Luther vs. Calvin on salvation

[JonNC]

On the Eucharist, I will offer this from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, and asked any Reformed member to respond if they can agree with it.

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

If a Calvinist can speak of the sacrament as Vulgarius does, as quoted by Melanchthon, then we can talk about it.

Jon

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Interesting discussion

 

[invocation]

Calvin on the Lord’s Supper is an easy one. He is much closer to Luther and to Catholicism and vigorously rejects Zwingli’s idea that the bread and wine are ‘mere signs’. In fact, Calvin is probably closer to Aquinas than Luther, since his critique of Lutheran eucharistic theology centers around the way the Luther makes human body share have the characteristics of the divine nature (in particular, omnipresence) in order to explain how the flesh is capable of being present in multiple locations. Hence the Lutheran discussion of the ubiquity of the human nature. Luther is mistaken to think that we have to worry about how the physical body is present in the Eucharist since the presence of Christ and the feeding on Christ is a substantial and spiritual one, not a physical one (which echoes Aquinas).

Nonetheless, Calvin agrees with Luther and Aquinas that we really and truly feed on Christ in the Lord’s Supper. The key texts here would be from the Institutes 4.14-17ff (4.17 contains a sustained look at John 6, where Christ tells the listeners that they must ‘eat his flesh and drink his blood’. This is a passage that Calvin really loves and returns to repeatedly. He insists that Christ means what he says here and this is not merely some euphemism for having faith. Faith makes feeding on Christ’s body and blood possible, but what is being discussed in John 6 is feeding on the sacrament.)

But an easy text from Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians reads as follows and is indicative of Calvin’s consistently held view…

“The body of Christ is truly given to us in the Supper, so that our souls are fed by the substance of His body, so that we are truly made one with him.”

It is no surprise then, that later Reformed thinkers, under the influence of Zwingli, found it uncomfortably papist (e.g., Charles Hodge’s code word for this was to identify it as a “foreign” influence on Calvin’s Institutes… he also calls Calvin’s position “peculiar”).

 

[steido01]

Calvin on the Lord’s Supper is an easy one. He is much closer to Luther and to Catholicism and vigorously rejects Zwingli’s idea that the bread and wine are ‘mere signs’. In fact, Calvin is probably closer to Aquinas than Luther, since his critique of Lutheran eucharistic theology centers around the way the Luther makes human body share have the characteristics of the divine nature (in particular, omnipresence) in order to explain how the flesh is capable of being present in multiple locations. Hence the Lutheran discussion of the ubiquity of the human nature. Luther is mistaken to think that we have to worry about how the physical body is present in the Eucharist since the presence of Christ and the feeding on Christ is a substantial and spiritual one, not a physical one (which echoes Aquinas).

Unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying here, the Lutheran view of Sacramental Union is precisely the opposite of what you’ve written. Lutherans don’t worry about how the change occurs in the elements because Christ did not explain how it happens. In fact, that’s what separates the Lutheran Sacramental Union from the Roman Transubstantiation; to Lutherans, Trans. sounds like an attempt to explain how the mystery takes place. In short, it sounds like you might be confusing Sacramental Union for Consubstantiation (which we do not profess).

 

[invocation]

Unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying here, the Lutheran view of Sacramental Union is precisely the opposite of what you’ve written. Lutherans don’t worry about how the change occurs in the elements because Christ did not explain how it happens. In fact, that’s what separates the Lutheran Sacramental Union from the Roman Transubstantiation; to Lutherans, Trans. sounds like an attempt to explain how the mystery takes place. In short, it sounds like you might be confusing Sacramental Union for Consubstantiation (which we do not profess).

