In the article, “Of the Sacrament of the Lords’ Supper” Martin Luther provides a critique of the Roman Catholic view of the Lord’s Supper during the sixteenth century. In the article, “Of the Sacrament of the Altar” Luther proposes alternatives to the Roman Catholic tradition of the Lord’s Supper. This post will discuss and review potential presuppositions that are evident in both the criticism of the Roman Catholic view as well as Luther’s alternatives.
PRESUPPOSTIONS AGAINST CATHOLICISM
First, Luther explains that detaining the cup from the laity is a custom that entered the church through the power of Satan. Is it true that detaining the cup from the laity is evil or is it a hidden assumption? Luther supports his argument by using biblical and historical evidence. The papists suggest that it is within their power to deny the cup to the laity because their higher authority permits the modification. Luther utilizes the biblical evidence of Ephesians 4:11 to argue the equality of believers and undermine the idea of a hierarchical human structure. Furthermore, Luther suggests the decision regarding the detaining of the cup originated from the historical council of Constance, which inappropriately supported custom over biblical evidence. Although more research is required to prove the council emphasized custom over Scripture, it appears the evidence supports Luther’s assumption.
Second, Luther argues against the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation. Luther again provides substantial support by arguing with the evidence of history, Scripture, and logic. Historically, Luther explains that even from Ambrose’s time the elevation of the elements was absent. Biblically, Luther astutely notices that 1 Corinthians 11:24 states the body is “given for you” not “shall be given for you.” In other words, the present tense language suggests the sacrament is Christ’s work not the work of a priest performed in the future. Accordingly, logic supports Luther’s final assertion that the sacrament does not justify ex opere, operato, or by the outward act, but instead, by the inward power of Christ. Again, the evidence supports Luther’s assumptions.
PRESUPPOSTIONS OF LUTHER’S PERSPECTIVE
Although the evidence supporting Luther’s assumptions against Roman Catholicism’s view of the Eucharist are strong, the presuppositions supporting his view of the Lord’s Supper are not as strong. Two significant presuppositions arise from Luther’s perspective as documented in the Large Catechism. First, Luther uses biblical evidence to suggest that the bread and wine are “the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[1] Is it true that the bread and wine are literally Christ’s body and blood or is it a presupposition? Luther argues that 1 Corinthians 11:24 is literally true by stating, “Take, eat; this is My body.” In other words, if Christ says the bread is “My body” then that is exactly what it must be. However, Luther broadens the interpretation by arguing the bread and wine become more than food by a supernatural infusion of Christ, the Word of God, into the existing elements. Thus, the joining of the Word with the bread and wine becomes a Sacrament that conveys grace to the believer. Although Luther does a masterful job applying a literal interpretation to the phrase “this is my body,” by completely ignoring the remainder of the verse that states, “do in remembrance of Me” an inductive fallacy possibly exists. Excluding pertinent evidence risks a potential error that defies logic. In fact, Scripture is absent of evidence that suggests that Christ commonly infuses lifeless objects like bread, wine, glass, and metal with Himself and could potentially border on the implication of pantheism if taken to an extreme. More importantly, however, the biblical evidence in the Gospels and 1 Corinthians states that the purpose of the meal is to remember that the atoning work of Christ provides grace, not that the Christ infused bread and wine provide grace. A myriad of verses including 2 Corinthians 12:9 support that Christ’s grace alone is sufficient. In other words, inanimate objects joined in some way with Christ are not necessary for the sufficiency of grace. So why is a literal view that the bread is actually Christ’s body a problem? First, as already mentioned, it risks a modified form of pantheism if the logical fallacy goes too far. Second, and more importantly, it risks a human reliance on something other than the sufficiency of Christ’s grace by suggesting the conveyance of grace includes Christ plus other objects.
Christian Theology
Second, Luther argues that the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper is the “remission of sins.”[2] Is it possible that eating the bread and drinking the cup can actually cause the remission of sins or is this a presupposition? Luther again uses biblical evidence to support the argument, but this time refers to one of the Gospels. Matthew 26:27-28 states, “Drink ye all of it; this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins.” Based on Luther’s previous literal presupposition, the logical conclusion Luther draws is that drinking the cup actually remits sin. This appears at first to be illogical until one remembers that Luther has joined the cup with Christ, which allows Luther’s logic to remain consistent. Unfortunately, Luther’s consistent logic is built on an inductive fallacy already alluded to above. Again, by completely ignoring the phrase “in remembrance of Me,” Luther gives the power of remission, at least partially, to the cup instead of blood, and ignores the real power of the cup, which is to stimulate remembrance. Of course, one could contend that Luther is arguing that the real power of the bread and the cup is completely the Word, but if so then what is the purpose of the joint venture?[3] In other words, as Matthew 20:28 confirms, biblically and logically it is the blood, and the blood alone, that provides for the remission of sins.[4] So what are the risks of assuming that the bread and cup have a part in the remission of sin? First, if the act of consuming the elements remits sin then a works based system of forgiveness could evolve in opposition to the very principles that nearly cost Luther his life. Second, it inappropriately risks adding components to the blood of Christ as a necessity for the remission of sin.
CONCLUSION
This paper has explored two of Luther’s presuppositions used to refute the Roman Catholic position regarding the Eucharist. Furthermore, Luther’s view of the Lord’s Supper provided two additional presuppositions from the Large Catechism. Accordingly, this post has shown that a number of potential presuppositions are evident in both the criticism of the Roman Catholic view of the Lord’s Supper as well as Luther’s alternatives.
_____________________________________
[1]Martin Luther, Luther’s Large Catechism: Of the Sacrament of the Altar, https://sites.google.com/site/wetmorelibertypapers/lordssuppertext/luthers-large-catchism (accessed February 10, 2012).
[2]Ibid.
[3]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 1126.
[4]John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds., The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 1983), 83.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.
- Luther, Martin. Luther’s Large Catechism: Of the Sacrament of the Altar. https://sites.google.com/site/wetmorelibertypapers/lordssuppertext/luthers-large-catchism (accessed February 10, 2012).
- Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, eds. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 1983.
