The Marburg Coloquy

[GraceAmbassador]

Brethren:

Some of you may know that I have this incessant desire to unite Lutherans and Calvinists and Zwinglians under the same guise of REFORMED FUNDAMENTALS. I know it is difficult and hard. Let me tell you the reasons why I publish this link here, with the request that we forget that it:

1. evidences that the churchian struggles are ageless
2. that we despise churchianity since its inception
3. that this is probably the last forum that would welcome a churchian evidence of division

;

and I ask you to read this document (I could not find the source or author), and in the end, when the dialogue among the disputers, including Luther, Zwinglius and Ocealeampadius, is published ipsis literis, I want you to see how DIS-UNITED Christianity has been on the issue God designed PRECISELY to unite us.

Then in the conclusion, WRITTEN BY LUTHER, after rejecting the right hand of fellowship from Zwingle and the Swiss (the other Swiss in the colloquy), and refusing to call them BROTHERS, he UNDER INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, in my opinion, writes a document that I think, helped Christianity to keep its focus for posterity!

Also note how irrational Luther could be sometime...

Let me know your thoughts; it is a long article but worth the reading thereof!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26817685/L...rburg-Colloquy

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

I would like to comment extensively on this statement, yet I won't 'tip my hand' just yet on my convictions:

"The opinion of Zwingle on the spiritual presence, and of Luther on the bodily presence,
are both found in christian antiquity; but both the extreme doctrines have
been always rejected: that of the Rationalists, on the one hand, who behold
in the Eucharist nothing but a simple commemoration; and of the Papists,
on the other, who adore in it a transubstantiation. These are both errors;
while the doctrines of Luther and Zwingle, and the medium taken by
Calvin, already maintained by some of the Fathers, were considered in
ancient times as different views of the same truth. If Luther had yielded, it
might have been feared that the Church would fall into the extreme of
rationalism; if Zwingle, that it would rush into the extreme of popery."

I would first like you to further elaborate on your statement Milt:

"Then in the conclusion, WRITTEN BY LUTHER, after rejecting the right hand of fellowship from Zwingle and the Swiss (the other Swiss in the colloquy), and refusing to call them BROTHERS, he UNDER INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, in my opinion, writes a document that I think, helped Christianity to keep its focus for posterity!

Also note how irrational Luther could be sometime..."

Bro. Bob

[GraceAmbassador]

I would like to comment extensively on this statement, yet I won't 'tip my hand' just yet on my convictions:

"The opinion of Zwingle on the spiritual presence, and of Luther on the bodily presence,
are both found in christian antiquity; but both the extreme doctrines have
been always rejected: that of the Rationalists, on the one hand, who behold
in the Eucharist nothing but a simple commemoration; and of the Papists,
on the other, who adore in it a transubstantiation. These are both errors;
while the doctrines of Luther and Zwingle, and the medium taken by
Calvin, already maintained by some of the Fathers, were considered in
ancient times as different views of the same truth. If Luther had yielded, it
might have been feared that the Church would fall into the extreme of
rationalism; if Zwingle, that it would rush into the extreme of popery."

I would first like you to further elaborate on your statement Milt:

"Then in the conclusion, WRITTEN BY LUTHER, after rejecting the right hand of fellowship from Zwingle and the Swiss (the other Swiss in the colloquy), and refusing to call them BROTHERS, he UNDER INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, in my opinion, writes a document that I think, helped Christianity to keep its focus for posterity!

Also note how irrational Luther could be sometime..."

Bro. Bob

Thanks dear Bob!

My point is: No matter what these people think of the Lord's Supper, regardless of how they interpret "Hoc est corpus meum", it has been decided by God what is it that God wanted it to be. The focus of the Lord's Supper, communion, or whatever "religious" term it was labeled in ancient Church History, was what God wanted it to be and I take my blessings from it and not from any definition given by the Swiss or the Saxon. What is that? I simply do not know! I obey Christ in what He commanded: DO THIS EVERY TIME YOU MEET IN MEMORY OF ME. The document helped Christianity (people like me, if I may say so and based on what I just said) keep its focus on what God wanted the Communion to be and Jesus' command. Unfortunately in what we call "churchianity" today there is a focus on "methods", or what supernatural event takes place, such as transubstantiation, instead of fulfilling CHRIST'S COMMAND for its own value and be UNITED with other brethren in Christ. Jesus gathered His twelve closes followers for a purpose and I think that purpose includes UNITY. For the past few years, after studying the Marburg Colloquy, have decided that I WILL NOT call it a memorial devoid of any importance, only a meal where we celebrate some "religious" feast, but I will also not ATTRIBUTE to it any particular "Grace" or overly-spiritual act, (albeit Paul says that "we take the cup of blessing") but I will dot it BECAUSE JESUS COMMANDED ME TO DO and obeying Christ is always a GOOD THING, and I can do that united with those whom Christ gave me in sweet and holy fellowship. I will do and lead whatever congregation God gives me to receive the Communion with utmost reverence and worship to God and be mindful of the sacrifice Jesus did for us at the Cross.

