and confirms that promise with a sign,
there is nothing empty about the sign."
R. C. Sproul, Tabletalk Magazine, October 2017 Edition, page 39
Three days back the 500th anniversary of what is commonly considered the beginning of the Protestant Reformation was celebrated. Many Christians across denominational lines commemorate this day, October 31, 1517 when Martin Luther posted his 95 theses of debate to the church building door in Wittenberg. This cross-denominational party is somewhat strange, since I'm not sure Luther would consider many of these denominations to be made up of genuine Christians. I'm guessing the vast majority of these folks don't know that, because they don't read Luther. They don't know that the great point of contention that kept Ulrich Zwingli and Martin Luther from joining forces to create one great wave of Protestant reform was the meaning of the Lord's Table. They don't know that a case can be made that during those reformation years of battle more blood and more ink was spilled over this subject than any other. And they don't understand Luther to be the very sacramental man that he was. It's worth reading how it was that Luther understood the sacrament's relationship to authentic faith. Zwingli believed the sacraments to be memorials and reminders, but not necessarily attached to Christ's promise of His presence or His administration of grace.
I don't agree with Luther on the Lord's Table; not altogether. Neither do I agree with Zwingli, much at all. What I agree on with both is that the Lord's Table matters in a way that is worthy of hearty debate and perhaps division. It is not my intention in this post to make a case for my Reformed understanding of the Lord's Table. It's more simple than that. It's to say that all of us should rethink this matter, and not walk idly through life ignorantly accepting what it is we grew up with on this topic. And what many of us grew up with (including me) is that this isn't a terribly important thing. The Reformers disagreed, because the Bible disagrees. There is quite a bit at stake here, the most significant being in what ways God Almighty has promised His presence.
And, the Bible speaks of the signs (Baptism and the Lord's Table) as not only that, but also as seals. These practices seal to us the promises God is proclaiming by them. God is speaking in these things. It is not that man is testifying, or merely remembering, but that God is preaching to His assembled people.
I don't agree with Luther on the Lord's Table; not altogether. Neither do I agree with Zwingli, much at all. What I agree on with both is that the Lord's Table matters in a way that is worthy of hearty debate and perhaps division. It is not my intention in this post to make a case for my Reformed understanding of the Lord's Table. It's more simple than that. It's to say that all of us should rethink this matter, and not walk idly through life ignorantly accepting what it is we grew up with on this topic. And what many of us grew up with (including me) is that this isn't a terribly important thing. The Reformers disagreed, because the Bible disagrees. There is quite a bit at stake here, the most significant being in what ways God Almighty has promised His presence.
And, the Bible speaks of the signs (Baptism and the Lord's Table) as not only that, but also as seals. These practices seal to us the promises God is proclaiming by them. God is speaking in these things. It is not that man is testifying, or merely remembering, but that God is preaching to His assembled people.
No comments:
Post a Comment