest guardian of how we glorify God in His command for Christian unity.

9

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BooksDavis, Thomas J., This is My Body: The Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Witherington III, Ben, Making a Meal of it: Rethinking the Theology of the Lords Supper. Waco: Bayor University Press 2007.

Articles Payne, John B., Zwingli and Luther: The Giant vs. Hercules, Christian History Institute (2010). chinstitute.org/index.php/chm/sixteenth-century/zwingli/3/; (accessed 6 October 2012). R.C. Sproul, The Battle for the Table, Ligonier Ministries, the Teaching Fellowship of R.C. Sproul (2006). Ligonier.org/learn/articles/battle-table/; (accessed 7 October 2012). Steinmetz, D., Scripture and the Lord's Supper in Luther's Theology, in Interpretation 37, no. 3. (1983): 253-265.

Online Databases Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Vatican. Vatican.va /archive/index.htm; (accessed 6 October 2012). The Council of Trent. Thecounciloftrent.com; (accessed 6 October 2012). The Council of Trent, Hanover College. history.hanover.edu/ texts/trent/ct06jc.html; (accessed 3 October 2012). Transcript of the Marburg Colloquy, The AdHoc Image and Text Database on the History of Christianity. divdl.library.yale.edu/dl/ FullText.aspx?qc=adhoc&q=3163&qp=2; (accessed 6 Oct. 2012).

10