Nielsen’s Nook

Nielsen’s Nook
Nielsen’s Nook
Contemplative, reflective, and irenic we pray.
Print Print

Jottings on Calvin’s Notion of Sacramental Union

Will Nielsen
August 14th, 2006
Tags: • • • • • • •

My wife and I are working to get a grasp on the sacraments and what the Bible teaches us about them: i.e., what they are, what they do, and why God gives them to us. One thing we have noticed in even a cursory consideration of the topic is that relative to the Protestant Reformation, viz. the Magisterial flavor, there has been an unbelievable degradation of the sacraments in the practice of Reformed and Presbyterian churches.One trajectory I am exploring with the help of Keith Mathison’s book, Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, is that many Reformed and Presbyterian Protestants are quite estranged from their traditional heritage. For example, ninety-nine percent of the discussions I hear on Calvinism all revolve around the so called Five Points (as if Calvin were that simplistic) and hinge on the doctrine of Predestination. It is a strange contrast over against this contemporary caricature of Calvin (by self-professing Calvinists!!) that we find two significant points.First, Calvin does not address predestination until Book III of the Institutes which is the pastoral section, the place where Calvin seeks to comfort believers directing them to their assurance in Christ. Calvin did not lead with predestination and seems to primarily use the issue as a means of pastoral comfort to his believing readership.

Second, the orbit of Calvin’s theology does not circle around the constellation of the so called Five Points. By way of reminder, the Synod of Dordt did not convene until 1618. Calvin died May 27, 1564 in Geneva. The Dutch Reformed controversy with Jacob Arminius was not something to which Calvin was speaking (obviously). What does in fact seem to be the center of Calvin’s theology is the idea of Union with Christ (not predestination).

It is this center of Union with Christ which informs Calvin’s understanding of the Sacraments. “According to Calvin, each of the two sacraments [i.e., Baptism and the Lord's Supper] is related to the believer’s union with Christ. Baptism is connected with the believer’s initiation into mystical union with Christ. The Lord’s Supper is connected with the believer’s ongoing continuation in this union.”[1]

Recently, a PCA pastor friend of mine shared with me a story of a time he was at a baptism as a congregant in another church. He was sitting in the balcony and noticed that during the baptism, which in PCA churches is performed at the front of the sanctuary, two young men in the pews in front of him were goofing off, sending text messages to each other and basically dismissing the ritual. After the service, he reached forward and touched their shoulders. They spun around to face him and he said to them, “You missed it.”

They replied, “Missed what?”

“You missed the baptism,” he said.

“So? … I guess we did.”

“There was grace in that for you and you missed it,” the pastor continued.

My friend explained to me that baptism is not simply for that little baby in the front of the church, but it communicates the grace of Christ to the community of believers, the cloud of witnesses as it were, who very much are participating in the infant’s baptism. There is much assurance for the believing witnesses.

Calvin seems to resonate with a similar thought in the way he seems to have understood the sacramental union between the signs and the things signified. Mathison elucidates four main points. First, the union between the two is so close that the sign and the signified are practically identical. Second, the sign does not become the thing signified. A distinction is always maintained. Third, there is no analogy for this union in the natural realm, the only exception being the Incarnation. Fourth, Calvin consequently sees the Incarnation, the everlasting union of God and humanity in Jesus Christ, as the analogy that serves to govern his thought on the mystery involved in sacramental union.[2]

Unfortunately, this is but a jotting for me this morning and as such I think and hope I have laid out some notions that Mathison sees (and I have seen) in Calvin that for most readers will sound strange to their ears. The dissonance comes from two sources in the Protestant West. First, we do not understand our own tradition and in many cases we stand on the shoulders of mere caricature, something other than what has historically been Reformed Protestant tradition. Second, for reasons about which I might only speculate now, the Protestant West has largely forgotten the Incarnation and its cosmic ramifications upon all humanity and especially those whose life is now in Christ.

May God have mercy, sending His Spirit that all of the minds of all of His people would be all the more illumined. Amen.

[1] Keith A. Mathison, Given for You : Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub., 2002), 19.

[2] Ibid., 22.

10 Responses to “Jottings on Calvin’s Notion of Sacramental Union”

Then the key issue then is, what is Calvin’s view of the Union in the Incarnation?

What constitutes the union? Is it entitative, causal, relational?

If the sacrments are instruments, then what is the humanity of Christ? What kind of union is an instrumental union?

Left by Acolyte4236 on August 14th, 2006

Will,

You should seriously consider reading John Williamson Nevin’s “The Mystical Presence: A Vindication of the Reformed or Calvinistic Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.” You might not agree with everything he says, but his overview of Puritans on the Eucharist (regarding how far they moved from Calvin’s view towards out-and-out Zwinglianism) is eye opening. You should also take a look at the more recent work by Brian Gerrish, “Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin,” which is helpful in understanding both Calvin & Nevin. You & your wife are probably already be aware of these works, because you’re both extremely well read. However, in case you didn’t know, there you go. Enjoy!

Left by Mr. Teko on August 21st, 2006

Mr. Teko,

I had only heard of the Nevin/Hodge controversy recently. So thanks for the tip on the reading. The more I read, the less well-read I consider myself to be.

Go well.

Left by W.Nielsen on August 21st, 2006

Will,

On the Hodge/Nevin controversy, in addition to Mathison that you’re reading you, might also find the following link helpful (http://www.peterwallace.org/hn.htm).
Dr. Wallace is an OPC minister.

I forgot to mention in my last post that you might find Ronald Wallace’s (no relation to Peter that I know) classic work “Calvin’s Doctrine of Word & Sacrament” very helpful. He quotes extensively from the whole range of Calvin’s work in outline form to give the big picture of Calvin on these topics.

