Calvin On The Supper

Book Fourth, Chapter 17.2:

Pious souls can derive great confidence and delight from this sacrament, as being a testimony that they form one body with Christ, so that everything which is his they may call their own. Hence it follows, that we can confidently assure ourselves, that eternal life, of which he himself is the heir, is ours, and that the kingdom of heaven, into which he has entered, can no more be taken from us than from him; on the other hand,that we cannot be condemned for our sins, from the guilt of which he absolves us, seeing he has been pleased that these should be imputed to himself as if they were his own. This is the wondrous exchange made by his boundless goodness. Having become with us the Son of Man, he has made us with himself sons of God. By his own descent to the earth he has prepared our ascent to heaven. Having received our mortality, he has bestowed on us his immortality. Having undertaken our weakness, he has made us strong in his strength Having, submitted to our poverty, he has transferred to us his riches. Having taken upon himself the burden of unrighteousness with which we were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness.

The Supper, part 4

The next point will probably sound the most foreign to contemporary evangelicals, sounding almost Roman Catholic. But the early reformers insisted that the bread and wine were signs of something present, not something absent - Christ was really spiritually present in the sacraments.

4. The Real Spiritual Presence of Christ. All of the words in that phrase are important. Christ is really present, if by real we mean 'true' or 'truly'. Calvin shied away from the word, though he did use it on occasion, because he was aware of the baggage it was loaded with. He denied that the bread became the body and the wine became the blood in a literal, physical way. The signs to not become the thing signified. Moreover, since Christ is in heaven he denied that he was locally present at the Table. But saying that Christ isn't locally present and that the signs don't become the thing signified does not mean that Christ is not truly present in an objective way. He is not only present in remembrance or sentiment, but truly present. The signs are not just bare symbols; there is a union ('sacramental union') between the sign and the thing signified.

How is Christ present when he remains bodily in heaven? Through the power of the Spirit. That is, I believe, what Calvin meant when he wrote about the spiritual presence of Christ. Saying that Christ is spiritually present can easily lead to misunderstanding. Calvin didn't mean that Christ is present only in the sense that the Spirit is present as his representative. The Spirit and Christ, while united in the Trinity, are separate persons and distinct from one another. Moreover, Calvin does not mean that Christ is present only in his divine nature. We communion with the person of Christ in the fullness of his divine nature and the fullness of his human nature. Calvin writes, "I am not satisfied with the view of those who while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood."

So what does Calvin mean when he says Christ is spiritually present? He means he is made present through the power of the Spirit. While we are separated by a great distance from the person of Christ in his flesh and blood, the Spirit bridges that gap in a miraculous work. Calvin writes, "though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive - viz. that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space."

For Calvin to say that Christ is spiritually present doesn't mean he denies Christ is present in his flesh and in his blood, but that he is present in his flesh and blood through the Spirit. Thus, what Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:16, "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation [koinonia] in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation [koinonia]in the body of Christ?" (ESV).

So, just as we really partake of the bread and cup, so we also really partake of Christ. The bread and the cup are taken by the mouth, Christ is taken by faith, being the "mouth and stomach of the soul." John Williamson Nevin explains,

“Here Christ communicates himself to his Church; not simply a right to the grace that resides in his person, or an interest by outward grant in the benefits of his life and death; but his person itself…Christ first, then his benefits"

“[The Reformed position] allows the presence of Christ's person in the sacrament, including even his flesh and blood, so far as the actual participation of the believer is concerned … A real presence, in opposition to the notion that Christ's flesh and blood are not made present to the communicant in any way. A spiritual real presence, in opposition to the idea that Christ's body is in the elements in a local or corporal manner. Not real simply, and not spiritual simply; but real, and yet spiritual at the same time. The body of Christ is in heaven, the believer on earth; but by the power of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless, the obstacle of such vast local distance is fully overcome, so that in the sacramental act, while the outward symbols are received in an outward way, the very body and blood of Christ are at the same time inwardly and supernaturally communicated to the worthy receiver, for the real nourishment of his new life. Not that the material particles of Christ's body are supposed to be carried over, by this supernatural process, into the believer’s person. The communion is spiritual, not material. It is a participation of the Saviour's life.”

