Third Anniversary of Issues, Etc.

We recommend this Confessional Lutheran radio program.

http://pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2011/07/happy-3rd-birthday.html

Happy 3rd Birthday!

Dear Issues, Etc. Listener:
In the name of Jesus, greetings.
Our listeners keep Issues, Etc. on the air. We believe this more and more every day.
June 30, 2011, marks the three-year anniversary of our return to radio, the Internet, and on-demand. For those three years (and for more than a decade before that) our listeners have kept us on the air. Thank you.
Please consider supporting Issues, Etc. for the years to come with a special three-year anniversary gift. Any size gift is deeply appreciated. You can make a secure online donation at www.issuesetc.org. You can also donate by check. Make your check payable to “Lutheran Public Radio” and send it to the address below.
LPR
P.O. Box 912
Collinsville, IL 62234
Thank you for listening and thanks for your support of Issues, Etc., past, present and future especially during the difficult summer months
Wir sind alle Bettler,

Todd Wilken, Host
Issues, Etc.

9th Collect after Trinity, Rightful Thinking, Formula of Concord, Justification, Justifying Faith

The Ninth Sunday after Trinity.
The Collect.

GRANT to us, Lord, we beseech thee, the spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful; that we, who cannot do any thing that is good without thee, may by thee be enabled to live according to thy will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/communion/trinity.html

1. The phrase from our Collect for this week: “…the spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful…” This is the God-given gift of faith within the justified saint, justified extra nos...thirsting, hungering, and seeking Godly, ordered, directed, disciplined, and decorous thinking and living. This collect conjoins thinking and living.

2. We ponder the word rightful in relation to thinking, living, and justifying faith.

3. Rightful = rightful (adjective) /ˈraɪt.fəl/
= rightfully (adverb) /ˈraɪt.fəl.i/

= A rightful position or claim is one which is morally or legally correct

Examples:
Don't forget that I am the rightful owner of this house.
The furniture rightfully belongs to you.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/rightful

3. This Collect corresponds, succinctly, to the doctrine, worship and piety of the justified Psalmist (cf. Rom.4 closely) in Psalm 119, an earnest and determined effort to think and live rightfully.

4. Thinking rightly about what? An entire front of doctrine and living. The prayer pertains to us at every level. Every theological loci, sermon, Sunday School lesson, worship service, and every piece of music for the seminarians and Churchmen. And we're just warming to our subject here. Every paper, every exam and every text-book for secondary, collegiate, graduate or doctoral students. Every family, sociological, political or economic matter for the exegetes of culture. Engaging with this particular Collect for the Day--this specific prayer--is reminiscent of the phrase from St. Chrysostom's prayer at Mattins or Evensong, to wit, "...granting us in this world knowledge of thy truth, and in the world to come life everlasting, Amen." Getting it right matters.

5. It is consoling to parents if they have children living and thinking rightly. With this focus, they do well in all things insofar as their abilities allow. In fact, it's hard to imagine a parent not wanting a child to pray or live this Collect as his or her own: "GRANT to us, Lord, we beseech thee, the spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful..." A life-changing prayer for a covenant child and just one more reason for our 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

Getting it right, will keep you from traffic tickets and accidents (stay in the lane), mis-expenditures of assets, mis-prescribing meds or amounts by nurses or physicians, and 100's of other practical problems--getting it wrong hurts.

Aside from the width of practicality, however, we are re-directed to one specific area by the directed reading for Mattins, Thursday, 5 Aug 2010. In fact, through this period, the lectionary involves re-reading Paul's magnum opus and governing letter, the "battleground of the Reformation." Ergo, from the noises, din and demands of this widely applied Collect, we are refocused on Paul. The NT lection for 5 Aug 2010 is Paul's Romans, specifically, chapter 5 and it concerns rightful thinking, justification by faith alone and faith itself.

6. We always do aright and well to meditate and ponder the insights from Confessional Lutheran Churchmen concerning rightful thinking, justification by faith alone (Romans 3.28, inter alia) and faith itself. Confessional Lutherans always afford us fine specimens of theological deliberation. From The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, III. The Righteousness of Faith (http://bookofconcord.org/sd-righteousness.php). For your meditation and rightful thinking, we quote III.9-10:

"9] Concerning the righteousness of faith before God we believe, teach, and confess unanimously, in accordance with the comprehensive summary of our faith and confession presented above, that poor sinful man is justified before God, that is, absolved and declared free and exempt from all his sins, and from the sentence of well-deserved condemnation, and adopted into sonship and heirship of eternal life, without any merit or worth of our own, also without any preceding, present, or any subsequent works, out of pure grace, because of the sole merit, complete obedience, bitter suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord Christ alone, whose obedience is reckoned to us for righteousness.

"10] These treasures are offered us by the Holy Ghost in the promise of the holy Gospel; and faith alone is the only means by which we lay hold upon, accept, and apply, and appropriate them to ourselves. 11] This faith is a gift of God, by which we truly learn to know Christ, our Redeemer, in the Word of the Gospel, and trust in Him, that for the sake of His obedience alone we have the forgiveness of sins by grace, are regarded as godly and righteous by God the father, and are eternally saved. 12] Therefore it is considered and understood to be the same thing when Paul says that we are justified by faith, Rom. 3:28, or that faith is counted to us for righteousness, Rom. 4:5, and when he says that we are made righteous by the obedience of One, Rom. 5:19, or that by the righteousness of One justification of faith came to all men, Rom. 5:18. 13] For faith justifies, not for this cause and reason that it is so good a work and so fair a virtue, but because it lays hold of and accepts the merit of Christ in the promise of the holy Gospel; for this must be applied and appropriated to us by faith, if we are to be justified thereby. 14] Therefore the righteousness which is imputed to faith or to the believer out of pure grace is the obedience, suffering, and resurrection of Christ, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law, and paid for [expiated] our sins. 15] For since Christ is not man alone, but God and man in one undivided person, He was as little subject to the Law, because He is the Lord of the Law, as He had to suffer and die as far as His person is concerned. For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering and dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made under the Law, and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us for righteousness, so that, on account of this complete obedience, which He rendered His heavenly Father for us, by doing and suffering, in living and dying, God forgives our sins, regards us as godly and righteous, and eternally saves us. 16] This righteousness is offered us by the Holy Ghost through the Gospel and in the Sacraments, and is applied, appropriated, and received through faith, whence believers have reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, the grace of God, sonship, and heirship of eternal life."

5. This is sheer gold. This is rightful Biblical and Pauline thinking. The justification of the ungodly is a once-for-all declaration of the Divine Majesty, His Sovereign Majesty. Justification is not progressive. The passive voice of Romans 5.9 means there is no cooperation on our part. See: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/08/romans-59-justification-future.html. Justification is purely by grace through God-given faith. This is rightful thinking.

Without further development, we would direct you to another golden confession that gets it right, the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 11, "Of Justification." http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

6. In response, Psalm 100 (Jubilate Deo) follows the New Testament lection.

7. We close with “The Old Hundredth,” arranged by R.V.Williams, and as sung by the Choir of Westminster Abbey. The music is put to pictures of various cathederals around the UK.

Yes, getting music, liturgy and architecture aright is an Anglican characteristic. No apologies to the Reformed or Baptists here.

But grander than these veritable and justifiable beauties, in music and architecture, we point to Jesus Christ, our "greater than the Temple," the "Temple" of His body, His holiness and beauty, His transcendance and sovereignty, and His immanence to us and His Church Militant on earth by Word and the Sacraments. His staggeringly perfect righteousness put to our beggarly accounts, freely and abidingly by His life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension. We stutter to adequately appreciate this, yet we must get it right and side with the Catholic Church of the Reformation--Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed.

Rightly, with the Reformation, we use Psalm-singing, specifically, Psalm 100 to guide, restrain, direct, control and express our thanksgiving and joy. Sola Deo gloria. Sola fide. Solo Christo. Sola gratia. Sola scriptura.

All people that on earth do dwell,
Sing to the Lord with cheerful voice.
Him serve with fear, His praise forth tell;
Come ye before Him and rejoice.