I too have struggled with these issues, and I suggest them to you because I found them to be very helpful. Glad to hear you’re reading Mathison… that’s an excellent work that deserves a wide reading in the Reformed world.

Peace,
Mr. Teko

Left by Mr. Teko on August 22nd, 2006

Mr Neilson,

You are right about the “lost” Reformed eucharist, and may the Lord have mercy. After examining this problem for years, this is a short burst on what I have uncovered on this subject:

- Only a few groups claim the Real Presence
- The Marburg Colloquy failed to achieve resolution
- Of the 5 or so groups that claim the Real Presence today (RCC, Reformed, Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran), only the Reformed and maybe the Episcopal (actually a Reformed branch) have been able to get away from a focus on the physical aspects of the species of the bread and wine, and onto the union
- The embrace of the Zwinglian “memorialist” view has smothered the rich sacramental view of these Real Presence groups
- The anamnesis and prolepsis are in the Real Presence, in the Reformed view
- The sacrament is a Lord’s day rite, which is *every* Sunday
- All members of the body of Christ are entitled
- It is beyond strange to go to a quarterly frequency, which frustrated Calvin in Geneva to no end
- Because it is a sacrament and not just an ordinance, it is therefore a rite, and the right species and the right order of practice is to be enacted in the fear of the Lord
- Heaven is entered prior to partaking of
- Christ is fed upon in a mystery somehow in the right approach to the sacrament
- The Spirit is not at the beck and call of the words of institution to the eucharist
- The Lord delivers on His promise
- The ancient Genevan church took these things altogether and in practice
- Calvin taught it and has been frequently misunderstood (Dabney says he cannot make sense of Calvin’s view)
- You are hitting on something we should all be passionate about, namely that generally speaking, and generally only, it is a fair assessment that the Reformed have literally dropped the ball on the eucharist, missing a glorious heritage, with the conservatives, the moderates, and definitely the liberals, all to their own demise
- The eucharist is life

Left by Kosmiceggburst on September 3rd, 2006

Kosmiceggburst:

Thanks for your post. Many of your points are well received. The issue I think you nailed is that we need to get past the physical one dimensional thought (modernism) and onto the union as you put it. I would want to nuance your last point, by way of preference, and say that the Eucharist is an instrument by which Christ communicates His life to us. Largely, the instrumentallity of the sacraments by the Spirit has given way to the memorialist view that you mention. Matthesion traces much of that to an over emphasis of the Consensus Tigurinus of Bullinger, who was Zwingli’s protege.

Thank you again for your thoughts here.

Left by wjnielsen on September 3rd, 2006

Mr Nielsen,

Did not know of some of these historical details. One might say that the consensus is a new beginning, and I am being presumptuous here to wonder at first if a compromise had in fact occurred on the Tigurinus because it was co-authored, and secondly, wondered if it was a final statement on the matter, forever settling the issue in its setting. However, to think these things rails against the spirit behind the consensus to unify on the sacrament, so am hesitant about how it is approached. Can the consensus be kept intact as it is and the passion of Calvin in the Supper be unleashed by it or is that even proper to do? Does that kind of thing do violence to the spirit of unity driving it? As Reformed people, we should be the last to say we are always in the right on a concern, since ever-reforming is the operating principle, and I do see a lot in the consensus worthwhile to participate in an advance the kingdom.

May the Lord bless you with happiness in the eucharist; I am ever-learning, and the prayer is for the Lord to work a miracle with this particular concern. I am thankful for the joyfulness the real presence has brought all these years, and it would really be great if the greater community could share in the depths of this joy.

Kosmiceggburst

Left by Kosmiceggburst on September 6th, 2006

k.e.b:

Thank you very much for your interaction. I am encouraged that you seem to “get” the spirit of the Reformation in ways that I wish many Reform-ED today would. We are the Reform-ING, which is a messy process in which God reveals his Glory and Grace. God bless you.

Will

Left by wjnielsen on September 6th, 2006

Also, I think part of the issue is a systematic rather than a historical focus. Attempts to understand Calvin’s teaching on the Eucharist by most systematicians act as if it dropped out of the sky, or it just lept out of the Bible at him, which of course it didn’t.

The fall of Constantinople didn’t just bring the 16th century West the Greek NT, it also brought them the Greek fathers, as witnessed by the fact that Calvin’s second most cited author after St. Augustine is St. Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzus). I’d argue that Calvin got at least three of his core concepts in this area from the Cappadocians:

- The concept of the elements in the Eucharist as ‘antitype’ of the Body and Blood of Christ.

- The idea, following from this, that the Spirit ‘reveals’ or ‘allows to perceive’ the Body and Blood in and through the elements.

- The overarching eschatological context of participation in the Spirit, making the Eucharist the Sacrament of the Kingdom.

Calvin, and Luther for that matter, considered novelty and innovation to constitute heresy, so any attempt to understand them without seeing how they oriented themselves within the (particularly Patristic) history of the Faith is going to end up being a misunderstanding.

Oh, and btw, hey Will.:)

Left by stevedeyoung on September 9th, 2006

Steve,

First, what a delight it is to hear from you, brother! Thanks for your thoughts here.

In a very NON-SCHOLARLY activity, I did some electronic searches on Calvin’s Commentaries and his Institutes that you might find interesting. It is very much not exhaustive; however, it led me to believe that Calvin was interested in not being novel. I remember a conversation you and I had one time about correspondence that Calvin had with Eastern patriarchs during his life. That has always interested me.

Steve, would you suggest for us a few works that might help me (and anyone else) get a better grasp on what the Three Cappadocians would have taught on the Sacraments (viz. the Supper)?

Thanks again. Hope to see you on September 24, when I am in Tyler.

Left by wjnielsen on September 11th, 2006

Something to say?

View blog authority