5. This brings me to the last word I need to sum up the Reformed view as articulated by Calvin - 'miraculous'. Nevin points out that in the Calvinistic view, the communion of the believer with Christ in the Supper is beyond that experienced in common worship. Believer’s commune with Christ in the Supper in a unique way that is available in no other place. It is a mystery and indeed an actual miracle.Unfortunately, many modern approaches to the Meal empty it of its supernatural element, eliminating the mysterious and miraculous.

In case I haven't made this clear, Calvin's view is my own. In his teaching on the Supper, I believe he has done justice to Scripture and historic teaching of the church. It stretches our abilities to comprehend, and many have rejected his view for that reason. But that's no reason at all, much of what we affirm by faith stretches our ability to comprehend. We affirm, we don't always completely understand.

The Supper, in my view, is essential to the faith and life of the Christian. It is neglected only at great peril to both. It is to be observed in faith, with joy, thanksgiving and anticipation.

The Supper, part 3

In my last post on the Lord's Supper, I explained what it means to say the the Supper is a sacrament and a sign and seal. A few more important phrases need to be introduced.

3. The sacraments are genuine means of grace. God, in the act of eating and drinking, confers grace to the worthy recipient. There is something objective that takes place, not merely subjective (ie. us remembering in our minds or feeling in our hearts). The Supper offers, and makes good on its offer to the one who participates by faith, or as Calvin puts it, "[the sacraments] offer and set forth Christ to us, and in him the treasure of heavenly grace.” This isn't an automatic thing - it's not just the bread and cup that contain grace. First, to properly be considered the Supper means not just that we eat the bread and drink the cup, but that this act is accompanied by the words of institution. Those words, along with the act of eating and drinking, together comprise the sacrament. Second, the worthy recipient must partake by faith. Calvin, while emphasizing the objective nature of the Supper did not accept the notion that the the receiving of grace was automatic - no ex opera operato. The Westminster standards clarify,

WCF, 27.3: " The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers."

SC, Q.91: "How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation? The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them."

LC, Q.161: "How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation? The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted"

Again, it's not just going through the motions that makes them efficacious. God makes them effective through faith, not the thing in itself.

Some may balk at the language of the sacraments being 'means of salvation'. But, Calvin, drawing on Augustine, understood the sacraments as 'visible words'. Thus, what we say of the word can be said of the sacraments also. Generally speaking sacraments accomplish that which the word accomplishes, being a different means to same end. After all, the word and the sacraments have same author (God), same content (the gospel), same power (the Holy Spirit). Therefore, it can be said that, just as the word is efficacious in bringing about salvation, so are the sacraments. But, again, this is only true when someone participates by faith.

It is not automatic. Just as the word must be met with faith to be salvific, so the sacraments. Only when someone truly believes the message embedded in the sacrament (remember, the sacrament includes the words of institution as well as the act as well) do they become efficacious. So, Peter can say, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him." It's not the outward thing that makes it effective. Only when someone believes the message it represents does it become so. This has helped me make sense of the language of the Nicene Creed also, which refers to the "baptism for the forgiveness of sins." Baptism contains the promise of forgiveness of sins. It's a sign of that, and a sign it contains also the thing signified. The Spirit, in baptism and in the Lords Supper, transmits the outwards signs and words to our soul.

Next post, I'll explore the real presence of Christ in the sacraments, something I referred to, but didn't elaborate too much on, in the sermon Sunday (4/3/11).

The Supper, part 2

Enter Calvin. As I said in part 1, Calvin attempted to strike a mediating position between Luther and Zwingli, but in the end his views are much closer to Luther’s than to Zwingli’s. To understand Calvin’s view of the Supper one needs to consider the meal as a sacrament, a sign and a seal, a means of grace, as the real spiritual presence of Christ, and as being miraculous.

1. Sacrament. In many parts of the evangelical world, the word ‘sacrament’ is replace with ‘ordinance’, but Reformed churches understand the sacraments to be a special subset of ordinances, as the Westminster Confession makes clear: “”Chapter VII, Article VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.” Calvin followed Augustine in describing a sacrament as “a visible sign of a sacred thing,” and again, “a visible form of an invisible grace.” A few Questions/Answers from the Heidelberg Catechism flesh this out more:

§ Question #65: It is by faith alone that we share in Christ and all his blessings: where then does that faith come from?