The ideas of the ‘ubiquity’ of the human nature and the ‘communication of characteristics’ directly from the divine to the human nature are limitations in Luther’s thought for Calvin both at the level of Christology and sacramental theology. Luther uses them, among other things, as a way of attacking Zwingli on Christology and the Lord’s Supper, which he rightly identifies as interrelated issues. But for Calvin, though Luther is right to critique Zwingli, the alternative suggested by Luther implies that human nature of Christ loses its humanity, insofar as he argues for things like the omnipresence of the body of Christ as such, due to the hypostatic union. This way of framing the issue again places Calvin much closer to Aquinas than to Luther.

In his defense, Luther would say that he is just trying to think through what a resurrected and transfigured, post-ascension humanity of Jesus looks like (which is very appropriate since the Feast of the Ascension was yesterday). Thus, part of his critique of Zwingli is that the ascension of Christ does not mean that Christ is now absent, because, due to the union, the human nature is now ubiquitous. And then, again against Zwingli, we don’t have to say that the Ascension makes real presence at the Lord’s Supper impossible, because the humanity of Christ is now everywhere and can certainly now be truly present at altar. That’s what I meant when I said that Luther’s account of ‘ubiquity’ becomes part of his explanation of how real presence is possible.

On the whole, though, I think you see a real concern, across all three thinkers, not only speak of a real presence and spiritual feeding that takes place in the Eucharist, but to do so in accordance with their best understanding of the common Christian confession. This strikes me as another place where the differences, though real and important, are down in some very fine details.

 

[steido01]

The ideas of the ‘ubiquity’ of the human nature and the ‘communication of characteristics’ directly from the divine to the human nature are limitations in Luther’s thought for Calvin both at the level of Christology and sacramental theology. Luther uses them, among other things, as a way of attacking Zwingli on Christology and the Lord’s Supper, which he rightly identifies as interrelated issues. But for Calvin, though Luther is right to critique Zwingli, the alternative suggested by Luther implies that human nature of Christ loses its humanity, insofar as he argues for things like the omnipresence of the body of Christ as such, due to the hypostatic union. This way of framing the issue again places Calvin much closer to Aquinas than to Luther.

In his defense, Luther would say that he is just trying to think through what a resurrected and transfigured, post-ascension humanity of Jesus looks like (which is very appropriate since the Feast of the Ascension was yesterday). Thus, part of his critique of Zwingli is that the ascension of Christ does not mean that Christ is now absent, because, due to the union, the human nature is now ubiquitous. And then, again against Zwingli, we don’t have to say that the Ascension makes real presence at the Lord’s Supper impossible, because the humanity of Christ is now everywhere and can certainly now be truly present at altar. That’s what I meant when I said that Luther’s account of ‘ubiquity’ becomes part of his explanation of how real presence is possible.

On the whole, though, I think you see a real concern, across all three thinkers, not only speak of a real presence and spiritual feeding that takes place in the Eucharist, but to do so in accordance with their best understanding of the common Christian confession. This strikes me as another place where the differences, though real and important, are down in some very fine details.

I see, thank you - particularly for your second paragraph (I wasn’t sure you were familiar with the Lutheran understanding of the Risen Christ). What I still don’t understand is how Calvin and Zwingli both rejected, in their own way, Luther’s Christological defense of Sacramental Union on the basis “logic.” The Risen Christ appeared in locked rooms, could conceal His identity, etc. - but it’s too much to consider His perfected humanity to be truly present at the altar? If you know of any reasonable defenses, I’d be interested in reading them. Thanks!

P.S.-Feast of the Ascension is celebrated Sunday in these here parts.

 

[steve_b]

Here’s a question that resulted from a Calvinist friend of mine who is hiding behind that “we agree on the essentials” to justify the differences between all of the protestant traditions.

As an aside, the phrase

“In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity”

often attributed to Augustine was actually not from Augustine. Various sources, Phillip Schaff the Anglican for one, attributes the phrase to a Lutheran, theologian Rupertus Meldenius. Others suggest maybe it was from “apostate” De Dominis a renegade former archbishop of Spalato? either way it seems Augustine is not the origin of the phrase…
faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/augustine/quote.html

just thought I would add that in case it comes up
J:

I’d like to use the differences between teaching on salvation to show that they don’t agree on the so-called essential doctrines.

