The Lord's Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz Bjarne - Logia

0 | The Lord’s Supper
Himself. Through the bread we are united with the body of Christ
and through the body with Christ Himself, and through Christ with
the Father. It is not the case, as the Sacramentarians hold, that the
Deity alone is present with the church without the communion of
the human nature. Chemnitz fully agrees with SD VIII, 76, 77, that
because of the personal union and the resultant communion of attributes,
Christ’s flesh is truly a life-giving food and His blood truly
a quickening beverage. Chemnitz closely follows Luther in confessing
that not only Baptism but also the Lord’s Supper look to the resurrection
of the body. It is “a heavenly and spiritual nourishment for both
the body and the soul of the believers unto eternal life” (LS 61). He
explains further, “The life-giving nature of the Word, joined to the
flesh in that ineffable manner of union, makes the flesh life-giving,
and thus the flesh gives life to those who participate in it. When we
eat it, then we have life in us, when we are joined to Him who created
life” (LS 250) (p. 155–159).
450 Chemnitz derives from 1 Cor. 10:17 the truth that through the reception
of the Lord’s Supper the faithful are made members of that
body whose head is Christ. Hence one of the fruits of this participation
is “the fellowship of the body of the church” (LS 145). He also
recognizes that this same text demonstrates that participation in the
sacrament is a confession of unity of doctrine and church fellowship.
It is a “testimony of the consensus, harmony, and unity in doctrine
and faith” (Ex. 2, 301) (p. 159–161).
451 The main body of material here presented demonstrates how closely
Luther and Chemnitz expound the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.
Their approach is similar and they differ in no significant detail. Although
Chemnitz had been a student of Melanchthon and had only
incidentally heard Luther lecture and preach during the last year of
Luther’s life, he nevertheless departs significantly from Melanchthon’s
doctrine of the Lord’s Supper and follows Luther point-for-point. He
in no way, as has been suggested, represents a mediating position
between Luther and Melanchthon. 93 There are three decisive areas
where Chemnitz’s doctrine corresponds precisely to Luther and not
to Melanchthon. These three are of crucial significance for under-