§ Answer: The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts by the preaching of the holy gospel, and confirms it through our use of the holy sacraments (John 3:5; 1 Cor. 2:10-14; Eph. 2:8, Rom. 10:17; 1 Pet. 1:23-25, Matt. 28:19-20; 1 Cor. 10:16).

§ Question #66: What are sacraments?

§ Answer: Sacraments are holy signs and seals for us to see. They were instituted by God so that by our use of them he might make us understand more clearly the promise of the gospel, and might put his seal on that promise. And this is God’s gospel promise: to forgive our sins and give us eternal life by grace alone because of Christ’s one sacrifice finished on the cross

§ Question #67: Are both the word and the sacraments then intended to focus our faith on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as the only ground of our salvation?

§ Answer: Right! In the gospel the Holy Spirit teaches us and through the holy sacraments he assures us that our entire salvation rests on Christ’s one sacrifice for us on the cross

2. Sign and Seal. Calvin argues that the main purpose of the Supper is to serve as a sign and a seal of the covenant of grace (secondarily, to remind us of God’s great goodness expressed in the giving of Christ for us, and finally to exhort us to holiness and promote brotherly love). As a sign, the Supper represents a reality – Christ’s body broken for us, his blood spilled for us, as well as our participation in Christ. But it does more than just represent, for there is a union between the sign and the thing signified. In other words, the Supper doesn’t just represent or symbolize our participation in Christ in a bare way, but it also conveys what it signifies – we truly do participate in Christ by partaking of the Supper in faith. While the things, the sign and the thing signified, can be distinguished, they cannot be separated. The outward signs (the bread, the cup, the eating and drinking, all coupled with the words of institution) are, Calvin insists “conjoined with their reality and effect.” As the partaking of the bread and cup signify our union with Christ, we are united with Christ just as surely as we eat and drink. What is promised in the sacrament, namely communion with Christ and participation in his body and blood (1 Cor. 10:14ff), is really and truly given. As we partake in faith our souls truly feast on Christ and are nourished.

All of this is grounded in a deep understanding of the mystical union we share with Christ – Christ in us and us in Christ. This has not been a large part of evangelical or even Reformed theology for some time, having been eclipsed by more forensic language. It is not, however, necessary to choose between the forensic and mystical. In fact, I think we do a great injustice to the beauty of Reformed teaching and the Bible when we divorce those two truth – Christ is a federal head and we are united to him not just legally, but organically as well.

Calvin understood that this was deeply mysterious and could think of no natural analogy. The only analogy possible is the incarnation. Since the Council of Chalcedon Christians have affirmed that Christ be “recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ”. This is analogous to the distinction between the sign and the thing signified, which, though inseparably united in a sacramental unity, are still distinct.

Adding to the mystery is the fact that believers are united with Christ, not just the disembodied soul of Christ and not just Christ’s divine nature. We commune with Christ the person, both in his divine nature and in his human nature – his flesh and blood. This isn’t done by Christ descending bodily to be present in the sacraments, but by the believers ascension to heaven through the Spirit to partake of Christ. This is incredibly important to Calvin (and to me!). I’ll come back to this in the next posts. Let me tease you with a quote from Keith Matthison, “Since Christ has thus worked out our salvation in and through his human body and human nature, it follows that the benefits of his work are not available to us unless we ourselves are brought into some kind of communion with the human nature and indeed with the body, in which all the work of our salvation was performed” (from Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper)

On the Supper 1

On Sunday, I had the privilege of teaching the Berean ACG. The group is older and probably knew more about the topic of the Lords Supper than I did, but they were gracious and teaching topics always helps solidify my understanding. I'm dedicating a few posts to the Lord's Supper because I'm more and more convinced that a proper understanding of the Supper (and Baptism) is crucial to a proper understanding of the church and the Christian life as a whole.

