John Calvin’s True Beliefs About The Lord’s Supper: The Importance of the Consensus Tigurinus
The Consenus Tigurinus is relatively unknown but very important for conclusively demonstrating how far apart Lutheranism is from Calvinism when it comes to the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. This confession of faith was written by John Calvin himself, who leaves no doubt that he comes down quite decidedly on the side of the spiritualizing interpretation of the Lord’s Supper, as held by Zwingli and his later followers, and thus effectively denies the actual presence of the body and blood of Christ under the bread and wine, referring to this belief in this document as a “perverse and impious superstition.” This is a very important document for understanding the context in which Lutheran had to do battle against the false doctrine of the Reformed Church, as led by Calvin. The Formula of Concord, prepared in 1577, was a decisive response that unified Lutherans in their opposition to Calvinism, and to those who were secretly or openly attempting to move the Lutheran Church away from Luther’s teachings of the Supper and toward the Reformed/Calvinist view.
The Consensus Tigurinus is clearly in view when the Saxon Visitation Articles were prepared in the early 1590s. The position on the Lord’s Supper articulated in this statement by Calvin remains the formal position of the Reformed Church. Calvinist speaks very carefully about the “presence of Christ” but is equally careful to make clear the presence is spiritual only and is a matter of the human soul’s ascent to the Ascended Lord, where there is a spiritual eating and drinking, by faith. This is directly contradictory of the Biblical, hence Lutheran, confession of the Lord’s Supper.
The following comments are drawn from a Calvinist source, thus demonstrating that our interpretation and understanding of the Consensus Tigurinus are by no means simply a Lutheran bias or distortion of the facts.
“The Consensus Tigurinus was composed by Calvin himself, in 1549, and was adopted by the Zurich theologians. It comprises twenty-six articles, which treat only of the sacrament of the Supper. It grew out of a desire upon the part of Calvin, to effect a union among the Reformed upon the doctrine of the Eucharist. The attitude of Calvin respecting the Sacramentarian question was regarded by the Lutherans, as favourable rather than otherwise to their peculiar views. His close and cordial agreement with Luther upon the fundamental points in theology, together with the strength of his phraseology when speaking of the nature of the Eucharist, led the Swiss Zuinglians to deem him as on the whole further from them than from their opponents. In this Consensus Tigurinus, he defines his statements more distinctly, and left no doubt in the minds of the Zurichers that he adopted heartily the spiritual and symbolical theory of the Lord’s Supper. The course of events afterwards showed that Calvin’s theory really harmonized with Zuingle’s.” [Source: A History of Christian Doctrine By William Greenough Thayer Shedd, 1863.].
You can read the entire Consensus Tigurinus at bookofconcord.org
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Good article Pastor McCain. Can you comment on the Lutheran view of Christ and his presence in the Lord’s supper. After reading Francis Pieper’s in his Christian Dogmatics book 2 he explains the concept of the Lutheran and Calvinistic theology about the Lord’s supper in quite some detail. It is a very edifying read. The differences between Lutheran and Reformed and Roman Catholic teaching on the Lord’s supper and especially on Christ’s communicatio idiomatum is striking.
McCain: Yes, this is precisely the point, Calvinism goes wrong on Christology and on the basis of this confusion/error, then makes incorrect conclusions about the Real Presence.
“When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?” (John 6:60-601 ESV.)
Well, I guess Calvin found it difficult and offensive. But, to call it a “perverse and impious superstition,” really?
I am a fairly new Lutheran and a lot of this is new to me. Why does it matter whether the body and blood of Christ or physically present in the Lord’s Supper.
I DO NOT mean it flippantly. I really want to know.
@Vernon
When you move away from the real presense, you begin a slide down reason’s slippery slope. For example, Calvin had a hard time with the idea of Christ passing thru a wall to meet His disciples. Then having Thomas stick his finger in His side, while eating a fish. Calvin being “consistant”, could not see how Jesus could be physicaly at the right hand of the Father and at the same time being physicaly present at the Sacrament of the Altar. In short, he really had a hard time with Christ’s divine and human natures. Read the Formula of Concord Article VIII concerning the Person of Christ, this get’s to and explains the heart of the matter.
