(moved) Can the Philosophical Approach of "Reformed" Protestantism lead out of Christianity?

[rakovsky]

Dear Hedrick,

Calvin was not the major leader at that time. He was actually on the outs with Geneva leadership. They asked for him as an expert witness, but he didn’t make the decision. He did support it, though, and wrote a book afterwards justifying it.

The best history of the time I know says that this was the only execution for heresy. There were, however, a number of executions for witchcraft.

Calvin certainly supported it. So did the Catholic authorities and the leaders of other Protestant towns in Switzerland. I don’t think you can blame Calvin for what was a universal practice at the time.

In my opinion, from having read a fair about the context, at that point there was not a clear separation between the Church, the State, and the community as a whole. Christianity was seen as one key thing that unified the community. For that reason, attacks on Christianity were attacks on the community itself, and effectively treason. This idea of Christianity as the unifying force for the community goes back to Constantine. It’s only fairly recently that we’ve adopted other approaches.

Everyone agreed that there could be no compulsion in religion. But they also believed that attacking Christianity was attacking the community. I think the way these two views were reconciled is that no one was prosecuted for what they thought (at least not in Geneva). Prosecutions were for public attacks on Christianity or advocacy of positions that were seen as attacks on Christianity.

One of the accusations against Gruet, who was executed in Calvin's Geneva (Calvin wrote a defense of this action in 1550), was that he marked in his copy Calvin's writings "All trifles". Such a book markup was for what he thought, not for a public attack. A woman was expelled in 1559 on pain of beheading for speaking against Calvin's doctrines or the doctrines of his Consistory.
The practice of executing heretics could not be considered "universal" when Calvin decided to support it in early-mid 1553 (about the time Servetus was imprisoned or escaped from the Inquisition in France on Calvin's initiative) if indeed before 1553 both Luther and Calvin had publicly spoken against killing heretics, opposition to said killings were in the 95 Theses of Luther, and it had never been done before by Protestants.
It's a topic that causes me some feelings of anguish, so I please request that if you wish to discuss it with me, it's OK, let's just please do it on this thread I made about it:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-burned-by-calvins-reformed-community.7932159

 

[hedrick]

Calvin's reasoning as I understand it was that Jesus' body was up in heaven, and a body can't be in two places at once (Einstein wasn't around in 1550), therefore Jesus cannot be present in the Eucharistic bread in particular, therefore, that is not what Jesus meant.
Yes, you are not disputing whether something supernatural that you believe the gospel says happened, you are disputing whether the gospel says something supernatural about the composition of the bread itself.

Actually his primary argument is Scriptural. He refers to the Ascension, where Jesus went to heaven, and Acts 3:21, which says that Jesus will remain in heaven until he comes again.

He argues that even Christ’s glorified body is visible, Luke 24:39 and various other accounts of his post-resurrection appearance. While he appeared in a locked room, he always appeared in a tangible form. Calvin believes that the concept of Christ’s body as ubiquitous and invisible is a rejection of the resurrection of his flesh.

In fact he's oversimplifying the Lutheran position, but so are you, and in the same way. The most detailed presentation in the Book of Concord agrees that Jesus has a resurrection body, but they maintain that it can be present in more than one way. The way in which it is present in communion is in a spiritual mode. I don't know whether Calvin wasn't aware of that when he wrote the Institutes or whether the Lutheran position was clarified afterwards. But as you know, he argued later that their positions were fairly close to each other.

 

[JM]

Actually his primary argument is Scriptural.

Mic drop.

 

[hedrick]

Mic drop.

This shouldn't be a shock. The Institutes is not a work of systematic theology, or of philosophy. It is a summary of Calvins view of major Scriptural themes, intended as background for understanding exegesis of individual passages. Any argument that a position in the Institutes comes from rationalism would need very convincing justification.

The Institutes have sometimes been referred to as systematic theology, but I've seen convincing arguments that it's not systematic in the usual sense. Rather, it's exegetical.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Actually his primary argument is Scriptural. He refers to the Ascension, where Jesus went to heaven, and Acts 3:21, which says that Jesus will remain in heaven until he comes again.