The Lord, ye know, is God indeed;
Without our aid He did us make;
We are His folk, He doth us feed,
And for His sheep He doth us take.

O enter then His gates with praise;
Approach with joy His courts unto;
Praise, laud, and bless His Name always,
For it is seemly so to do.

For why? the Lord our God is good;
His mercy is for ever sure;
His truth at all times firmly stood,
And shall from age to age endure.

To Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
The God Whom Heaven and earth adore,
From men and from the angel host
Be praise and glory evermore.

Church of England Record Society - Publications

Church of England Record Society - Publications

The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, edited by Anthony Milton.

The Synod of Dort was one of the most important gatherings of Protestant divines ever assembled. Summoned to resolve doctrinal disputes in the Netherlands, the synod involved theologians from a number of countries, Britain included. The precise role played by delegates of the Church of England at the synod has been the subject of intense disagreement ever since. Drawing on new sources discovered in English and Dutch archives, this volume provides a wide-ranging collection of edited documents, many not previously published, which make it possible for the first time to construct a fully contextualized account of the role played by the British delegates. The book tackles the political and theological background to the synod, the submissions of the British delegation on issues ranging from predestination and episcopacy to catechizing and biblical translation, and also the aftermath of the synod and the later defences of it by the British delegates. The primary source material is placed in context by a substantial introduction, which argues for a major reassessment of the role of the British divines, and emphasizes the importance of the synod in facilitating the study of the interaction of British and continental thinkers at a vital period in the emergence of an 'Anglican' identity.

Dr Anthony Milton is Reader in History at the University of Sheffield.

ISBN 1 84383 157 0. Price: £60 (members: £30).

Formula of Concord. XI.4-15 (Election)

We've gotten behind in our blogs on the FC, as well as Calvin's Institutes...among other things. So we are playing catchup over the next several days.

As Calvinists, we appreciate the noteworthy cautions by the Lutherans about "election," but find--as we expected--find it to have weaknesses also. This section states the obvious, to wit, that "foreknowledge" encompasses all wickednesses but doe not involves God as the Author of or Excitor to sin. It is noteworthy that the term "foreordain" is avoided, as if this resolved the matter. Every Calvinist appreciates that, to wit, that God's infallible foreknowledge encompasses evil.

The FC asserts that election, single predestination, obtains only for the elect which is "firmly founded and grounded." We then are told that this is "not to be judged or investigated." This will hardly answer the mail. If we have biblical reasons for inquiry, a Lutheran fiat otherwise won't work. An impoverished citation of 2 Pet.3.9 fails to be reconciled with 1 Pet.2.8. The citation of 1 Jn.2.2 (and associated "world," passages) is unimpressive, unbelaboured, and unsatisfying in light of John's larger theology. A peremptory dismissal is that, peremptory. It is not our intent to argue or defend double predestination here, although we could.

We are familiar with the routine allegations that Calvinsts are "rationalists," as if that exhausted the issue. It doesn't.

The FC seeks--rightly--to preserve what Calvinists have themselves struggled with, to wit, God's serious offer of salvation to all who seek it, e.g. Ez.18.23; 33.11. One only need to read the literature between Westminster divines (Philadelphia) and the Protestant Reformed (Grand Rapids) on the issue. Citation of these texts along with the exhortation to NO fuller inquiry doesn't work with Calvinists, either of Geneva or Canterbury (English Reformers); it is not as if Reformed Churchmen haven't wrestled with them. We appreciate the Lutheran call for cautions here, but it fails upon larger examination.

The Lutherans say this may or will lead one to a "reckless, Epicurean life or into despair." It may or will "excite pernicious thoughts in the heart of men." Very poor. Most unsatisfactory. Every thoughtful Calvinist is aware of this corruption by the ungodly who twist or doubt His Word. It is noteworthy, however, that some Puritans fell into this very wickedness of "navel gazing." To this our Catholic, L,utheran brethren bore a solid warning---good warning. Yet, Calvin rightly encourages ther troubled soul--on this point--to not linger on it, but to look to Christ alone with assurance and without doubt. Calvin was not unaware of the difficulty, but his thoughts triumph over the FC here. The FC rightly observes that this doctrine is "full of consolation."

We appreciate the cautions and we learn from them. We embrace them including our own difficulties. However, we believe that Lutherans cannot avoid questions that are lawful and fair. Claim single predestination all one may, it inescapably entails a foreknowing and foreordaining God.

Big picture: at least our Catholic, Confession, Lutheran brethren still are in a place to discuss this. The liberals of any group are out of the picture. It appears that some of the Anabaptists and Baptists are picking up on it, e.g. John Piper and Al Mohler. We appreciate the Lutheran cautions from the FC, but we already have them in place. Of course, on the Anglican side where-ever you look-- there are a few minor pockets of those who even understand what the issues are; we expect nothing from Anglican leaders in the USA--at all. Nada, zippo, zero.

We interpose the Westminster Confession, Chapter Three, a substantial advance over the FC at this point.

CHAPTER 3

Of God's Eternal Decree

1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

Epitome of the Formula of Concord

XI. Election

4} 3. This foreknowledge extends alike over the godly and the wicked, but it is not the cause of evil, neither of sin, namely, of doing what is wrong (which originally arises from the devil and the wicked, perverse will of man), nor of their ruin [that men perish], for which they themselves are responsible [which they must ascribe to themselves]; but it only regulates it, and fixes a limit to it [how far it should progress and] how long it should last, and all this to the end that it should serve His elect for their salvation, notwithstanding that it is evil in itself.

5] 4. The predestination or eternal election of God, however, extends only over the godly, beloved children of God, being a cause of their salvation, which He also provides, as well as disposes what belongs thereto. Upon this [predestination of God] our salvation is founded so firmly that the gates of hell cannot overcome it. John 10:28; Matt. 16:18.

6] 5. This [predestination of God] is not to be investigated in the secret counsel of God, but to be sought in the Word of God, where it is also revealed.



7] 6. But the Word of God leads us to Christ, who is the Book of Life, in whom all are written and elected that are to be saved in eternity, as it is written Eph. 1:4: He hath chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world.



8] 7. This Christ calls to Himself all sinners and promises them rest, and He is in earnest [seriously wills] that all men should come to Him and suffer themselves to be helped, to whom He offers Himself in His Word, and wishes them to hear it and not to stop their ears or [neglect and] despise the Word. Moreover, He promises the power and working of the Holy Ghost, and divine assistance for perseverance and eternal salvation [that we may remain steadfast in the faith and attain eternal salvation].



9] 8. Therefore we should judge concerning this our election to eternal life neither from reason nor from the Law of God, which lead us either into a reckless, dissolute, Epicurean life or into despair, and excite pernicious thoughts in the hearts of men, for they cannot, as long as they follow their reason, successfully refrain from thinking: If God has elected me to salvation, I cannot be condemned, no matter what I do; and again: If I am not elected to eternal life, it is of no avail what good I do; it is all [all my efforts are] in vain anyway.



10] 9. But it [the true judgment concerning predestination] must be learned alone from the holy Gospel concerning Christ, in which it is clearly testified that God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all, and that He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and believe in the Lord Christ. Rom. 11:32; Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:2.



11] 10. Whoever, now, is thus concerned about the revealed will of God, and proceeds according to the order which St. Paul has observed in the Epistle to the Romans, who first directs men to repentance, to knowledge of sins, to faith in Christ, to divine obedience, before he speaks of the mystery of the eternal election of God, to him this doctrine [concerning God's predestination] is useful and consolatory.



12] 11. However, that many are called and few chosen, Matt. 22:14, does not mean that God is not willing to save everybody; but the reason is that they either do not at all hear God's Word, but wilfully despise it, stop their ears and harden their hearts, and in this manner foreclose the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost, so that He cannot perform His work in them, or, when they have heard it, make light of it again and do not heed it, for which [that they perish] not God or His election, but their wickedness, is responsible. [2 Pet. 2:1ff ; Luke 11:49. 52; Heb. 12:25f.]