I think it was exactly the fact that Luther back tracked in his "holy anger" a bit and wrote the document he wrote and the WAY HE WROTE, that did not make Christianity (hence the Sovereignty of God) to split and the Reformation be divided into the camps of Zwingle or Luther. I am very serious about this because recently I have repented from being almost, if not altogether, a SCOFFER of those who practiced the Communion in reverence because they tended to believe one or more of the issues discussed in the Marburg Colloquy exclusively as its main focus and purpose. Transubstantiation, the "real presence" the "memorial symbolic representation" are not the focus, or purpose: To celebrate, remember, reverently celebrate in unity the death of Christ is and the most supernatural thing that can happen here is for CHRISTIANS TO BE UNITED ON THAT. Everything else is SECONDARY, even if I would see the elements to transform into flesh and blood I would still think that it is a SECONDARY THING!

As to my comment about Luther: Although he is my number one hero, as he pointed his finger to the Latin Bible, DEMANDING Zwingle to do the same rather than the Greek or German, it gave me the picture of the intransigent man whom Luther sought so hard to combat in the Roman Papist Church. Also his statements: "If Christ tells me to eat dung I will and it will do me good" (not a direct quote from the article), was to me spoken in a fiery fit of rage rather than anything rational. Luther also made other statements recorded in the discussion that demonstrated his intransigence. I think that was produced by his historically known hot temper, which some Lutherans tell me that it was the reason why Melanchton never delivered the brotherly and sweet letter Calvin had sent him, which included phrases where Calvin calls him HIS SPIRITUAL FATHER. It is sad to acknowledge, but my statement only displays the fact that my GREAT HERO and example of faith WAS NOT PERFECT AT ALL!

Well, you asked me what time it was and I taught you how to build a watch... I may have over-elaborated.

If I am wrong on my positions, if it is "churchian", if I took a comfortable "middle", on issues about the communion, let God be merciful unto me and correct me and use servants of His as the brethren here to execute such correction. (I will not edit this entire text lest I make it to be something not representing what I have in my heart).

Thanks!

[Robert R. Higby]

Thanks for the explanation Milt! Will reply soon. Bro. Bob

[Robert R. Higby]

As a start, I would like to reply to this one statement:

For the past few years, after studying the Marburg Colloquy, have decided that I WILL NOT call it a memorial devoid of any importance, only a meal where we celebrate some "religious" feast, but I will also not ATTRIBUTE to it any particular "Grace" or overly-spiritual act

To be fair and honest with history, I think we all have to admit that the notion of communion being a "memorial devoid of any importance" is a straw-man concept--one erected to define the position of enemies as something other than what it was. Just like what has happened in church and government politics through the ages since then. lThis is not to say that I agree with "anabaptist" notions of communion opposed by Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin--I do not. But even they would not define their own position as a mere memorial service devoid of importance.

As far as an overly-spiritual act is concerned, I think a better word is mystical and this is the essence of calling it a sacrament like most all of Protestantism has done. For me the communion is neither mystical nor sacrament, it is covenant remembrance and celebration just as Christ instituted it with His words. On the negative side, that means that God is not present in the communion bread and wine in a manner different than He is present with us always, even unto the end of the age. The communion is one form of worship that God has commanded of His New Covenant community of believers.

More to say as I organize my thoughts.

Bro. Bob

[GraceAmbassador]

As a start, I would like to reply to this one statement:

For the past few years, after studying the Marburg Colloquy, have decided that I WILL NOT call it a memorial devoid of any importance, only a meal where we celebrate some "religious" feast, but I will also not ATTRIBUTE to it any particular "Grace" or overly-spiritual act

To be fair and honest with history, I think we all have to admit that the notion of communion being a "memorial devoid of any importance" is a straw-man concept--one erected to define the position of enemies as something other than what it was. Just like what has happened in church and government politics through the ages since then. lThis is not to say that I agree with "anabaptist" notions of communion opposed by Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin--I do not. But even they would not define their own position as a mere memorial service devoid of importance.

As far as an overly-spiritual act is concerned, I think a better word is mystical and this is the essence of calling it a sacrament like most all of Protestantism has done. For me the communion is neither mystical nor sacrament, it is covenant remembrance and celebration just as Christ instituted it with His words. On the negative side, that means that God is not present in the communion bread and wine in a manner different than He is present with us always, even unto the end of the age. The communion is one form of worship that God has commanded of His New Covenant community of believers.

More to say as I organize my thoughts.

Bro. Bob

Thanks for "organizing" MY thoughts!

[GraceAmbassador]

"That Christ, who has once offered Himself, is to all eternity the perpetual and redeeming sacrifice for the sins of all believers; therefore it follows that the Mass is not a sacrifice, only the commemoration of the sacrifice and the assurance of the redemption which Christ has shown us."

From this site:

http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/re.../zwingli.shtml

I guess my position, is somewhere around there, especially because on this article he teaches against any "sacral" aspect to either Communion or Baptism

All sacraments were merely external signs, attestations by the faithful, but without any sacral or supernatural characteristics. Baptism did not wash away sins; rather, it was a community act of accepting someone into the Church. As such, it didn't matter whether it was done in infancy or adulthood; it was purely symbolic. This is where he parted company with Grebel and the other Anabaptists.

I am satisfied and at peace with God with this issue.

Thanks for your patience Bob!

Milt