He argues that even Christ’s glorified body is visible, Luke 24:39 and various other accounts of his post-resurrection appearance. While he appeared in a locked room, he always appeared in a tangible form. Calvin believes that the concept of Christ’s body as ubiquitous and invisible is a rejection of the resurrection of his flesh.

In fact he's oversimplifying the Lutheran position, but so are you, and in the same way. The most detailed presentation in the Book of Concord agrees that Jesus has a resurrection body, but they maintain that it can be present in more than one way. The way in which it is present in communion is in a spiritual mode. I don't know whether Calvin wasn't aware of that when he wrote the Institutes or whether the Lutheran position was clarified afterwards. But as you know, he argued later that their positions were fairly close to each other.

Actually, the Lutheran position on the Eucharist is not "spiritual" but is both physical and supernaturally present, in, with and under the bread and wine. I posted this, my understanding in another thread, and tried to keep it as simple as possible:

The Bible itself speaks of the wisdom of men being foolishness.

The bottom line is when Logic or Reason is used to support or oppose a particular teaching, and in doing so, adds or takes away from Scripture it is wrong. This is the reason that we speak of the real presence of Christ's body and blood as a "sacramental union"; we find the Bible calling the Eucharist both body and blood and bread and wine (we reject consubstantiation, because it is a mystery to us of how this is so). This is not so much a "more detailed definition" but rather a reiteration of Scripture. Likewise, this is why Lutherans reject Transubstantiation; Scripture is clearer about both bread and body and wine and blood being present than being completely changed. The idea of the retention of the accidents are the result of something having to be added to scripture in order for the logic to work.

Zwinglian and Calvinist thought that it is impossible for Christ to be in two places at once is just as logically absurd; and limits omnipresence and omnipotence of God.​

And I later added this:

Theological development tends to be reactive. For most Orthodox theologians this is not much of an issue or concern because without being confronted by Zwingli and the other radical reformers, the Orthodox position remained unchanged and unchallenged. We Lutherans had no choice, and neither did our Catholic brothers and sisters. Why the differences between Lutheran and Catholic sacramental theology? (Not all that different really) Well, Lutherans use Scripture as the measure of all theology including tradition. Catholics give similar weight to both Scripture and Tradition, and one such tradition is Scholasticism.

I still scratch my head knowing that Transubstantiation was influenced by the logic of Aristotle; a pagan.
​

We also look upon the celebration of the Mass as "mystical" in that heaven and earth come together on our altars transcending both time and space. As such, Christ's very body and blood are present, this is why Lutherans do, depending on their traditions, bow or genuflect not only before the consecrated elements, as we do even before our empty altars, as they have been sanctified by their supporting Christ's body and blood. This is also why most Lutheran Churches have sanctuary lamps, and why the leftover consecrated elements are either consumed directly after the distribution, or reserved in the Sacristy and occasionally a tabernacle.

A good explanation and summary of our theology and practice regarding the Eucharist is this book:

 

[JM]

This shouldn't be a shock. The Institutes is not a work of systematic theology, or of philosophy. It is a summary of Calvins view of major Scriptural themes, intended as background for understanding exegesis of individual passages. Any argument that a position in the Institutes comes from rationalism would need very convincing justification.

The Institutes have sometimes been referred to as systematic theology, but I've seen convincing arguments that it's not systematic in the usual sense. Rather, it's exegetical.

Very true. Calvin expands on theological themes such as the Decalogue and the Lord's Prayer, etc. using scripture alone. What folks seem to forget is that Calvin referenced tradition as a secondary witness to scripture. He wasn't expounding tradition, which is what rak is doing, Calvin was expounding inscripturated Apostolic teaching.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[hedrick]

Actually, the Lutheran position on the Eucharist is not "spiritual" but is both physical and supernaturally present, in, with and under the bread and wine. I posted this, my understanding in another thread, and tried to keep it as simple as possible:

Here’s what I was referring to. It is speaking of three ways in which bodies can be present:

“Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which He neither occupies nor vacates space, but penetrates all creatures wherever He pleases [according to His most free will]; as, to make an imperfect comparison, my sight penetrates and is in air, light, or water, and does not occupy or vacate space; as a sound or tone penetrates and is in air or water or board and wall, and also does not occupy or vacate space; likewise, as light and heat penetrate and are in air, water, glass, crystal, and the like, and also do not vacate or occupy space; and much more of the like [many comparisons of this matter could be adduced]. This mode He used when He rose from the closed [and sealed] sepulcher, and passed through the closed door [to His disciples], and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, and, as it is believed, when He was born of His mother [the most holy Virgin Mary].”