13] 12. Thus far a Christian should occupy himself [in meditation] with the article concerning the eternal election of God, as it has been revealed in God's Word, which presents to us Christ as the Book of Life, which He opens and reveals to us by the preaching of the holy Gospel, as it is written Rom. 8:30: Whom He did predestinate, them He also called. In Him we are to seek the eternal election of the Father, who has determined in His eternal divine counsel that He would save no one except those who know His Son Christ and truly believe on Him. Other thoughts are to be [entirely] banished [from the minds of the godly], as they proceed not from God, but from the suggestion of the Evil Foe, whereby he attempts to weaken or entirely to remove from us the glorious consolation which we have in this salutary doctrine, namely, that we know [assuredly] that out of pure grace, without any merit of our own, we have been elected in Christ to eternal life, and that no one can pluck us out of His hand; as He has not only promised this gracious election with mere words, but has also certified it with an oath and sealed it with the holy Sacraments, which we can [ought to] call to mind in our most severe temptations, and take comfort in them, and therewith quench the fiery darts of the devil.



14] 13. Besides, we should use the greatest diligence to live according to the will of God, and, as St. Peter admonishes, 2 Pet. 1:10, make our calling sure, and especially adhere to [not recede a finger's breadth from] the revealed Word: that can and will not fail us.



15] 14. By this brief explanation of the eternal election of God His glory is entirely and fully given to God, that out of pure mercy alone, without all merit of ours, He saves us according to the purpose of His will; besides, also, no cause is given any one for despondency or a vulgar, wild life [no opportunity is afforded either for those more severe agitations of mind and faintheartedness or for Epicureanism].

Classical Anglicanism and the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion by Rev. Victor E. Novak

Note the confession of "ignorance" amongst Anglicans regarding Calvinism. Very poor.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11186
CLASSICAL ANGLICANISM AND THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY COMMUNION
by Rev. Victor E. Novak
Special to Virtueonlinehttp://www.virtueonline.org/
September 15, 2009

There is a great deal of confusion among Anglicans today regarding the Anglican teaching on the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Some believe in the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation or something very similar; while others are almost Zwinglian, holding a view that differs little from the Baptists, Methodists or Presbyterians. There is a lot of talk today about "Real Presence," "Receptionism" and "Calvinism," without much understanding of what these terms really mean.

Many who think they are orthodox Anglicans are unfamiliar with their own Anglican formularies: the historic Book of Common Prayer and its Ordinal and Catechism, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and the two books of Homilies, and what they teach.

On July 29, 2007, I was received as a priest into the Reformed Episcopal Church. Previous to my reception, I had been a priest in the Anglican Province of Christ the King where I served as Ecumenical Officer and editor of The Province, the official publication of the APCK, as well as a pastor. I was a classical Anglican while serving in the Anglican Province of Christ the King, and I believe, teach and confess the same classical Anglicanism in the Reformed Episcopal Church.

I joined the Reformed Episcopal Church because it is neither high nor low church today, but is a classical Anglican Church, and is perhaps the only truly classical Anglican jurisdiction in North America. The REC not only professes belief in the historic Anglican formularies, but studies, uses and teaches them as well.

After the Reformed Episcopal Church became a founding jurisdiction of the newly gathered Anglican Church in North America, I found myself having discussions with Anglican colleagues outside of the REC regarding ACNA, and whether or not continuing Anglicans should work with it or remain outside. Many of these colleagues knew me while I was Ecumenical Officer of the APCK, and were genuinely interested in ACNA, but some seemed somewhat puzzled that my parish and I had entered the Reformed Episcopal Church. A few have even said to me, "But the REC doesnʼt believe in the Real Presence." Comments like that have led me to write this paper in an effort to clear the air.

THE REAL PRESENCE AND THE REC DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

In the Declaration of Principles of the Reformed Episcopal Church, adopted on December 2, 1873, the same day that the Thirty-nine Articles were reaffirmed without alteration, under "erroneous and strange doctrines as contrary to Godʼs Word", the REC condemns the notion "That the Presence of Christ in the Lordʼs Supper is a presence in the elements of Bread and Wine." It is from this principle that some of my colleagues have assumed that "the REC doesnʼt believe in the Real Presence." However, nothing could be farther from the truth. The truth is that this Principle does not address either the medieval, scholastic doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Biblical and patristic doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion, but something altogether different.

Transubstantiation is already rejected in Article XXVIII of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion: "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions."

The Reformed Episcopal Church does not condemn "the Presence of Christ in the Lordʼs Supper," - rather it affirms it. What it does condemn is the teaching "That the Presence of Christ in the Lordʼs Supper is a presence in the elements of Bread and Wine." It is not the doctrine of the "Real Presence" that is being condemned, but an error that is centuries old and goes back at least as far as John of Paris (d. 1306), and perhaps as far as the disciples of Berengarius of Tours at the end of the eleventh century. It had already been officially condemned by Rome, and by both the Lutheran and Reformed Churches in the 16th century; and had become popularized again in the 19th century. In fact, the Vatican condemned a Roman Catholic theologian, Bayma, in 1875, for teaching it; and some High Church Anglicans caused serious controversy in the United Kingdom and the United States by teaching what sounded very much like it in an effort to profess something close to Transubstantiation without technically violating Article XXVIII. Theologians call this error "Impanation."

Impanation is a theological term used for the teaching that the Body and Blood of Christ are mingled with the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about Impanation: "An heretical doctrine according to which Christ in the Eucharist through His human body substantially united with the substances of bread and wine, and thus really present as God, made bread: Deus panis factus...The doctrine of impanation agrees with the doctrine of consubstantiation [a term rejected by Lutherans] as it was taught by Luther, in these two essential points: it denies on the one hand the Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and on the other professes nevertheless the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Yet the doctrines differ essentially in so far as Luther asserted that the Body of Christ penetrated the unchanged substance of the bread but denied a hypostatic union.

Orthodox Lutheranism expressed this so-called sacramental union between the Body of Christ and the substance of bread in the wellknown formula: The Body of Christ is ʻin, with and under the breadʼ - in, cum et sub pane..."The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 says, "The doctrine of impanation...is also against reason, since a hypostatic union between the Word of God Incarnate, or the God-man Christ, and the dead substances of bread and wine is inconceivable" (Vol. 7, p. 695). Impanation has been condemned by Rome, the Lutheran Church in the Formula of Concord, and by the Reformed Episcopal Church in its Declaration of Principles, but all three of these Churches believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

THE CLASSICAL ANGLICAN TEACHING

Anglicanism rejected transubstantiation for three reasons: 1). it "cannot be proven by Holy Writ," 2). it "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament," and 3). it "hath given occasion to many superstitions." Transubstantiation clearly is not provable by Holy Writ, and "is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture." It is really a medieval, scholastic explanation without Scriptural or patristic support; and no impartial student of history can doubt that it "hath given occasion to many superstitions."

How does it overthrow the nature of a sacrament? A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. A sacrament consists of both the outward sign and the thing signified. In transubstantiation the outward sign is eliminated because the whole substance of the bread and wine are said to be changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Only the accidents, the appearance of the bread and wine, remain. This overthrows the nature of a sacrament.

Zwingli erred in that he separated the sign, the consecrated Bread and Wine, from what it signified, the Body and Blood of Christ; while transubstantiation made the same mistake in the theologically opposite direction. It can be said that Zwingli taught the "real absence" of Christ in the sacrament of Holy Communion. According to Zwingli, communicants receive only bread and wine as a memorial of Christʼs sacrifice. Transubstantiation teaches that communicants receive only the Body and Blood of Christ as the whole substance of the Bread and Wine have been transubstantiated into the Body and blood of Christ, leaving only the appearance, the accidents, of Bread and Wine.

But Anglicanism has always taught with the Scriptures and the Fathers that the Sacrament of Holy Communion consists of both the outward and visible sign, the consecrated Bread and Wine, and the inward and spiritual grace, the Body and Blood of Christ, as the Catechism makes clear.

In the Catechism of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer we read: What meanest thou by this word Sacrament? I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us; ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.

