The Marburg Colloquy of 1529 was an historic event in Church history. It was here that Martin Luther and Huldrich Zwingli squared off in a monumental theological discourse. Truth be told, Philip of Hesse called for the Colloquy in an attempt to unite Luther and Zwingli for political reasons, mainly in order to form a formidable alliance in defense against the Roman Catholic regime that sought to unify Christendom by force if possible. Theology was only a secondary concern for Philip.
Anyhow, the Colloquy did not achieve the desired result for Philip of Hesse. By all accounts, Zwingli was willing to extend the right hand of fellowship to Luther, but Luther refused. Why?
Well, anyone who has read anything about the Colloquy knows that the major point of disagreement revolved solely around the Eucharist, or Lord's Supper. In fact, Luther and Zwingli mainly came to agreement (loosely perhaps) on every other article of doctrine that was discussed. But not on the Lord's Supper.
The vehement disagreement came about regarding what exactly was received in the Lord's Supper. Zwingli and his theological offspring want to make the whole discussion about ubiquity (omnipresence of Christ...that monstrous phantasm, per Calvin), but that is not ultimately, at least for Luther, what the disagreement was about.
Martin Luther simply refused to concede that the words "This is My body" spoken by Christ meant anything other than they read. Despite Zwingli's appeals to philosophical ideas and other texts of Scripture that have nothing to do with the Lord's Supper, Luther would not be moved from the simple and plain words of Christ. This is My body. At it's core, the disagreement was about the plain words of Scripture.
But also for Luther, and for all of traditional orthodox Christianity, the Eucharist is a Christological thing. For Zwingli it was a mere symbol. However, even Zwingli's symbolic view was also a derivative of his Christology.
To put things quite simply, Zwingli's stance was that Christ in His deity is omnipresent but cannot be according to His humanity. Hence, Christ is not present in the Eucharist because His body is not there. his body, in fact, absolutely can't be there in Zwinglian Christology. Therefore, when Christ says "This is My body" He must be, by irresistible necessity, be speaking figuratively.
Luther, on the other hand, held that due to the communicatio idiomatum (communication of the natures), Christ can be present anywhere and everywhere all at once. And, not only according to His divinity. Christ is not a nature, nor is He two natures (even though He certainly has two natures), but rather Christ is a person. He is the second person of the Trinity, to be precise. Because Christ is God, Christ the person (both man and God) can be present bodily wherever He wants to be. Because Christ is man, Christ the person (both man and God) can die on a cross. Because Christ is God, a man can rise from the dead. Well, you get the idea. Hence when we receive the body of Christ in the Holy Supper, we receive the whole Christ, both human as well as divine.
In fact, Zwingli's Christology is an age-old Christological heresy called Nestorianism. The separation of Christ's human nature (stuck in one spot) from His divine nature (able to be everywhere) splits Christ the person into two. Thus Nestorianism.
It is also hugely telling that Zwingli was willing to extend fellowship to Luther and Luther would have none of it. This too is a theological outworking of both men's stances on the Holy Supper, although it was certainly true that Zwingli was far more concerned with political and military things than was Luther. If, according to Zwingli, the Holy Supper is mere bread and wine that symbolizes Christ's body and blood, it truly is no big deal to have fellowship with someone who believes in the Real Presence. In other words, if the Holy Supper is merely symbolic, it becomes something of a secondary doctrine. Certainly it is not as important as the Gospel or the article of justification, for instance.
However, if the Holy Supper is truly Christ's body and blood for us in grace for the forgiveness of our sins as scripture declares, then the Supper IS the Gospel in a very tangible, objective, and visible way. It is, to be clear, a means of grace by which Christ and all of His benefits are actually and truly delivered to us in and with the bread and wine.
Therefore, for Luther and all Lutherans to this day, the Lord's Supper is of primary importance. In fact, fellowship in the faith is, in Luther's world, altar fellowship. This is to say that because of what we actually are given and receive in the Holy Supper, we will not have communion with other Christians who deny that. For Luther, this is akin to a denial of the Gospel itself, because the Supper is the Gospel delivered to us in bread and wine.
If the Supper truly is this, it is a primary doctrine of the Christian faith, not a secondary one of lesser importance on which we can agree to disagree. Once we see the Supper for what it is, we truly recognize that it is our lifeblood. It is grace for the journey, grace to forgive us of our sins, and grace to strengthen our faith.
If the Supper truly is this, St. Paul's warning to the Corinthian church takes on a whole new meaning when he says, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy
manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." (1Co 11:27-29)
This is why Luther could not have fellowship with Zwingli. To Luther and all of the crazy Lutherans in the past and today, Zwingli, like his spiritual offspring today (Reformed, Baptists, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, etc), denied what the Lord's Supper is, and this was nothing short of a denial of a chief article of the Christian faith. This is why we will not commune at a Reformed or Baptistic church, and also why we practice closed communion and will not allow a member of a church who rejects the Real Presence to commune at our altar. In fact, closed communion was pretty much the universal practice of the church until very recent church history. Funny thing, it is the churches who reject the Real Presence and in some ways have been influenced by theological liberalism that are the champions of open communion. After all, if the Eucharist is but a pious remembrance, partaking of symbols, then why shouldn't we open it up to anyone and everyone who claims Christ is their Savior?
This is also why Martin Luther, who fought against the abuses in the Roman Church, could say, "It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Before I would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have pure blood with the Pope." (LW 37, 317)
And Luther also said, regarding the symbolic stance, "He thinks one does not see that out of the word of Christ he makes a pure commandment and law which accomplishes nothing more than to tell and bid us to remember and acknowledge him. Furthermore, he makes this acknowledgment nothing else than a work that we do, while we receive nothing else than bread and wine." (LW 40, 206)
In other words, this symbolic stance is a pure rejection that the Sacrament is a means of grace, and in fact is nothing more than an affirmation that the Lord's Supper is a work of man.
When seeing the colloquy in this light, it should be simple to see why Luther refused fellowship to Zwingli and his followers.
For a fabulous and complete treatment of this very topic, pick up a copy of "This Is My Body" by Hermann Sasse. You won't regret it!
Grace and Peace
No comments:
Post a Comment