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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

0 | The Lord’s Supper municants and what is the salutary use or what is the spiritual benefit of those things we receive in the Supper from Christ who distributes them?” (LS 38). 69 Those are the “relevant” points from which we should separate the “irrelevant.” The question does not have to do with transubstantiation, or the local enclosing of the body of Christ in the bread, or with a crass “Capernaitic chewing, swallowing and guzzling of the body and blood of Christ,” both of which we reject. Nor is it a controversy about the spiritual indwelling of Christ in us through His Word and faith, nor is it an argument about the spiritual eating of Christ’s body and blood through faith, as it is described in John 6. “We both believe and teach [that]” (LS 37). the Body and Blood of christ Given in the sacrament Are not separated from the Personal Union of the two natures 70 After emphasizing in several ways that this is the key question, Chemnitz directs us to the Verba. It is clear that something is present in the Lord’s Supper, “that by an external distribution is given or offered, and that the Son of God has commanded that we receive it. . . . He is prescribing the mode of reception, namely, that we receive [it] orally” (LS 39). Further, “in regard to what is present in the Lord’s Supper, what is distributed, what those who eat receive orally, He has pronounced and affirmed: ‘This is my body which is given for you. This is my blood which is shed for you for the remission of sins.’” (LS 39). 71 Examining the description of the institution of the Lord’s Supper as recorded by Paul in 1 Cor. 11, Chemnitz draws the following conclusion, “It is not one body which was sacrificed for us on the cross and another which is distributed and received in the Supper; but the same substance of the body of Christ which was given for us on the cross is broken in the Supper with the bread for those who eat, that is, it is offered and distributed” (LS 123 f.). 72 It is the body and blood of the resurrected Christ that is given in the Sacrament. There is no question that Chemnitz agrees with the Apology which, in defending the doctrine that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present and offered, declared that “we are talking about the presence of the liv-
The Sacramental Union | ing Christ, knowing that ‘death no longer has dominion over him’” (Ap X, 4). Chemnitz knew that the body of Christ was not lifeless, that is, without the blood. The body remains in the personal union as part of the God-Man. Equally, it remains in its risen state in full possession of the blood. Chemnitz is quite specific, “Christ mentions His body and blood, not because His body is separated from His blood or because both are separated from His soul and outside the personal union with the deity, apart and separate, as if He wished us to believe He is present in the Supper only in the abstract” (TNC 432; emphasis added). Chemnitz seems to recognize that there may be a temptation to separate the personal union because of references in the Scripture (e.g., the Verba) to the natural properties of the human nature. Hence he says that “we also must be on guard that the personal union is not dissolved, destroyed, or separated because of the natural properties, and this requires the fullest and most intimate union and presence of the natures in and with one another” (TNC 443). 73 The position of Chemnitz becomes apparent in his lengthy examination of Trent on the withholding of the cup from the laity and the clergy when they are not celebrants. He first advances evidence from Scripture for communion under both kinds. Here his chief argument is the command of Christ, “Drink of it, all of you.” “Luke (as it should be diligently noted) shows that Christ willed that both parts should be equal in the way they are distributed and used” (Ex 2, 340). 74 Another reason for not changing the command of Christ for all communicants to drink of the cup is the example of the Apostles. They knew at the first Supper that they were receiving the living and whole body of Christ already in the bread, and yet they complied with Christ’s words, “Drink of it, all of you.” Chemnitz explains: The fourth reason is taken from the example of the Apostles. For although the Apostles saw that, when he offered them the cup, the blood had not yet been separated from the body of Christ nor shed, they nevertheless did not judge that for this reason the use of the cup depended on their will or that it might simply be omitted since they were receiving the not bloodless but living and whole body of Christ already in the bread; but as they were commanded: “Drink of it, all of you,” so they complied in simple obedience with this command without inquiring into the reason and without the pretext that it was dangerous. For Mark says: “And they all drank of it.” Thus the Apostles have instructed us by their example that in the mystery of the Supper we should adhere with simple obedience to the institution and command
Page 2 and 3: Links in the eLectionic version Tab
Page 4 and 5: Published by Trinity Lutheran Press
Page 7 and 8: Contents Forewords to Electronic Ed
Page 9 and 10: Foreword to the electronic edition
Page 11 and 12: Why the Doctrine of the Lord’s Su
Page 13 and 14: Author’s Foreword In submitting t