How many parts are there in a Sacrament? Two; the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace.Why was the Sacrament of the Lordʼs Supper ordained? For the continual remembrance of the death of Christ, and of the benefits we receive thereby. What is the outward part or sign of the Lordʼs Supper? Bread and Wine which the Lord commanded to be received.What is the inward part, or thing signified? The Body and Blood of Christ, which are spiritually taken and received by the faithful in the Lordʼs Supper. What are the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby? The strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the Bread and Wine (italics added).If our bodies are strengthened and refreshed by the Bread and Wine, the substance of the Bread and Wine must remain. This is classical Anglican Sacramental Theology. The Holy Scriptures teach that communicants receive the Body and Blood of Christ and Bread and Wine in the Sacrament (I Cor. 10:16; & 11:23-29), and so does Anglican theology.

The Body and Blood of Christ is not mingled with the Bread and Wine and there is no hypostatic union (Impanation), but are Really and Truly Present in the Sacrament of Holy Communion; and the Sacrament of Holy Communion, like all Sacraments, consists of both an outward and visible sign, the Bread and Wine, and an inward spiritual grace - the thing signified - the Body and Blood of Christ. Article XXVIII says, "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ."

The kneeling rubric at the end of the Eucharistic liturgy in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer makes it clear that Anglican theology rejects the scholastic notion that the substance of the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The rubric says, "the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances..."

And should anyone doubt the Catholicity of the 1662 Prayer Book, let me remind the reader that it was adopted after the Restoration and the final defeat of puritanism in England, is the product of the triumph of Caroline divinity, and marks the completion of the English Reformation that was begun in 1534.

No less an Anglican authority than the great Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., writes, "The assertion, that the consecrated elements have become the body and blood of Christ, is so frequently made by the ancients that it may be reckoned as a patristic commonplace. But...they perhaps represent nothing more than rhetorical emphasis upon the doctrine that the elements become the body and blood of Christ... There may be set against such language a number of clear assertions that the bread and wine continue in their proper nature after they have become the body and blood of Christ; and this appears to have been the ordinary patristic view."

But the middle ages saw a widespread shifting of emphasis from the mystery of identification to that of conversion... In the West this development terminated in the scholastic doctrine of transubstantiation" (Dogmatic Theology, Vol. IX, originally published 1921, pp. 129-130).

Hall continues, "If the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ, can they rightly be said to retain their former nature and still be bread and wine?...the ancients clearly took for granted an affirmative answer; and with a few exceptions they held, without being conscious of inconsistency, the doctrine that the consecrated elements are and have become the body and blood of Christ without ceasing to be real bread and wine. There were giants in those days, and we are not justified in explaining their position as either careless or stupid. They were, however, more alive to the supernatural aspects of the mystery than are the majority of those who deny that such things can be...We are taught that the divine logos became flesh; but that in becoming what He was not, He remained what He was, truly divine, is also taught in Scripture, and constitutes a stereotyped formula of catholic theology" (ibid, Hall, pp. 134-135).

"The Eucharistic sacrament is said to consist of two parts; but the phrase ought not to be taken as meaning that the inward res is separate or separable from the outward elements. A distinction of aspects and relations is involved, rather than a demarkation between mutually discrete substances. The sacrament is one and indivisible, although substantially representative of two worlds. From the standpoint of this world, it is natural bread and wine to which an extraordinary thing has happened, insusceptible of verification by our senses. From the standpoint of the spiritual world, the self-same thing is the body and blood of Christ, marvelously accommodated to, and identified with, the forms and figures of bread and wine" (ibid, Hall, p. 136).

In his classic work, A Theological Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, E. J. Bicknell, D.D., writes, "The Real Presence. On this view we hold that we receive through the bread and wine the Body and Blood of Christ, because in answer to the prayers of His Church and in fulfillment of His own promise, He has brought the elements into a mysterious union with Himself. He has, at it were, taken them up into the fulness of His ascended life and made them the vehicle of imparting that life to His members. Thus He is in a real sense present not only in the devout communicant but in the consecrated elements. Of the manner of this union we affirm nothing. The Presence is spiritual, not material.

"This in some form, is the teaching of the Roman and Eastern Churches, of Luther, of the Fathers and early liturgies... It would appear to be the most consistent with Scripture and the tradition of the Church, and also to be a safeguard of certain great Christian principles" (p. 492, first published 1919, quoted from the 1936 edition). Bicknell continues, "Again, if we turn to the Church as the interpreter of Scripture, the main stream of Christian teaching is quite clear. We find a singular absence of theological controversy about the Eucharist, but the general line of thought may be exemplified by these words of Irenaeus, ʻThe bread which is of the earth receiving the invocation of God is no longer common bread but Eucharist, made up of two things, an earthly and a heavenlyʼ" (Bicknell, ibid, p. 493).

The Protestant Reformation of which classical Anglicanism is an heir, was a movement to reform the Church and to return it to its primitive Catholic faith and practice. Dr. Martin Luther described the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament "in, with and under" the consecrated Bread and Wine as a "Sacramental union" (Latin: unio sacramentalis).

John Calvin, who did not believe in the "real absence" of Christ like Zwingli or in receptionism like Bullinger, said the Body and Blood of Christ was "conjoined" with the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

In his 1528, Confession Concerning Christʼs Supper, Martin Luther said, "Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, ʻThis is my body,ʼ even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word ʻthisʼ indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a ʻsacramental union,ʼ because Christʼs body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament."

According to the Formula of Concord, the Consecration brings about this sacramental union whenever the Eucharist is celebrated. "Thus it is not our word or speaking but the command and ordinance of Christ that, from the beginning of the first Communion until the end of the world, make the bread the body and the wine the blood that are daily distributed through our ministry and office. Again, [Luther says] ʻHere, too, if I were to to say over all the bread there is, "This is the body of Christ," nothing would happen, but when we follow his institution and command in the Lordʼs Supper and say, "This is my body," then it is his body; not because of our speaking or of our efficacious word, but because of his command in which he has told us so to speak and to do and has attached his own command and deed to our speaking.ʼ"

In his mature doctrinal view, John Calvin also believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Because few contemporary Anglicans are really familiar with John Calvin or have studied his works, most Anglicans are completely unaware that much of what is called "Calvinist" sacramental theology by them is, in fact, Zwingliʼs sacramental theology rather than Calvinʼs. Indeed, much of what is called "Reformed" or "Calvinist" theology today really comes from Calvinʼs successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, and from the Synod of Dort and the Westminister Assembly later still. The truth is that the mature John Calvin did not teach the "real absence" of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion like Zwingli, or receptionism like Bullinger.

Leanne Van Dyk, Academic Dean and Professor of Reformed Theology at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan, writes, "He [Calvin] engaged in vigorous conversation with both Lutheran and Reformed leaders over the Lordʼs Supper, and in these polemical exchanges he developed his mature doctrine. There is discernible development in Calvinʼs understanding of the Lordʼs Supper from early to late in his ministry. One Calvin scholar [Thomas J. Davis] summarizes, ʻWe will see Calvin move from denying the Eucharist as an instrument of grace to affirming it as such. We will see Calvin develop a notion of substantial partaking of the true body and blood of Christ over his career; an emphasis that is practically absent, even denied, in his earliest teachingʼ" (The Lordʼs Supper, Five Views, edited by Gordon T. Smith, c. 2008, Intervarsity Press, pp. 74-75).

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin writes [T]he Lordʼs Table should have been spread at least once a week for the Assembly of Christians,... All, like hungry men, should flock to such a bounteous repast."And what is that "bounteous repast"?

In his 1540, Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, Calvin writes, "It is a spiritual mystery which can neither be seen by the eye nor comprehended by the human understanding. It is therefore figured to us by visible signs, according as our weakness requires, in such manner, nevertheless, that it is not a bare figure but is combined with the reality and substance. It is with good reason then that the bread is called the body, since it not only represents it but also presents it to us. Hence we indeed infer that the name of the body of Jesus Christ is transferred to the bread, inasmuch as it is the sacrament and figure of it. But we likewise add, that the sacraments of the Lord should not and cannot be at all separated from their reality and substance. To distinguish, in order to guard against confounding them, is not only good and reasonable, but altogether necessary; but to divide them, so as to make them exist without the other, is absurd" (italics added).

