Standing Up
On and on
Interesting.
Zwingli credited the Dutch humanist, Cornelius Henrici Hoen (Honius), for first suggesting the "is" in the institution words "This is my body" meant "signifies".[11] Hoen sent a letter to Zwingli in 1524 with this interpretation along with biblical examples to support it. It is impossible to say how the letter impacted Zwingli's theology although Zwingli claimed that he already held the symbolic view when he read the letter. He first mentioned the "signifies" interpretation in a letter to Matthäus Alber, an associate of Luther. Zwingli denies transubstantiation using John 6:63, "It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is of no avail", as support.[12] He commended Andreas Karlstadt's understanding of the significance of faith, but rejected Karlstadts view that the word "this" refers to Christs body rather than the bread. Using other biblical passages and patristic sources, he defended the "signifies" interpretation. In The Eucharist (1525), following the introduction of his communion liturgy, he laid out the details of his theology where he argues against the view that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ and that they are eaten bodily.[13]
...
The main issue for Zwingli is that Luther puts the chief point of salvation in the bodily eating of the body of Christ. Luther saw the action as strengthening faith and remitting sins. This, however, conflicted with Zwinglis view of faith. The bodily presence of Christ could not produce faith as faith is from God, for those whom God has chosen. Zwingli also appealed to several passages of scripture with John 6:63 in particular. He saw Luthers view as denying Christs humanity and asserted that Christs body is only at one place and that is at the right hand of God.[17] The Marburg Colloquy did not produce anything new in the debate between the two reformers. Neither changed their positions, but it did produce some further developments in their own views. Zwingli, for example, noted that the bread was not mere bread and affirmed terms such as presence, true, and sacramental. However, it was Zwingli's and Luthers differences in their understanding of faith, their Christology, their approach and use of scripture that ultimately made any agreement impossible.[18]
Theology of Huldrych Zwingli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Zwingli credited the Dutch humanist, Cornelius Henrici Hoen (Honius), for first suggesting the "is" in the institution words "This is my body" meant "signifies".[11] Hoen sent a letter to Zwingli in 1524 with this interpretation along with biblical examples to support it. It is impossible to say how the letter impacted Zwingli's theology although Zwingli claimed that he already held the symbolic view when he read the letter. He first mentioned the "signifies" interpretation in a letter to Matthäus Alber, an associate of Luther. Zwingli denies transubstantiation using John 6:63, "It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is of no avail", as support.[12] He commended Andreas Karlstadt's understanding of the significance of faith, but rejected Karlstadts view that the word "this" refers to Christs body rather than the bread. Using other biblical passages and patristic sources, he defended the "signifies" interpretation. In The Eucharist (1525), following the introduction of his communion liturgy, he laid out the details of his theology where he argues against the view that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ and that they are eaten bodily.[13]
...
The main issue for Zwingli is that Luther puts the chief point of salvation in the bodily eating of the body of Christ. Luther saw the action as strengthening faith and remitting sins. This, however, conflicted with Zwinglis view of faith. The bodily presence of Christ could not produce faith as faith is from God, for those whom God has chosen. Zwingli also appealed to several passages of scripture with John 6:63 in particular. He saw Luthers view as denying Christs humanity and asserted that Christs body is only at one place and that is at the right hand of God.[17] The Marburg Colloquy did not produce anything new in the debate between the two reformers. Neither changed their positions, but it did produce some further developments in their own views. Zwingli, for example, noted that the bread was not mere bread and affirmed terms such as presence, true, and sacramental. However, it was Zwingli's and Luthers differences in their understanding of faith, their Christology, their approach and use of scripture that ultimately made any agreement impossible.[18]
Theology of Huldrych Zwingli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Upvote
0