One could also suggest if Protestants (regardless of name) really took that phrase “In essentials…” seriously, they would cease to be protestant and return to the Catholic Church.
J:

Note: I’ll also point out that there is no list of essential and non-essential doctrines in the bible, but that will come later.

It doesn’t mean one can’t make a list using the bible.

For example.

An essential. John 6:53 Eucharist
Non-essential. Galatians 5:6 circumcision

 

[steve_b]

“protestantism” is, quite frankly, a useless, Romocentric label that really means “every-Western-Christian-who-isn’t-in-communion-with-Rome-for-whatever-reason.”

Is this a new trend, Protestants after all these years, now object to their name?

Re: “Romocentric” is that the Lutheran version of Roman Catholic by Anglicans?

 

[JonNC]

Is this a new trend, Protestants after all these years, now object to their name?

Re: “Romocentric” is that the Lutheran version of Roman Catholic by Anglicans?

The issue isn’t liking of not liking the term, but disliking the modern usage of it. That is, using it a blanket name for all western communions that are not Catholic, as if they are believe the sàme thing, used to believe the same thing, and were once one monolithic church that spintered. None of these are true. Most Protestant communions were not present at the original protest at the 2nd Diet of Speyer, which was a protest against governent restrictions of religious liberty.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Is this a new trend, Protestants after all these years, now object to their name?

Re: “Romocentric” is that the Lutheran version of Roman Catholic by Anglicans?

Naw, I don’t object to the term when it’s used correctly. Thing is, it’s just rarely used in modern lingo to mean what it was actually intended to mean. As Jon said, we Lutherans could accurately be called protesters. But the run-of-the-mill bible church started by a self-titled reverend in America? Not so much. They don’t typically care who Luther was, much less who holds the See of Rome.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The ideas of the ‘ubiquity’ of the human nature and the ‘communication of characteristics’ directly from the divine to the human nature are limitations in Luther’s thought for Calvin both at the level of Christology and sacramental theology. Luther uses them, among other things, as a way of attacking Zwingli on Christology and the Lord’s Supper, which he rightly identifies as interrelated issues. But for Calvin, though Luther is right to critique Zwingli, the alternative suggested by Luther implies that human nature of Christ loses its humanity, insofar as he argues for things like the omnipresence of the body of Christ as such, due to the hypostatic union. This way of framing the issue again places Calvin much closer to Aquinas than to Luther.

In his defense, Luther would say that he is just trying to think through what a resurrected and transfigured, post-ascension humanity of Jesus looks like (which is very appropriate since the Feast of the Ascension was yesterday). Thus, part of his critique of Zwingli is that the ascension of Christ does not mean that Christ is now absent, because, due to the union, the human nature is now ubiquitous. And then, again against Zwingli, we don’t have to say that the Ascension makes real presence at the Lord’s Supper impossible, because the humanity of Christ is now everywhere and can certainly now be truly present at altar. That’s what I meant when I said that Luther’s account of ‘ubiquity’ becomes part of his explanation of how real presence is possible.

On the whole, though, I think you see a real concern, across all three thinkers, not only speak of a real presence and spiritual feeding that takes place in the Eucharist, but to do so in accordance with their best understanding of the common Christian confession. This strikes me as another place where the differences, though real and important, are down in some very fine details.

Much of what were contentious issues 500 years ago, no longer apply, particularly between Lutherans and Catholics. The recommendation of the Vatican’s Council for Promoting Christian Unity is that Lutherans, like Orthodox, commune at Catholic altars; stating we believe the same regarding the Eucharist/ Real Presence.