In the same treatise Calvin continues, "We must confess, then, that if the representation which God gave us in the Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed to us by the hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us in order that we may be partakers of it. Though there should be nothing more, we have good cause to be satisfied, when we understand that Jesus Christ gives us in the supper the proper substance of his body and blood, in order that we may possess it fully, and possessing it have part in all blessings" (italics added).

Calvin signed the Augsburg Confession in 1539, and "Luther himself appreciated his theology even on his jealously guarded theory of the Sacrament of the Holy Supper" (A History of the Reformation, by Thomas M. Lindsay, D.D., LL.D.; Charles Scribnerʼs Sons; 1914; p. 112).

There was, of course, disagreements among the great Reformers regarding the Eucharist, but the disagreements were primarily over how the bread and the wine became the Body and Blood of Christ. Luther emphasized ubiquity; Calvin, basing his views on the sanctus in the liturgy and the so-called "ascending epiclesis" at the end of the canon in the Roman Rite, believed that we were caught up into heaven with Christ in the Eucharistic Liturgy. Others believed that the consecration was effected by the power of the Holy Ghost descending on the elements; or by the authority and power of Christʼs Words and command in the Words of Institution. All of these theories are helpful but not fully provable by Scripture, and should not divide Christians.

Regarding the Anglican view, Bicknell has written, "Of the manner of this union we [Anglicans] affirm nothing." Had the leaders of the Reformation from across Europe been able to freely meet in synod to discuss these issues, as Archbishop Thomas Cranmer had hoped, unity and a unified teaching may have resulted, but because of the political turmoil and Roman Catholic persecution of the time, no such synod could be held. Unfortunately, as Anglican bishop Michael Marshall has said, while Luther won the battle against Zwingli at Marburg, Zwingliism went on to win the war. The Rev. John R. Stephenson, Professor of Historical Theology at Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary in St. Catherines, Ontario, laments, "As painful though it is to concede this point, beginning in the seventeenth century, Luther increasingly lost the war for the real presence even in the Communion named after him" (ibid, The Lordʼs Supper, Five Views, p. 46).

Today, the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches do not hold Calvinist views regarding the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Like the Baptists, Methodists and other modern evangelicals, they have become completely Zwinglian in their approach, and believe that the Lordʼs Supper is a mere memorial of Christʼs sacrificial death. As Anglicans we must be careful not to describe these Zwinglian views as "Calvinism," which thy are not. Professor Van Dyk writes, "There is little doubt that the approach to the Lordʼs Supper expressed by Ulrich Zwingli was taken up in large part by the subsequent Reformed tradition. Many generations of Reformed believers have assumed that the Lordʼs Supper is a memorial act, a way to remember the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, an encouragement to gratitude and service" (ibid, The Lordʼs Supper, Five Views, p. 72).

In the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Anglican theology rejects both the errors of Transubstantiation and Zwinglian mere memorialism. Zwingliʼs ideas are rejected in Article XXV, "Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian menʼs profession, but rather they be certain sure witness, and effectual signs of grace (italics added). And Article XXVIII says, "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign but rather it is a Sacrament...a partaking of the Body of Christ" (italics added). The Articles of Religion also reject the notion of "receptionism." Like "Calvinism" which is often confused with Zwingliism, receptionism is often misunderstood. The doctrine of receptionism comes not from John Calvin, but from Heinrich Bullinger. Bullinger was Zwingliʼs successor in Zurich, and served there for forty-four years, from 1531 to 1575. Bullingerʼs sacramental views matured over time, leaving behind Zwingliʼs teaching, but stopping short of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.

For Bullinger, like his predecessor Ulrich Zwingli, the sacramental signs, the bread and the wine, are not connected to the thing signified, the Body and Blood of Christ. Heinrich Bullinger taught a sort of parallelism. The sacramental signs are not merely signs, but rather are analogies of Godʼs gracious actions. They do not confer grace. The sacramental action and the divine action are separate, but parallel.

As the believer receives the bread and wine with his mouth, he receives Christ in his heart by faith. This view is called "receptionism", and it is rejected in the Thirty-nine Articles. Article XXVIII teaches: "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper," (italics added).

Despite the teachings of Scripture and of Article XXVIII, receptionism historically has had influence among Anglicans. This is for three reasons. First, many have mistakenly believed that Richard Hooker, one of Anglicanism's greatest theologians, believed in it. Second, because Anglicanism teaches that the Body and Blood of Christ are received "only after an heavenly and spiritual manner" (Article XXVIII). And finally, because of a misunderstanding of Article XXIX, Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lordʼs Supper.

Richard Hooker is sometimes described as a receptionist because he wrote in his famous Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, "The real presence of Christ is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament." But Hooker was only echoing the important point made in Article XXV, "The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon,...but we should duly use them" (italics added). The sacraments are not an end in themselves to be lifted up, carried about, and gazed upon, but a means to an end: the union of the believer with Christ, that as the Apostle Peter says, we may be partakers of the divine nature. Elsewhere, Hooker makes it very clear that he sees the sacraments as means, or vehicles, of grace. Hooker writes, "This bread hath in it more than the substance which our eyes behold"; and "The power of the ministry of God...by blessing visible elements...maketh them invisible grace." Likewise, some have misunderstood the words "only after an heavenly and spiritual manner" (Article XXVIII) regarding how the Body and Blood of Christ are received in Communion. "Spiritual" does not mean symbolic or representative; but rather not in a materialistic, carnal, corporeal way. This language is taken from John 6:63, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." The spiritual is anything but figurative. Spiritual things are as real, or more so, than physical or material things.

In the Catechism of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer the question is asked, "What is the inward part, or thing signified [in the Sacrament of Holy Communion]?" And answers, "The Body and Blood of Christ, which are spiritually taken and received by the faithful in the Lordʼs Supper." Where it says "spiritually taken and received" in the 1928 Prayer Book, it says "The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily [truly] and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lordʼs Supper" in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. "Spiritually taken and received" and "verily [truly] taken and received" mean the same thing. It should also be noted that the words "taken and received" echo Article XXVIII, "The Body of Christ is "given [by the priest], taken [by the communicant], and eaten [by the communicant]", thus ruling out Bullingerʼs receptionism.

Finally, some Anglicans have been influenced historically by receptionism because of a misunderstanding of Article XXIX, Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lordʼs Supper. Receptionism teaches that unbelievers receive only bread and wine, but not its parallel, the Body and Blood of Christ, which are only received into the heart by faith; and that Christ is present at the Table rather than on the Table. But that is not what the Article is teaching. Bicknell writes, "This Article does not in any way deny the ʻreal presence,ʼ it only rules out any carnal view of it. To give an illustration: when our Lord was on earth He possessed healing power quite independently of the faith of men: but only those who possessed faith could get into touch with it. Many touched His garments, but only the woman who had faith was healed (Mk. 5:30). The healing power was there: the touch of faith did not create it, but faith as it were, opened the channel to the appropriate blessing. So in the Eucharist, Christ in all His saving power is present. The wicked are only capable of receiving the visible and material signs of His presence. But those who approach with faith can receive the inward grace and become partakers of Christ by feeding on His Body and Blood" (ibid, Bicknell, p. 503).

Unfortunately, in the middle to late 19th century, many Anglicans were driven toward receptionism in reaction to the excesses of the so-called Ritualists that had grown out of, and separated from, the Oxford Movement led by Pusey and Keble, and had increasingly adopted Roman ceremonial, doctrine and devotions. But the Tractarians of the Oxford Movement were loyal churchmen devoted to the Catholic faith according to the Anglican tradition. They were classical Anglicans. Regarding the Eucharist, they held to classical Anglican theology as found in the Book of Common Prayer. The Rev. Francis J. Hall writes, "Even the Tractarians of Oxford, while seeking to take our Lordʼs words literally, usually contended themselves with the affirmation of a real presence of the body and blood of Christ in, with and under the consecrated bread and wine" (ibid, Hall, p. 112).

The influence of receptionism seems to be a thing of the past in Anglicanism as there are no well known theologians or schools of thought within the Church that teach it today. The same cannot be said of Transubstantiation and Impanation. Those under the influence of Tridentine Roman Catholicism still hold to these unscriptural teachings or to something like them, despite the fact that Rome has been moving in the direction of Anglican Sacramental Theology in recent years.