First, we need some broad historical context. I'll keep this brief, maybe. The Roman Catholic view, at the time of the Reformation, can be summed up in three words: literal, sacrifice, and automatic. Literal in the sense that the elements of the Eucharist literally become the body and the blood of Christ. This has been termed the doctrine of transubstantiation - trans because there is a miraculous transformation; substantiation because its the actually substance of the bread and the wine that are changed into the substance of Christ's flesh and his blood.
The second word, sacrifice, is important because the Roman Catholic understanding was that in the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ was offered again as a propitiatory sacrifice. Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott writes, “According to the Thomistic view, in every Mass Christ also performs an actual immediate sacrificial activity which, however, must not be conceived as a totality of many successive acts but as one single uninterrupted sacrificial act of the Transfigured Christ.” Further, “The purpose of the Sacrifice is the same in the Sacrifice of the Mass as in the Sacrifice of the Cross; primarily the glorification of God, secondarily atonement, thanksgiving and appeal.” I want to stress again that I don't believe this accurately represents the Roman view today, but did at the time of the Reformation. So one version of the Heidelberg Catechism states, "But the Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have their sins forgiven through the suffering of Christ unless Christ is still offered for them daily by the priests...Thus the Mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ and a condemnable idolatry." In the version of the Catechism used today in the Christian Reformed Church, this section has been bracketed off with a footnote explaining that this does not accurately represent the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church today.

The third word that is descriptive of the Roman Catholic view is 'automatic' - Automatic in that the elements work ex opere operato (literally, 'by the very fact of the act being performed'). Thus, grace is conferred to the participant just by virtue of partaking with no reference to the faith of the participate in taking.

Before moving on to the other views, I want to affirm a few things regarding the Catholic understanding. First, if I was left to choose between a Catholic view and the low view of the sacrament taken by man (most) evangelical churches in our day, I'd choose the Catholic view. Luckily, I don't have too, but just so you know. Second, I affirm the Catholic churches insistance that something miraculous happens as we partake of the elements. Third, I admire their willingness to take Scripture seriously. I think the push the limits of the language too far, but at least they are taking it seriously. Lastly, I agree with my Catholic brothers that something objective actually happens in the Supper. More on that later.


Luther took aim at what he deemed superstitious and overly literal readings of Scripture related to the Supper. Luther rejected the teaching that the Eucharist was a sacrifice, considering the work of Christ on the cross a complete and unique sacrifice that was 'once for all'. Moreover, he rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, but still affirmed the local and corporeal presence of Christ "with, in, and under" the elements. The bread remains bread and the wine wine. But, Chris is still present bodily with the elements, having descended from heaven to be present. This came to be known as consubstantiation.

Further removed still from the Roman Catholic understanding was the view of Zwingli. Zwingli rejected the idea of Christ's bodily presence, teaching instead that Christ was only spiritually present. The Eucharist is a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice. For Zwingli then, there was no objective grace being conferred, it was solely subjective. Christ was present in our hearts and minds subjectively. Most Anabaptist groups took this even further. The Anabaptists insisted that the Spirit works independently of external means of grace in the church. Not can - we would all affirm that as we affirm the sovereignty of the Spirit - but does, as in 'it's normal he works without means'. The Supper then is merely a memorial and the social dimension takes precedent - it builds the church up in brotherly love. Representative of the Anabaptist view is the following quote from a Baptist pastor, "[We are] hesitant to use term sacraments: First, they [the Supper and the Baptism] are to be called ordinances and not sacraments. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism [where does he think he belongs if he's not Protestant?] call them sacraments, but they do so in error. There is no saving efficacy in either Baptism or the Lord's Supper, and neither do the participants of them indicate grace has been bestowed. They are ordinances and not sacraments."

Luther and Zwingli met in Marburg to hammer out some theological differences. At the Marburg Colloquy (1529), Zwingli and Luther came to agreement on fourteen out of fifteen points of doctrine. The fifteenth was the Supper. The Protestant movement would be divided henceforth. While that seems tragic, I do believe it would have been more tragic for the Zwinglian view to have won the day. Enter Calvin. Calvin attempts to strike a mediating position between Luther and Zwingli - though it would be a mistake to think it's a 50/50 blending of the two. Calvin stands much closer to Luther (and the historic and biblical understanding of the Supper). We'll wait till next time to unpack Calvin's views...