It seems reasonable to describe this as his body being present in a spiritual mode, which is what I said. Have I misunderstood what was being said, or is the Book of Concord not normative?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Here’s what I was referring to. It is speaking of three ways in which bodies can be present:

“Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which He neither occupies nor vacates space, but penetrates all creatures wherever He pleases [according to His most free will]; as, to make an imperfect comparison, my sight penetrates and is in air, light, or water, and does not occupy or vacate space; as a sound or tone penetrates and is in air or water or board and wall, and also does not occupy or vacate space; likewise, as light and heat penetrate and are in air, water, glass, crystal, and the like, and also do not vacate or occupy space; and much more of the like [many comparisons of this matter could be adduced]. This mode He used when He rose from the closed [and sealed] sepulcher, and passed through the closed door [to His disciples], and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, and, as it is believed, when He was born of His mother [the most holy Virgin Mary].”

It seems reasonable to describe this as his body being present in a spiritual mode, which is what I said. Have I misunderstood what was being said, or is the Book of Concord not normative?

No you are correct regarding the BoC; normative, but subordinate to Scripture from the PoV of Confessional Lutherans, but only the unaltered 1580 edition. Non confessional Synods view it the way most Anglicans view the 39 Articles; as an historic document, and that is all.

 

[hedrick]

No you are correct regarding the BoC; normative, but subordinate to Scripture from the PoV of Confessional Lutherans, but only the unaltered 1580 edition. Non confessional Synods view it the way most Anglicans view the 39 Articles; as an historic document, and that is all.

then why did you object to my statement that the body is present in a spritual mode?

 

[rakovsky]

then why did you object to my statement that the body is present in a spritual mode?

I took it that he misread you as proposing that the body was not actually in the bread, and that instead you were portraying it in a way analogous to the "spiritualists" who say Christ's body stayed on earth with the bodily resurrection being only true in a "spiritual" (inspirational?) way.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

then why did you object to my statement that the body is present in a spritual mode?

Based on Scripture and on more than one reference from the BoC, it is not wrong, but very inadequate. Methodists use "spiritual" but mean something totally different than orthodox Lutherans believe.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I took it that he misread you as proposing that the body was not actually in the bread, and that instead you were portraying it in a way analogous to the "spiritualists" who say Christ's body stayed on earth with the bodily resurrection being only true in a "spiritual" (inspirational?) way.

Likewise, most protestants that teach spiritual presence are receptionists; teaching that one must be "right" in their faith or they will only receive bread and wine. We believe that this is also a wrong teaching. It is Christ's body and blood not because of us, but despite us. Receptionism is a teaching that takes merit away from Christ, and gives it to us; the same way that decision theology does. Sola Deo Gloria.

 

[rakovsky]

Likewise, most protestants that teach spiritual presence are receptionists; teaching that one must be "right" in their faith or they will only receive bread and wine. We believe that this is also a wrong teaching. It is Christ's body and blood not because of us, but despite us. Receptionism is a teaching that takes merit away from Christ, and gives it to us; the same way that decision theology does. Sola Deo Gloria.

Good point, Mark.
Receptionism doesn't explain very well why receiving unworthily in unbelief could cause any harm, since after all, an unbeliever would only be receiving regular bread and wine per the Receptionist view, and not even participating in the "real presence", which is in heaven. Just being in the presence of Jesus does not cause harm for unbelievers, and as Hedrick said earlier in this thread, Christ is present in Communion like he is when "two or more are gathered".
So how could receiving regular bread unworthily, or even just being in Jesus' presence, cause harm?
Paul writes (1 Cor 11):
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Good point, Mark.
Receptionism doesn't explain very well why receiving unworthily in unbelief could cause any harm, since after all, an unbeliever would only be receiving regular bread and wine per the Receptionist view. How could receiving regular bread unworthily cause harm?
Paul writes (1 Cor 11):
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Those admonitions that you quote are in my mind, a firm statement against receptionism. Thanks for posting these!