In his book, God Is Near Us (Ignatius Press, 2003), in his chapter entitled "The Presence of the Lord in the Sacrament", Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) writes, "Whenever the Body of Christ, that is the risen and bodily Christ, comes, he is greater than the bread, other, not of the same order. The transformation happens, which affects the gifts we bring by taking them up into a higher order and changes them, even if we cannot measure what happens...The Lord takes possession of the bread and wine; he lifts them up, as it were, out of the setting of their normal existence into a new order; even if, from a purely physical point of view, they remain the same, they have become profoundly different" (Italics added).

In the opposite extreme there are some Anglican neo-evangelicals, late of the Episcopal Church, that have been heavily influenced by contemporary "evangelicalism" and the church growth movement, and who hold to a memorialism hardly distinguishable from that of Zwingli and of todays Baptists and Assemblies of God.

God raised up Anglicanism for a purpose, has used it powerfully, and has preserved it through a generation of heresy and apostasy. Anglicanism is the one branch of the historic Church that is both thoroughly Evangelical and fully Catholic. Anglicanism confesses, as our forefathers use to say, "Evangelical Truth and Apostolic Order." Anglicanism is not three parallel but increasingly divergent "streams" - Catholic, Evangelical and Charismatic - flowing from the same original source; but a Church that is thoroughly Evangelical, fully Catholic and called to minister in the power of Pentecost. Anglicanism has so much to offer to the wider Church and to a lost and hurting world. It is to this classical and confessional Anglicanism that we must return if we are to be what God has called us to be; and to do what He has called us to do - raise up authentic disciples of Christ; reform, restore and renew the Anglican Communion; and effectively advance the work of the Great Commission.

C. 2009, by Rev. Victor E. Novak ---The Reverend Victor E. Novak is a priest of the Diocese of Mid-America of the Reformed Episcopal Church, a jurisdiction of the Anglican Church in North America, and the rector of Holy Cross Anglican Church in Omaha, Nebraska. His parish website can be found at http://www.holycrossomaha.net/ He can be e-mailed at venovak@hughes.net or telephoned at (402) 687-9458.

Formula of Concord. X.3-XI.3

The FC offers wise counsel throughout this section. Article X deals with "Church Rites" and adiaphora. English Puritans were radicals at points, although, by no means to we banish everything that said or taught. However, had they heeded the prudence here, in full, they wouldn't have exposed themselves to the charge of rashness. "Congregations" of God in "every time" and "every place" have the power to change ceremonies as is "most useful and edifying to the congregation of God." The Supremacistic Anglicans with royal decrees for uniformity ran afoul of the wisdom here. Mutual recriminations and rashness on both side vitiated the counsel: One church "should not condemn another that has less or more external ceremonies not commanded by God" provided the Word and Sacrament are rightly taught. Violence towards a congregation is "contrary to Christian liberty which it has in external things." Article X.1-3 affirms balanced statements, thus far, on election, praescientia et praedestinatio.


Affirmative Theses. The Correct and True Doctrine and Confession concerning This Article.

3] 1. For settling also this controversy we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that the ceremonies or church rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in God's Word, but have been instituted alone for the sake of propriety and good order, are in and of themselves no divine worship, nor even a part of it. Matt. 15:9:In vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

4] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the congregation of God of every place and every time has the power, according to its circumstances, to change such ceremonies in such manner as may be most useful and edifying to the congregation of God.

5] 3. Nevertheless, that herein all frivolity and offense should be avoided, and special care should be taken to exercise forbearance towards the weak in faith. 1 Cor. 8:9; Rom. 14:13.

6] 4. We believe, teach, and confess that in time of persecution, when a plain [and steadfast] confession is required of us, we should not yield to the enemies in regard to such adiaphora, as the apostle has written Gal. 5:1: Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage. Also 2 Cor. 6:14: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, etc. For what concord hath light with darkness? Also Gal. 2:5: To whom we gave place, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you. For in such a case it is no longer a question concerning adiaphora, but concerning the truth of the Gospel, concerning [preserving] Christian liberty, and concerning sanctioning open idolatry, as also concerning the prevention of offense to the weak in the faith [how care should be taken lest idolatry be openly sanctioned and the weak in faith be offended]; in which we have nothing to concede, but should plainly confess and suffer on that account what God sends, and what He allows the enemies of His Word to inflict upon us.



7] 5. We believe, teach, and confess also that no Church should condemn another because one has less or more external ceremonies not commanded by God than the other, if otherwise there is agreement among them in doctrine and all its articles, as also in the right use of the holy Sacraments, according to the well-known saying: Dissonantia ieiunii non dissolvit consonantiam fidei, Disagreement in fasting does not destroy agreement in faith.



Negative Theses. False Doctrine concerning This Article.



8] Accordingly, we reject and condemn as wrong and contrary to God's Word when it is taught:



9] 1. That human ordinances and institutions in the church should be regarded as in themselves a divine worship or part of it.



10] 2. When such ceremonies, ordinances, and institutions are violently forced upon the congregation of God as necessary, contrary to its Christian liberty which it has in external things.
11] 3. Also, that in time of persecution and public confession [when a clear confession is required] we may yield to the enemies of the Gospel in such adiaphora and ceremonies, or may come to an agreement with them (which causes injury to the truth).



12] 4. Also, when these external ceremonies and adiaphora are abrogated in such a manner as though it were not free to the congregation of God to employ one or more [this or that] in Christian liberty, according to its circumstances, as may be most useful at any time to the Church [for edification].



XI. Election.



1] Concerning this article no public dissension has occurred among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession. But since it is a consolatory article, if treated properly, and lest offensive disputations concerning the same be instituted in the future, it is also explained in this writing.



Affirmative Theses. The Pure and True Doctrine concerning This Article.



2] 1. To begin with [First of all], the distinction between praescientia et praedestinatio, that is, between God's foreknowledge and His eternal election, ought to be accurately observed.



3] 2. For the foreknowledge of God is nothing else than that God knows all things before they happen, as it is written Dan. 2:28: There is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days.

Formula of Concord. VIII.33-X.2

Again, some difficulty seeing where Cranmer and Ridley would have differed here.

33] 14. That the Son of God who assumed the human nature, after He has laid aside the form of a servant, does not perform all the works of His omnipotence in, through, and with His human nature, but only some, and only in the place where His human nature is locally.

34] 15. That according to His human nature He is not at all capable of omnipotence and other attributes of the divine nature, against the express declaration of Christ, Matt. 28:18: All power is given unto He in heaven and in earth, and of St. Paul, Col. 2:9: In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

35] 16. That to Him [to Christ according to His humanity] greater power is given in heaven and upon earth, namely, greater and more than to all angels and other creatures, but that He has no communion with the omnipotence of God, nor that this has been given Him. Hence they devise mediam potentiam, that is, a power between the almighty power of God and the power of other creatures given to Christ according to His humanity by the exaltation, such as would be less than God's almighty power and greater than that of other creatures.

36] 17. That Christ according to His human mind has a certain limit as to how much He is to know, and that He knows no more than is becoming and needful for Him to know for [the execution of] His office as Judge.

37] 18. That Christ does not yet have a perfect knowledge of God and all His works; of whom nevertheless it is written Col. 2:3: In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

38] 19. That it is impossible for Christ according to His human mind to know what has been from eternity, what at present is occurring everywhere, and what will be in eternity.

39] 20. When it is taught, and the passage Matt. 28:18: All power is given unto Me, etc., is thus interpreted and blasphemously perverted, namely, that all power in heaven and on earth was restored, that is, delivered again to Christ according to the divine nature, at the resurrection and His ascension to heaven, as though He had also according to His divinity laid this aside and abandoned it in His state of humiliation. By this doctrine not only the words of the testament of Christ are perverted, but also the way is prepared for the accursed Arian heresy, so that finally the eternal deity of Christ is denied, and thus Christ, and with Him our salvation, are entirely lost if this false doctrine were not firmly contradicted from the immovable foundation of the divine Word and our simple Christian [catholic] faith.