Regarding salvation:

1. Lutherans and Catholics agree that the teaching ministry or magisterium serves the faith of the whole church by its public witness to the truth of God’s word. It must proclaim the gospel of God’s grace, interpret the biblical witness, and further transmit the word of God entrusted to the whole church and expressed in the confessions and articles of faith. The aim is to assist all members of the church toward professing their faith in accord with God’s revelation in Christ and in freedom from error. Thus, the teaching office or ministry is a necessary means by which the church is maintained in the truth of the gospel of Christ.

1. Lutherans and Catholics further agree that the teaching ministry must include the authoritative discernment of doctrine offered publicly, leading to judgments that preserve true teaching. Interpretations of the faith contradicting the apostolic gospel must be excluded, in accord with Gal 1:9 (cf. Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. VII, 48). According to the Augsburg Confession, it pertains to the office of bishop, “to judge doctrine and reject doctrine that is contrary to the gospel” (Augsburg Confession, Art. 28, 21). In Lutheran churches today, this task is carried out collegially and in synodical structures.

1. The church’s witness to the truth exists in history and thus has aspects of both finality and provisionality. Lutherans and Catholics agree that a particular concern of the teaching ministry is therefore to give public voice in an ongoing manner to the definitive coming of God to humankind in the death and resurrection of Christ, in which believers place their ultimate trust for life and final salvation. But faith is professed and lived out in history, amid cultural changes, which requires an ongoing search for appropriate doctrinal expressions adequate to God’s truth in this time before the ultimate eschatological manifestation of Christ as Lord and Savior of all.
   prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_ap-05.html

 

[invocation]

The recommendation of the Vatican’s Council for Promoting Christian Unity is that Lutherans, like Orthodox, commune at Catholic altars; stating we believe the same regarding the Eucharist/ Real Presence.

Do you have a citation for that? I’m very familiar with the position on the Orthodox, but I’ve never heard that claim with respect to the Lutherans. After all, much more than agreement on what happens in the Eucharist is a precondition for being ‘in communion’.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Do you have a citation for that? I’m very familiar with the position on the Orthodox, but I’ve never heard that claim with respect to the Lutherans. After all, much more than agreement on what happens in the Eucharist is a precondition for being ‘in communion’.

I think I posted this before:

Catholics and Lutherans together understand that the communion with God mediated through word and sacrament leads to communion of the faithful among themselves. This takes concrete shape in the communion of the churches: the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the una sancta of the, creed is realized in the communio ecclesiarum as local, regional and universal communion, and so as church fellowship.
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int…urch3.html#3.4

But the operative presumption is that Christian faith sufficient for Eucharistic sharing exists in the case of Catholics and Orthodox despite the inability of the latter to accept all these particular dogmas. We believe that this presumption regarding Christian faith should be extended also to Lutherans. If so, it would not thereby follow that limited Eucharistic sharing was justified in their case too. But it would follow that such sharing ought not to be ruled out because of Lutheran failure to accept these three teachings.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

1. What follows for the relations between our churches from the analysis above, supported by the biblical and historical explanations that follow below? Building upon the earlier Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues, Eucharist and Ministry and Facing Unity,156 we propose steps toward a full, mutual recognition and reconciliation of our ministries and the ultimate goal of full communion. We are aware of common challenges to overcome. Nevertheless, the mutual recognition of ministries need not be an all-or-nothing matter and should not be reduced to a simple judgment about validity or invalidity. In order to assess the degree of our koinonia in ordained ministry, a more nuanced discernment is needed reflecting the way that an ordained ministry serves the proclamation of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments, stands in continuity with the apostolic tradition, and serves communion among churches.
   usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea…-salvation.cfm

 

[invocation]

What I still don’t understand is how Calvin and Zwingli both rejected, in their own way, Luther’s Christological defense of Sacramental Union on the basis “logic.” The Risen Christ appeared in locked rooms, could conceal His identity, etc. - but it’s too much to consider His perfected humanity to be truly present at the altar?