MM
Calvin probably underwent a real change in his theology. Several years before the Consensus Tigurinus, he signed the 1540 Variata of the Augsburg Confession and said that he would have signed the unaltered Confession. On numerous occasions, when more radical Reformed theologians attacked Luther, Calvin defended him; as the quoted article notes, the Zwinglians distrusted Calvin. When Calvin wrote his commentary on 1 Corinthians, he had not yet taken the position stated in the Consensus Tigurinus, just as his position on Baptism in his commentary on Romans is a clear affirmation of baptismal regeneration.
With the Consensus, however, he clearly cast his lot with the Zwinglians and burned his bridges to Lutheranism.
I suppose that Melanchthon hoped in his late years that by suggesting compromise formulations he could get Calvin to back away from the Tigurine Consensus, but that was a false hope if he did think that.
Vernon’s question is absolutely wonderful. What are the benefits of the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ? I’d be willing to bet the author of this blog has copius Luther quotes on the matter. Fleshing out the answer (sorry, I couldn’t help it) might well be mind blowing to both the novice and seasoned Lutheran alike.
Great question, Vernon. Pious question.
Matt Harrison translated a sermon by Luther on the Lord’s Supper entitled: “All Become One Cake.” It is available from Lutheran Church Missouri Synod World Relief for free. I highly recommend ordering that little sermon. Below are some excerpts for Vernon to “chew” on as he considers the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ. Enjoy this little sampling!
“Christ is such a high person, who gives Himself for you, that it is impossible
that sin, death, hell and devil can remain for Him…Where His flesh and blood
are, there He will certainly have one eye open, and not let that flesh and blood
be trampled underfoot. Therefore since you have His flesh and blood, thus you
have all the power which God Himself has. That is, we become one cake with the
Lord Christ; we walk in the fellowship of His benefits and He in the fellowship
of our misfortune. For here are thrown together His godliness and my sin, my
weakness and His strength, and thus all is held in common. What is mine becomes
His. What is His, I also have…”
“Now if you are one cake with Christ, what more do you want? You now have
incomparably more than your heart desires and you sit in paradise….”
“When I receive the Sacrament, I partake twice. Externally I partake of the
Sacrament, inwardly however and spiritually I receive all the benefits of Christ
as though I ate physical bread that strengthens the body inwardly. Again, when
I receive the Sacrament Christ takes me and devours me and gobbles me up
together with my sins.”
“It is the same also among us. We all become one cake and partake of each
other”
Simply put, Vernon, the body and blood of Christ are a feast for faith and love….indeed, for body and soul
Oh, and I forgot to add, Vernon, that you can’t have Jesus without his body and blood. There is no Second Person of the Holy Trinity Who is not incarnate. So what matters is this: Where Jesus is, there he is with His body and blood. So the benefit of the body and blood is the benefit of having the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. This undergirds everything Luther is saying in the excerpts I quoted above. Sorry for not making the point beforehand.
I hope these things help. There’s only so much you can do on the recreational medium called blogs.
Herman Sasse wrote that if Christ’s true body and blood, what He sacrificed for our sins on Golgotha, are not present in the Sacrament of the Altar and given to us, the Crucified One becomes a figure of the past. And the One who is coming again becomes a figure of a distant, unforeseeable future that lies beyond the scope of our life. A historical Jesus at best- someone we should emulate but nothing more- unless His Real Presence is already fulfilled now in every celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
Sasse’s conclusion: There is no Gospel without the Real Presence. Luther’s struggle for the Gospel was a struggle for the Lord’s Supper. No Gospel–no Church.
Excellent resource, and very timely for me, as I was just about (tomorrow!) to reply to Calvin’s section on the Eucharist in Book IV of his Institutes (I am replying to the whole of Bk IV line-by-line). Calvin is no more realist on the Eucharist than he is on baptism. He plays lots of word games but in the end his position is scarcely different from Zwingli (I agree).
The Lutheran position is far more biblical and in accord with the fathers, though not as much so as the Catholic one, of course.
.
The Lutheran position is the catholic one. As I’ve said many times, when it comes to Roman Catholicism, what is uniquely “Roman” is not catholic, and what is genuinely catholic, is not necessarily what is taught by the Roman Catholic Church.