IX. The Descent of Christ Into Hell.

STATUS CONTROVERSIAE. Chief Controversy concerning This Article.

1] It has also been disputed among some theologians who have subscribed to the Augsburg Confession concerning this article: When and in what manner the Lord Christ, according to our simple Christian faith, descended to hell: whether this was done before or after His death; also, whether it occurred according to the soul alone, or according to the divinity alone, or with body and soul, spiritually or bodily; also, whether this article belongs to the passion or to the glorious victory and triumph of Christ.

2] But since this article, as also the preceding, cannot be comprehended by the senses or by our reason, but must be grasped by faith alone, it is our unanimous opinion that there should be no disputation concerning it, but that it should be believed

3] and taught only in the simplest manner; according as Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, in his sermon at Torgau in the year 1533 has explained this article in an altogether Christian manner, separated from it all useless, unnecessary questions, and admonished all godly Christians to Christian simplicity of faith.

4] For it is sufficient that we know that Christ descended into hell, destroyed hell for all believers, and delivered them from the power of death and of the devil, from eternal condemnation and the jaws of hell. But how this occurred we should [not curiously investigate, but] reserve until the other world, where not only this point [mystery], but also still others will be revealed, which we here simply believe, and cannot comprehend with our blind reason.

X. Church Rites

Which are [Commonly] Called Adiaphora or Matters of Indifference.

1] Concerning ceremonies or church rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in God's Word, but have been introduced into the Church for the sake of good order and propriety, a dissension has also occurred among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession.

STATUS CONTROVERSIAE. Chief Controversy concerning This Article.

2] The chief question, however, has been, whether, in time of persecution and in case of confession, even if the enemies of the Gospel have not reached an agreement with us in doctrine, some abrogated ceremonies, which in themselves are matters of indifference and are neither commanded nor forbidden by God, may nevertheless, upon the pressure and demand of the adversaries, be reestablished without violence to conscience, and we may thus [rightly] have conformity with them in such ceremonies and adiaphora. To this the one side has said Yea, the other, Nay.

Epitome. Formula of Concord. VIII.16-32

I don't see where Cranmer, Ridley or Calvin--as I understand them--would disagree with this. Here are the articles, VIII.16-32.

16] 11. This majesty He [Christ] always had according to the personal union, and yet He abstained from it in the state of His humiliation, and on this account truly increased in all wisdom and favor with God and men; therefore He exercised this majesty, not always, but when [as often as] it pleased Him, until after His resurrection He entirely laid aside the form of a servant, but not the [human] nature, and was established in the full use, manifestation, and declaration of the divine majesty, and thus entered into His glory, Phil. 2:6ff , so that now not only as God, but also as man He knows all things, can do all things, is present with all creatures, and has under His feet and in His hands everything that is in heaven and on earth and under the earth, as He Himself testifies Matt. 28:18; John 13:3: All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. And St. Paul says Eph. 4:10: He ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things. And this His power, He, being present, can exercise everywhere, and to Him everything is possible and everything is known.

17] 12. Hence He also is able and it is very easy for Him to impart, as one who is present, His true body and blood in the Holy Supper, not according to the mode or property of the human nature, but according to the mode and property of the right hand of God, as Dr. Luther says in accordance with our Christian faith for children, which presence (of Christ in the Holy Supper] is not [physical or] earthly, nor Capernaitic; nevertheless it is true and substantial, as the words of His testament read: This is, is, is My body, etc.

18] By this our doctrine, faith, and confession the person of Christ is not divided, as it was by Nestorius, who denied the communicatio idiomatum, that is, the true communion of the properties of both natures in Christ, and thus divided the person, as Luther has explained in his book Concerning Councils. Neither are the natures together with their properties confounded with one another [or mingled] into one essence (as Eutyches erred); nor is the human nature in the person of Christ denied or annihilated; nor is either nature changed into the other; but Christ is and remains to all eternity God and man in one undivided person, which, next to the Holy Trinity, is, as the Apostle testifies, 1 Tim. 3:16, the highest mystery, upon which our only consolation, life, and salvation depends.

Negative Theses. Contrary False Doctrine concerning the Person of Christ.

19] Accordingly, we reject and condemn as contrary to God's Word and our simple [pure] Christian faith all the following erroneous articles, when it is taught:

20] 1. That God and man in Christ are not one person, but that the Son of God is one, and the Son of Man another, as Nestorius raved.

21] 2. That the divine and human natures have been mingled with one another into one essence, and the human nature has been changed into the Deity, as Eutyches fanatically asserted.

22] 3. That Christ is not true, natural, and eternal God, as Arius held [blasphemed].

23] 4. That Christ did not have a true human nature [consisting] of body and soul, as Marcion imagined.

24] 5. Quod unio personalis faciat tantum communia nomina, that is, that the personal union renders only the names and titles common.

25] 6. That it is only phrasis et modus loquendi, that is, a phrase and mode of speaking, when it is said: God is man, man is God; since Divinity, as they say, has realiter, that is, in deed [and truth], nothing in common with the humanity, nor the humanity with the Deity.

26] 7. That there is merely communicatio [idiomatum] verbalis [without reality], that is, that it is nothing but words when it is said the Son of God died for the sins of the world; the Son of Man has become almighty.

27] 8. That the human nature in Christ has become an infinite essence in the same manner as the Divinity, and that it is everywhere present in the same manner as the divine nature because of this essential power and property, communicated to, and poured out into, the human nature and separated from God.

28] 9. That the human nature has become equal to and like the divine nature in its substance and essence, or in its essential properties.

29] 10. That the human nature of Christ is locally extended to all places of heaven and earth, which should not be ascribed even to the divine nature.

30] 11. That because of the property of the human nature it is impossible for Christ to be able to be at the same time in more than one place, much less everywhere, with His body.

31] 12. That only the mere humanity has suffered for us and redeemed us, and that the Son of God in the suffering had actually no communion with the humanity, as though it did not concern Him.

32] 13. That Christ is present with us on earth in the Word, the Sacraments, and in all our troubles, only according to His divinity, and that this presence does not at all pertain to His human nature, according to which also, as they say, He, after having redeemed us by His suffering and death, has nothing to do with us any longer upon earth.

Epitome of the Formula of Concord. VIII.1-15

This article responds to the conflict between the Augsburg theologians and the "Subtle Sacramentarians," the dangerous and insidious ones, the Calvinists. This discusses, ably it should be added, the Creedal and Catholic view of the two natures of Christ in one Person. We herein lambast Anglo-Romewardizers who pitiably think the Lutherans un-Catholic in their theology. That is not what emerges here. There are two natures in one Person, the human and the divine. They are no commingled, changed into another substance, but each retains its own properties. The human nature coheres with the divine in one Son of God, Luke 1.35 and Romans 95, that is, Christ was finite, circumscribed, suffered, died, was raised, ascended, descended, moved from place to place, experiencing heat, cold, hunger, thirst "and the like." There is an ineffable union with the divine nature. Hence, "God is man and man is God." This God-man, or for this scribe the Theanthropos, suffered, died, rose and stands at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. At this point, we see no issues for a Reformed Churchman of concern. It is rock-solid Christology. We also reflect on some of the very stupid things said by Anglo-Romanists about Lutherans, Reformed and Confessional Anglicans, e.g. Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA.

www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#part8

VIII. The Person of Christ.

1] From the controversy concerning the Holy Supper a disagreement has arisen between the pure theologians of the Augsburg Confession and the Calvinists, who also have confused some other theologians, concerning the person of Christ and the two natures in Christ and their properties.

STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
Chief Controversy In This Dissension.

2] The chief question, however, has been whether, because of the personal union, the divine and human natures, as also their properties, have realiter, that is, in deed and truth, a communion with one another in the person of Christ, and how far this communion extends.

3] The Sacramentarians have asserted that the divine and human natures in Christ are united personally in such a way that neither has realiter, that is, in deed and truth, in common with the other that which is peculiar to either nature, but that they have in common nothing more than the name alone. For unio, they plainly say, facit communia nomina, i. e., the personal union makes nothing more than the names common, namely, that God is called man, and man God, yet in such a way that God has nothing realiter, that is, in deed and truth, in common with humanity, and humanity nothing in common with divinity, its majesty and properties. Dr. Luther, and those who held with him, have contended for the contrary against the Sacramentarians.