Page 15 and 16: Chapter I Introduction Introduction
Page 17 and 18: Introduction | votes the largest pa
Page 19 and 20: Introduction | could bring it about
Page 21 and 22: Introduction | do point out that Lu
Page 23 and 24: Chapter II sacrament and sacramenta
Page 25 and 26: Sacrament | 3. “That it be instit
Page 27 and 28: Sacrament | habet rationem sacramen
Page 29 and 30: Sacrament | Supper, but there was a
Page 31 and 32: The Biblical Foundation | Chapter I
Page 33 and 34: The Biblical Foundation | certainty
Page 35 and 36: never forget that “the dogma of t
Page 37 and 38: As a matter of fact, Chemnitz remar
Page 39 and 40: The Biblical Foundation | Concord,
Page 41 and 42: The Biblical Foundation | nicht uns
Page 43: The Sacramental Union | ine meaning
Page 47 and 48: The Sacramental Union | We should n
Page 49 and 50: The Sacramental Union | for in Chap
Page 51 and 52: The Sacramental Union | hypostatic
Page 53 and 54: of Christ has been exalted through
Page 55 and 56: The Sacramental Union | 1. The seco
Page 57 and 58: The Sacramental Union | delimited b
Page 59 and 60: The Sacramental Union | And this ta
Page 61 and 62: The Sacramental Union | 114 The ans
Page 63 and 64: The Sacramental Union | simple and
Page 65 and 66: The Sacramental Union | Mary, and n
Page 67 and 68: The Sacramental Union | two in one
Page 69 and 70: The Sacramental Union | likeness re
Page 71 and 72: The Sacramental Union | “bread,
Page 73 and 74: The Sacramental Union | distributed
Page 75 and 76: The Sacramental Union | 153 The rea
Page 77 and 78: The Sacramental Union | (cf. Ex. 25
Page 79 and 80: The Sacramental Union | 164 Since t
Page 81 and 82: The Sacramental Union | are in a wa
Page 83 and 84: The Sacramental Union | 173 Chemnit
Page 85 and 86: The Sacramental Union | solche Mitt
Page 87 and 88: The Sacramental Union | of transubs
Page 89 and 90: The Sacramental Union | 42. Grammat
Page 91 and 92: The Consecration | two natures in t
Page 93 and 94: The Consecration | 184 It is furthe
Page 95 and 96:
The Consecration | consecration in
Page 97 and 98:
The Consecration | of the Council t
Page 99 and 100:
The Consecration | mand and bidding
Page 101 and 102:
The Consecration | tion must be tak
Page 103 and 104:
The Consecration | thing in the Gos
Page 105 and 106:
The Consecration | himself who bapt
Page 107 and 108:
The Consecration | so that the comm
Page 109 and 110:
The Consecration | As far as the si
Page 111 and 112:
The Consecration | This is a charge
Page 113 and 114:
The Consecration | they serve a hig
Page 115 and 116:
The Consecration | 0 Sacrament is R
Page 117 and 118:
The Consecration | 0 Lutheran. The
Page 119 and 120:
The Consecration | 0 by an enduring
Page 121 and 122:
The Consecration | 0 248 In Chapter
Page 123 and 124:
The Consecration | 0 253 This doctr
Page 125 and 126:
The Consecration | eat and drink it
Page 127 and 128:
The Consecration | everywhere, and
Page 129 and 130:
The Consecration | called for true
Page 131 and 132:
The Consecration | nitz directs chi
Page 133 and 134:
The Consecration | Again: We must j
Page 135 and 136:
The Consecration | has confessed th
Page 137 and 138:
The Consecration | way He might app
Page 139 and 140:
The Consecration | churches as adhe
Page 141 and 142:
The Consecration | formulated, for
Page 143 and 144:
without blessing and distribution,
Page 145 and 146:
The Consecration | out that “we l
Page 147 and 148:
will do what Christ did before and
Page 149 and 150:
The Consecration | was not reserved
Page 151 and 152:
The Consecration | “epempon—the
Page 153 and 154:
The Consecration | some small part
Page 155 and 156:
The Consecration | taken place, who
Page 157 and 158:
The Consecration | been consecrated
Page 159 and 160:
The Consecration | from the first l
Page 161 and 162:
The Consecration | 348 Luther next
Page 163 and 164:
The Consecration | actione accipimu
Page 165 and 166:
The Consecration | Green calls it a
Page 167 and 168:
The Consecration | of the consecrat
Page 169 and 170:
causes and uses the case of the scu
Page 171 and 172:
The Consecration | sondern viel meh
Page 173 and 174:
The Consecration | Verba. Chemnitz,
Page 175 and 176:
The Consecration | Prof. Becker bel
Page 177 and 178:
The Consecration | traditional term
Page 179 and 180:
The Effects of Sacramental Eating |
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Summary and Conclusions | Chapter v
Page 201 and 202:
Summary and Conclusions | that it i
Page 203 and 204:
Summary and Conclusions | qualities
Page 205 and 206:
Summary and Conclusions | times”
Page 207 and 208:
Summary and Conclusions | 421 No te
Page 209 and 210:
Summary and Conclusions | 427 It is
Page 211 and 212:
Summary and Conclusions | nothing i
Page 213 and 214:
Summary and Conclusions | tion is t
Page 215 and 216:
Summary and Conclusions | 0 Luther
Page 217 and 218:
Summary and Conclusions | 0 does no
Page 219 and 220:
Summary and Conclusions | 0 standin
Page 221 and 222:
Summary and Conclusions | 0 with Hi
Page 223 and 224:
Summary and Conclusions | 0 God and
Page 225 and 226:
Summary and Conclusions | 468 Many
Page 227 and 228:
sacraments the institution itself i
Page 229 and 230:
Abraham, took his reason captive 53
Page 231 and 232:
Epistemological question, how does
Page 233 and 234:
on “synecdoche” 130, 131, 161 o
Page 235 and 236:
Sacrifice of the Mass destroys the
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?