Salvation By Grace

Approaching Fact, Applying Faith:
On the long walk up the steep hill of the historic castle in Marburg, Germany, nostalgia throbbed through every vein. If only the stones could speak and resonate with the voices that held forth within those confines–what rapture that would provide! Within the rooms of that castle a memorable meeting was held in October of 1529 at which a handful of men, principally Luther and Zwingli, were present. What occasioned that auspicious gathering, and why were the emotions so intense as the moods swung from castigating outbursts to heartfelt apologies?

The question before them was one of consolidating their theological convictions and of presenting a unified platform on what they believed and why they believed it. We read in the summation of those proceedings that of the fifteen points under debate they agreed on fourteen but with great anguish disagreed on the fifteenth. The issue that strongly divided them was the meaning of Jesus’s words “This is my body,” and the significant implications of those words upon the elements of the Lord’s Supper. To Luther it appeared to be as clear as the day–”This is my body” could only be literal. “Jesus said, ‘This is my body,’” he kept thundering forth. He was not arguing for transubstantiation, although Zwingli saw it as a capitulation to that. To Zwingli the words were only symbolic of Christ’s spiritual presence.

One has only to read the points and counterpoints made between the two and the spirit is stirred by the passion of the reformers. The contest of two different convictions, and the harshness of the words spoken in the heat of argument prompted tears and regret in each as they parted with the hope that the sharp edges of their verbal outbursts would be blunted and gentler words would prevail. Unfortunately, subsequent history unfolds a reality different to their hopes.

Today we marvel at such diatribe between people committed to Christ. But let us not lose sight of something so close to the eye that we may lose focus. For both Zwingli and Luther the fundamental question was unmistakable: What did Jesus mean? That was of supreme importance. To be absolutely sure of the answer to that question on the Lord’s Supper we may have to await the Real Presence when eternity is ushered in. But I strongly suspect that both Zwingli and Luther will be applauded for their unswerving commitment to determine God’s intent in his Word.

With the twists and turns of history, Marburg has a more sobering warning to us than a debate in a castle by a handful of reformers. The prestigious University of Marburg was founded just two years before that colloquy. In more recent times it has been the spawning ground for schools of thought that have brought havoc into theological institutions. In this university the famed existentialist Martin Heidegger taught. His impact was also felt by the notable neoorthodox theologian Rudolf Bultmann.

Bultmann’s legacy to Christianity is his self-arrogated task to “demythologize” the New Testament; that is, to strip it of what he considered its contemporaneously false assumptions and beliefs which modern learning has clearly debunked, and to find in its place that which is personally meaningful. He drew a line between the alleged facts of history and history as we need to apply it. Thus, to Bultmann the resurrection was not a fact but a faith event, fused with meaning and embraced with passion whether or not it is true. This philosophically impoverished approach could not have been more ironically evidenced than on that Easter weekend I spent in Marburg. For seventy-two hours the stores were closed and the streets were barren. Two of the most precious days to Christendom were being commemorated in a culture where the truth of those days has been lost.

After decades of ministry, one of the deepest concerns I have lies in this twin-headed dilemma–how we approach the Scriptures and how we apply them. So much of our faith today is muddied by spiritual jargon. Time and again we hear, “God spoke to me”–a mind-boggling statement, to be sure, not only to the skeptic but to many a serious student of the Word. Could such a claim not just as equally be the spiritual clothing of ambition with the verbiage of inspiration? I have seen some of the most incredible behavior justified with the words “God spoke to me.” How does one argue with that? The only way is to turn to the Scriptures and to verify whether the truth deduced is in keeping with the truth of Scripture, not just personally wrested but objectively revealed to all humanity. Further, if the life and conduct of the one to whom God is “constantly speaking” belies a disjunction between practice in day-to-day living and a precept that is harnessed to justify specific behavior, that one too has amputated the organ of fact from the feeling of faith.

From the beginning of time the most difficult question confronting humanity was in the words of the tempter, “Did God really say… ?” In a tragic sort of way we have either jettisoned that revealed authority or else given lip service to it, breathing our own inspiration into self-chosen paths. May I suggest the latter is more dangerous, for while the former denies the existence of God, the latter in the name of God, plays God. This may be the most important lesson to learn from the stones of Marburg. To Luther and Zwingli it was important to know what God meant when God said what He did, not what they might like it to mean. Their disagreement was based on the importance of truth. For Bultmann and Heidegger their personal worlds overrode the spoken Word, denuding it from being God-breathed and rendering it effectually just another book to be literally “manhandled” at the mercy of personal inspiration. I have little doubt that to many professing Christians the choice between the two schools of thought is clear: Bultmann and Heidegger were wrong. But the terrifying reality may be that in life and conduct we may be closer to where they were.

• 1 Cor 11:23 – end of chapter
  • 23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.33So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.

• Communion was instituted on the night of the Jesus’s betrayal
• He first gave thanks
• Instituted during the Passover
  • By the shedding of blood there was no death
• Jesus held the bread and broke it
  • He distinguished between His physical body and he emblem of the bread which portrayed the giving of himself and he distinguished between the cup an His blood in the same way
• “This is my body for you.”
• Old covenant rituals allowed an external cleansing
  • Jesus’s sacrifice is permanent cleansing
• And those who partake of communion are expressing their participation in the benefits of Christ’s atoning death
• Unless we take an inventory of our lives and we need to enter the experience in our souls the cleansing work of Christ, communion will remain an OT ritual, ie external

Why communion was instituted:

• 1. Recollection
  • “Do this in remembrance of me.”
  • Memorial for the benefits of Jesus’ death
• 2. Proclamation
  • We proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes
  • In communion we do not offer up the sacrifice of Christ to the Father
  • We proclaim the person Christ and the redemption He has given us
• 3. Anticipation
  • verse 26 – we do this until He comes
• Because the meal is so significant, any unworthy participation is sin; How can we do this, ie sin when receiving communion?
  • By not recognizing Christ’s sacrifice for us
  • By harboring ill feelings toward our brothers and sisters
  • To do it ritualistically, ie to do it just as a matter of course
• When we dishonor communion we do not dishonor the meal, we dishonor Christ
• We must examine ourselves before taking communion
  • Do we know Jesus?
  • Test our attitudes, motivation, test our relationship to the Lord and the Lord’s people
  • Is my heart right with God? and with my brothers and sisters?
  • We are all imperfect
  • If we fail to recognize that is a way the Lord meets with His people by his appointment then we receive in an unworthy manner