For the explanation of this controversy it is to be noted in the beginning that there are two kinds of Sacramentarians. Some are gross Sacramentarians, who declare in plain (deutschen), clear words as they believe in their hearts, that in the Holy Supper nothing but bread and wine is present, and distributed and received with the mouth. Others, however, are subtle Sacramentarians, and the most injurious of all, who partly speak very speciously in our own words, and pretend that they also believe a true presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, however, that this occurs spiritually through faith. Nevertheless they retain under these specious words precisely the former gross opinion, namely, that in the Holy Supper nothing is present and received with the mouth except bread and wine. For with them the word spiritually means nothing else than the Spirit of Christ or the power of the absent body of Christ and His merit, which is present; but the body of Christ is in no mode or way present, except only above in the highest heaven, to which we should elevate ourselves into heaven by the thoughts of our faith, and there, not at all, however, in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, should seek this body and blood [of Christ].
Epitome VII: 2-5
Here we have direct statements from the Epitome of the Formula of Concord. These statements deal with our rejection of the Sacramentarian stances on the Holy Supper, precisely because the Sacramentarian stances disagree with the words of Christ in Scripture.
Who then, in modern terms, are we talking about? The gross Sacramentarians that the Epitome speaks of would be Baptists, Pentecostals, and so on. These are the churches that flatly accept Zwingli's purely symbolic reading of the last will and testament of Christ.
The subtle Sacramentarians the Epitome speaks about are the Reformed Calvinists, who claim to hold to the Real Presence but in essence reject it. The Reformed hold that the body of Christ is in heaven and will remain there until the second coming. There is some truth to that, but they miss the point that Christ is God and can make His body present wherever He wills it. They also are in rejection of the biblical stance on the communication of the natures of Christ. Likewise, another Calvinist canard to be aware of is the statement that "the finite cannot contain the infinite." This statement is foolish, as when taken to its conclusion, denies the Incarnation of Christ.
"Most injurious of all" indeed, as the Epitome states. Sneaky and subtle in an attempt to retain catholicity, but still just as Sacramentarian as Zwingli and the modern day Baptists and Pentecostals when push comes to shove.
+Pax+
Thanks for this post! I'm reading through the BOC and, as I do, I've been trying to make notes in the margins about stuff like this (specifically, comparisons to the modern churches). Very helpful.
ReplyDeleteSomething else that helps is that Luther is what is meant by God's omnipotence, eternal and infinite power, and right hand? Calvinist only understand this in an Aristotelian philosophy.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing to note is "God's right hand" is His power to rule all things, is His omnipotence, etc. The sects miss this.
The second thing to note is that is also something Luther points out is that God's power, omnipotence, right hand and so forth are not like "power exuded" much like a magician on Harry Potter or the force in Star Wars. No, rather His omnipotence, power, right hand ARE His very PRESENCE and HIM Himself.
Now put that together with when the incarnate Christ "ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father" as the creeds everywhere confess. Putting it altogether: that the incarnate Son of God is at the right hand of God means He is where the power of God is ruling all things, is at the OMNIpresent OMNIpotence, and as such IS where God IS everywhere in creation and beyond creation.
This is why Luther could say Christ is everywhere, but He only reveals Himself for us for forgiveness in the Word and Sacraments just where He said He is.
Nestorius, Eutyches, Zwingli, Rome, Calvin, etc...all come at God with philosophy in hand a priori and say this is what God can and can't do and be, then they say, "now what does Scripture mean."
Luther said that he/we should come to the scriptures confessing we know absolutely NOTHING about God and let Scripture tell us about Him through His Son. As Christ said, "No one has seen the Father except Him Who He sent".
In a way its obvious but our fallen nature shows itself to resist and pretend it knows something of God. This is in fact the bondage of the will.