Strange New Teaching

Keith A. Mathison writes:

"Of all the various concepts of the Lord's Supper that exist today, symbolic memorialism is the only view that is in complete and total discontinuity with the teaching of the historic Christian church. When we look at the doctrine of the Lord's Supper from the first centuries of the church onward, it becomes abundantly clear that although Christ's presence in the Supper was explained in different ways, there was no disagreement over the fact of that presence. The doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament was not denied by Luther or Calvin during the sixteenth-century Reformation. In fact, Luther argued that the universal testimony of the historic church proved the validity of this doctrine:

This article moreover, has been clearly believed and held from the beginning of the Christian Church to this hour - a testimony of the entire holy Christian Church, which, if we had nothing besides, should be sufficient for us. For it is dangerous and terrible to hear or believe anything against the united testimony, faith, and doctrine, of the entire holy Christian Church, as this hath been held now 1,500 years, from the beginning, unanimously in all the world. Whoso now doubteth thereon, it is even the same as though he believed in no Christian Church, and he condemeth thus not only the entire holy Christian Church as damnable heresy, but also Christ himself and all the apostles and prophets, who have established and powerfully attested this article where we say, "I believe in a holy Christian Church", Christ namely, Matthew 28:20: "Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world"; and Paul, 1 Timothy 3:15: "The Church of God, which is the pillar and ground of the truth."

Cited in Philip Schaff, The Principle of Protestantism, ed., Thompson & Bricker, 116-7

"Luther, the great exponent of sola Scriptura, was not a slave to the traditions of men. But he recognized an important point. He realized that when the Holy Spirit bore witness to the truth of a doctrine across all boundaries (geographical, chronological, ecclesiastical, etc.), a denial of that doctrine was essentially a denial of the perspicuity of Scripture. He and Calvin disagreed with each other concerning the exact mode of Christ's presence, but they agreed with the historic Christian church on the fact of that presence. Proponents of symbolic memorialism have adopted a doctrine that is a novelty in the history of the Christian church and an implicit denial of the perspicuity of Scripture."

Given for You pp266-7

Later Mathison continues:

The doctrine of symbolic memorialism is the dominant position within modern evangelicalism, but it is a historical novelty within the Christian church. Turning the historic doctrine of the Supper on its head, proponents of this view advocate a doctrine of the real absence of Christ from the Supper. Rather than being an objective means of grace, the sacrament is said to be a subjective act of mental recollection. Instead of being something that God gives to us, the sacrament becomes something that we give to God.

p268

A flavour of Nevin on anti-sacramental rationalism

I’ve been reading Mathison’s account of Nevin’s attacks on what Nevin calls “the modern Puritan theory of the sacraments” (which he associates with Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Hopkins, Joseph Bellamy, Timothy Dwight), in contrast to the traditional Reformed Doctrine. Nevin links this new view to the rationalistic sacramental views of the Socinains, the Arminians and the German rationalists. I’m not quite sure what all this is on about, to be honest, but I thought it rang bells!

Nevin argues the rationalistic tendency has worked itself out in sectarianism and schism. There may be religious pretention, an emphasis on the personal and experimental, the spiritual, excitement and action. It may be fanatical and wild in opposing outward forms and the existing order of the church. Rationalism is subjective, opposed to the idea of the Church and the authority of history exalting independent private judgement. The objective is rejected in favour of the supposedly inward. Ritual and forms are despised for the sake of spirit. The sacraments are mere outward rites. Their necessity is not clear. The soul is abstracted from the body. There is a defection from the doctrine of the Reformation.

See Nevin, Mystical Presence, esp. ch 2, pp107 ish – 153 and Mathison, Given for You, pp143-145

Calvin on tradition and change

Here’s an interesting quotation from Calvin for those considering introducing change in their churches. Calvin seems to be saying they only changed the old traditions where they thought Scripture absolutely required it. It seems he thought some indifferent things could be, indeed should be, retained.

“… let there be an examination of our whole doctrine, of our form of administering the sacraments, and our method of governing the Church; and in none of these three things will it be found that we have made any change in the old form, without attempting to restore it to the exact standards of the Word of God.”

(LCC Calvin’s Theological Treatises: The Necessity of Reforming the Church, p187)

Calvin seems to be denying any change for change’s sake or any view that novelty in itself is a good thing.

Calvin saw some ceremonies and wicked and some others as vain or useless. He did however say that he got rid of some ceremonies that though not evil in themselves had become an occasion for evil as “the vulgar” gaze “upon them in stupid amazement” (p204).

Later he says:

“… we are by no means averse to the reverent observance of whatever rules are fitted to ensure that all things be done decently and in order; nor, in regard to every single observance which we have abrogated, do we refuse to show cause why we were required to do so.” (p210)

And:

“… laws enacted with a view to external policy ought to be carefully obeyed…” (p211)

Much of this whole debate depends on ones use of the Regulative Principle of Public Worship.

Some traditions are bad

Evangelicals probably need to learn much more than we do from the great traditions of the church. But as Augustine recognised "Tradition" alone cannot be ultimately authoritative. He said:

“If we are to look back to long custom or antiquity alone, then also murders and adulterers, and similar persons can defend their crimes in this way, because they are ancient.”

Cited in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of Council of Trent, Part 1 (trans. Fred Kramer; St. Louis: Concordia, 1971) 307.