As we saw, the substance of his humanity is at the altar, in Calvin. The issue for Calvin is that bodies are local: i.e., they occupy a specific space and time. They have to be somewhere. The body of Christ, even as a resurrected body, has to be in some place and not another. The communicatio idiomatum, as understood by Luther, in which the divine nature gives its attributes to the human nature, compromises what we mean by human to such a degree that it is unrecognizable. The human is absorbed and lost in the divine. Or, to put it much more bluntly, Calvin is worried that Luther is undermining Chalcedon (not in some malicious or purposeful way, obviously; but that is the effect, in Calvin’s estimation).

Calvin has a little work called something like… A Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper… in which he discusses the limitations of the Catholic and Lutheran and Zwinglian positions on body of Christ and the materiality of the bread and wine and such like. It provides little more than thumbnails of the issues, but it nonetheless does a good job of outlining the basic points of Calvin’s thought on the matter.

 

[invocation]

Maybe I am misreading the quotes posted by EvangelCatholic, but they do not seem to me to suggest that Lutherans are in a fully similar situation with respect to being in communion with Catholicism as Orthodoxy (that would be a helluva thing to just drop in the middle of an otherwise extended discussion on the nuances of agreements and disagreements between Catholics and Lutherans that is being discussed at rather remarkable length in Building Unity). They both suggest instead that with some work maybe such a position could be arrived at someday in the hopefully near future. Which is, of course, the goal.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

48.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist.

56.Catholic and Lutheran Christians together recognize that in the Eucharist Jesus Christ “is present as the crucified who died for our sins and rose again for our justification, as the once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the world”.42

62.Lutheran and Catholic Christians confess together that in the Eucharist the body and blood of the Lord are really received, either for salvation or for condemnation (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29). They confess that the believing reception of the eucharistic bread and wine gives personal union with Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior They also agree that the efficacy of believers reception of the Lord cannot be measured by human standards but belongs to the sphere of the free and humanly uncontrollable action of God.
raadvankerken.nl/fman/3246.pdf

 

[benjohnson]

They both suggest instead that with some work maybe such a position could be arrived at someday in the hopefully near future. Which is, of course, the goal.

As a Lutheran, if I view the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation a positive defense against the heresies surrounding the Body and Blood of Christ, then I don’t think this particular issue needs to divide the church - at least from our point of view.

Regardless of Luther’s pontification on the nature of the Eucharist, the Lutheran position is rather simple repetition of the given Gospel - that it is the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour. Luther used all sorts of convincing ideas in order to persuade, but always came back to the truth that the Eucharist is a Mystery of our faith.

Luther himself rather famously got tired of debating Zwingli, drew a knife and carved “Hoc est Corpus Meum” on the table. As Zwingli provided idea after idea, Luther just pointed to the words of God.

http://billtammeus.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834515f9b69e2010534da0200970c-pi

 

[EvangelCatholic]

My guess is that the dialogue accepts Lutheran eucharist/ and maybe holy orders but it is the Lutherans who ask for eucharistic hospitality, now.

Commenting on this point, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1993 to Bavarian Lutheran bishop Johannes Hanselmann:
I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.166

We follow Francis and pray for the holy father daily
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/cattolici-catolicos-catholics-luterani-lutherans-luteranos-28838/

 

[steido01]

Maybe I am misreading the quotes posted by EvangelCatholic, but they do not seem to me to suggest that Lutherans are in a fully similar situation with respect to being in communion with Catholicism as Orthodoxy (that would be a helluva thing to just drop in the middle of an otherwise extended discussion on the nuances of agreements and disagreements between Catholics and Lutherans that is being discussed at rather remarkable length in Building Unity). They both suggest instead that with some work maybe such a position could be arrived at someday in the hopefully near future. Which is, of course, the goal.

You’re reading them correctly. Others, in their admirable pursuit of unity, mistake the enthusiasm of the dialogues for a sweeping change in practice and doctrine.