 

[rakovsky]

Those admonitions that you quote are in my mind, a firm statement against receptionism. Thanks for posting these!

Thank for writing here too, Mark! I am glad that Hedrick has a chance to talk with a Lutheran on this thread about the Lutheran view, which he had expressed a desire for earlier.

Haydock's Commentary says a bit more on this issue in 1 Cor. 10-11:

Guilty of the body, &c. not discerning the body, &c. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be 'guilty of the body and blood of Christ', [Paul's terms] or justly condemned for 'not discerning the Lord's body.' (Challoner) --- The real presence in the sacrament is also proved by the enormity of the crime, in its profanation.

Meanwhile, unbelievers are perfectly capable of understanding that the bread is a "symbol" used in the ritual, just as I am capable of discerning that a statue to Caesar is a symbol of Caesar. So this passage isn't about discerning that something is a symbol, nor is it about achieving communion with Jesus worthily, which wouldn't happen anyway for nonbelievers according to Receptionism.
It must mean something deeper and more direct than the bread and meal being a symbol and ritual tool used to achieve communion with Jesus.

 

[hedrick]

This is a case where I’m more radical exegetically than religiously. I like the idea of Christ present in communion, and would have no problem with the Lutheran explanation if I thought there was any justification for it.

However I doubt that the Jesus meant anything beyond a metaphor in the words of institution. And I think Paul simply meant that people needed to remember that they were celebrating Christ’s death, not eating a banquet. But Jesus did promise to be with his Church, and surely in the commemoration of his death that presence is particularly real. So I do think communion is a means that he gives us to make his presence real.

However I don't claim that this is what Calvin meant.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

This is a case where I’m more radical exegetically than religiously. I like the idea of Christ present in communion, and would have no problem with the Lutheran explanation if I thought there was any justification for it.

However I doubt that the Jesus meant anything beyond a metaphor in the words of institution. And I think Paul simply meant that people needed to remember that they were celebrating Christ’s death, not eating a banquet. But Jesus did promise to be with his Church, and surely in the commemoration of his death that presence is particularly real. So I do think communion is a means that he gives us to make his presence real.

However I don't claim that this is what Calvin meant.

Thanks hedrick; but from my POV, there is too much at stake not to apply a literal reading of Scripture.

 

[hedrick]

Thanks hedrick; but from my POV, there is too much at stake not to apply a literal reading of Scripture.

That's precisely why I think we need to be careful not to go beyond what is clear. It's too easy to see what we want to see or what 2000 years of tradition biases us to see.

 

[rakovsky]

That's precisely why I think we need to be careful not to go beyond what is clear. It's too easy to see what we want to see or what 2000 years of tradition biases us to see.

Are you suggesting that it is not clear whether Jesus is actually in the bread or whether he meant this?
In that case, Calvin took a situation that was not clear and went beyond that, making a doctrine that Christ could not be in the bread nor was He, because, Calvin said, a body could not be in two places at once (Einstein to the contrary).

However, once we put aside the restraints of "Natural Law" and the avoidance of "absurdity" from our modern vantage point (ie. what we "want to see" by our modern society), and go back to a worldview where Jesus walks through walls, bodily Ascends, is actually the "spiritual rock" in the desert, it becomes normal to be ready take Jesus at his word that He is in the bread too.
Yes, 2000 years of Christian tradition bias us to think Jesus meant this in a direct way, so this Tradition serves as helpful confirmation, even if not infallible. After all, that 2000 years would include the era when these texts were written, so that is a good aid to understanding what their people thought when they wrote these lines.

It's true that we don't "know" what Jesus meant 100%, but nor do we know 100% what happened to Jesus' body itself. We use the aids of the plain meaning and Traditions to understand the resurrection as being a real one and not just an inspirational/allegorical one.

 

[FredVB]

Why would Christ have said, "Do this in remembrance of me"? If there was important doctrine of Christ being physically present to believers in such a ceremony, there would be more said for it in other passages in the Bible besides that about what was said at the last supper, which was with plenty of symbols. But the remembrance is important, and salvation or spiritual growth or sanctification do not depend on taking such a physical presence of Christ to be in us, believers are all promised that through the Spirit of God, with the relationship, Christ is with us.