Affirmative Theses.

Pure Doctrine of the Christian Church concerning the Person of Christ.

4] To explain this controversy, and settle it according to the guidance [analogy] of our Christian faith, our doctrine, faith, and confession is as follows:

5] 1. That the divine and human natures in Christ are personally united, so that there are not two Christs, one the Son of God, the other the Son of man, but that one and the same is the Son of God and Son of man, Luke 1:35; Rom. 9:5.

6] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the divine and human natures are not mingled into one substance, nor the one changed into the other, but that each retains its own essential properties, which [can] never become the properties of the other nature.

7] 3. The properties of the divine nature are: to be almighty, eternal, infinite, and to be, according to the property of its nature and its natural essence, of itself, everywhere present, to know everything, etc.; which never become properties of the human nature.

8] 4. The properties of the human nature are: to be a corporeal creature, to be flesh and blood, to be finite and circumscribed, to suffer, to die, to ascend and descend, to move from one place to another, to suffer hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and the like; which never become properties of the divine nature.

9] 5. As the two natures are united personally, i. e., in one person, we believe, teach, and confess that this union is not such a copulation and connection that neither nature has anything in common with the other personally, i.e . because of the personal union, as when two boards are glued together, where neither gives anything to the other or takes anything from the other. But here is the highest communion, which God truly has with the [assumed] man, from which personal union, and the highest and ineffable communion resulting therefrom, there flows everything human that is said and believed concerning God, and everything divine that is said and believed concerning the man Christ; as the ancient teachers of the Church explained this union and communion of the natures by the illustration of iron glowing with fire, and also by the union of body and soul in man.

10] 6. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that God is man and man is God, which could not be if the divine and human natures had in deed and truth absolutely no communion with one another.

11] For how could the man, the son of Mary, in truth be called or be God, or the Son of God the Most High, if His humanity were not personally united with the Son of God, and He thus had realiter, that is, in deed and truth, nothing in common with Him except only the name of God?

12] 7. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that Mary conceived and bore not a mere man and no more, but the true Son of God; therefore she also is rightly called and truly is the mother of God.

13] 8. Hence we also believe, teach, and confess that it was not a mere man who suffered, died, was buried, descended to hell, arose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and was raised to the majesty and almighty power of God for us, but a man whose human nature has such a profound [close], ineffable union and communion with the Son of God that it is [has become] one person with Him.

14] 9. Therefore the Son of God truly suffered for us, however, according to the property of the human nature which He assumed into the unity of His divine person and made His own, so that He might be able to suffer and be our High Priest for our reconciliation with God, as it is written 1 Cor. 2:8: They have crucfied the Lord of glory. And Acts 20:28: We are purchased with God's blood.

15] 10. Hence we believe, teach, and confess that the Son of Man is realiter, that is, in deed and truth, exalted according to His human nature to the right hand of the almighty majesty and power of God, because He [that man] was assumed into God when He was conceived of the Holy Ghost in His mother's womb, and His human nature was personally united with the Son of the Highest.

Formula of Concord. 7.21-42

Formula of Concord. Epitome, Articles VII.21-42. Transubstantiation is rejected wherein the substantial and essential character of the elements are annihilated, wherein the Supper is a "sacrifice for the sins of the living and dead," and wherein it is given in one form or kind. Also, FC rejects the reality that Christ is received "only spiritually by faith" and rejects that the elements are "nothing more than [symbols of] or tokens." "Figures, similitudes, and representations of the far absent body and blood of Christ" is rejected. The Lord's Supper is not just a "memorial, seal, pledge through which we are assured" of salvation. This rules out the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Standards, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. These are the "Subtle Sacramentarians," presumably Calvin, Bucer, Cranmer, and Ridley, who are dangerous. The FC condemns any who reject that the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be "at once and at one time in many or all places" by the Omnipotence of God. It rejects those "who do not seek the body [and blood] of Christ in bread and wine." It rejects the charge of Capernaitic eating and chomping on Christ's flesh, masticating His bones, and cannibalistic drinking of blood. The divide remains between Confessional Lutherans and the Confessionally Reformed.

Negative Theses. Contrary, Condemned Doctrines of the Sacramentarians.

21] On the other hand, we unanimously reject and condemn all the following erroneous articles, which are opposed and contrary to the doctrine presented above, the simple faith, and the [pure] confession concerning the Lord's Supper;


22] 1. The papistic transubstantiation, when it is taught in the Papacy that in the Holy Supper the bread and wine lose their substance and natural essence, and are thus annihilated; that they are changed into the body of Christ, and the outward form alone remains.



23] 2. The papistic sacrifice of the Mass for the sins of the living and the dead.



24] 3. That [the sacrilege whereby] to laymen one form only of the Sacrament is given, and, contrary to the plain words of the testament of Christ, the cup is withheld from them, and they are [thus] deprived of His blood.

25] 4. When it is taught that the words of the testament of Christ must not be understood or believed simply as they read, but that they are obscure expressions, whose meaning must be sought first in other passages of Scripture.

26] 5. That in the Holy Supper the body of Christ is not received orally with the bread; but that with the mouth only bread and wine are received, the body of Christ, however, only spiritually by faith.

27] 6. That the bread and wine in the Holy Supper are nothing more than [symbols or] tokens by which Christians recognize one another.

28] 7. That the bread and wine are only figures, similitudes, and representations of the far absent body and blood of Christ.

29] 8. That the bread and wine are no more than a memorial, seal, and pledge, through which we are assured that when faith elevates itself to heaven, it there becomes partaker of the body and blood of Christ as truly as we eat bread and drink wine in the Supper.

30] 9. That the assurance and confirmation of our faith [concerning salvation] in the Holy Supper occur through the external signs of bread and wine alone, and not through the true, [verily] present body and blood of Christ.

31] 10. That in the Holy Supper only the power, efficacy, and merit of the absent body and blood of Christ are distributed.

32] 11. That the body of Christ is so enclosed in heaven that it can in no way be at once and at one time in many or all places upon earth where His Holy Supper is celebrated.

33] 12. That Christ has not promised, neither could have effected, the essential presence of His body and blood in the Holy Supper, because the nature and property of His assumed human nature cannot suffer nor permit it.

34] 13. That God, according to [even by] all His omnipotence (which is dreadful to hear), is not able to cause His body to be essentially present in more than one place at one time.

35] 14. That not the omnipotent words of Christ's testament, but faith, produces and makes [is the cause of] the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper.

36] 15. That believers must not seek the body [and blood] of Christ in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, but raise their eyes from the bread to heaven and there seek the body of Christ.

37] 16. That unbelieving, impenitent Christians do not receive the true body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but only bread and wine.

38] 17. That the worthiness of the guests at this heavenly meal consists not alone in true faith in Christ, but also in the external preparation of men.

39] 18. That even the true believers, who have and retain a true, living, pure faith in Christ, can receive this Sacrament to their judgment, because they are still imperfect in their outward life.

40] 19. That the external visible elements of the bread and wine should be adored in the Holy Sacrament.

41] 20. Likewise, we consign also to the just judgment of God all presumptuous, frivolous, blasphemous questions (which decency forbids to mention) and [other] expressions, which most blasphemously and with great offense [to the Church] are proposed by the Sacramentarians in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic way concerning the supernatural, heavenly mysteries of this Sacrament.

42] 21. Hence we hereby utterly [reject and] condemn the Capernaitic eating of the body of Christ, as though [we taught that] His flesh were rent with the teeth, and digested like other food, which the Sacramentarians, against the testimony of their conscience, after all our frequent protests, wilfully force upon us, and in this way make our doctrine odious to their hearers; and on the other hand, we maintain and believe, according to the simple words of the testament of Christ, the true, yet supernatural eating of the body of Christ, as also the drinking of His blood, which human senses and reason do not comprehend, but as in all other articles of faith our reason is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and this mystery is not apprehended otherwise than by faith alone, and revealed in the Word alone.