Today is Reformation Day! Yes, 489 years ago this day, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses against indulgences on the door of the church in Wittenburg, Germany. We are still reaping the blessings from the Reformation which followed that action.
One of the key players in the Reformation was Ulrich Zwingli (pictured on the right). He is not as well known as Luther, his contemporary, or John Calvin, who followed in his footsteps. Zwingli led the Reformation in Switzerland, where Calvin would later minister in furthering the influence of that Reformation.
Zwingli was more moderate in his approach toward reform, and simply preached on the text of Matthew for several years in his pastorate at Zurich, Switzerland. After years of preaching he worked toward reform using the existing channels of authority—working with his local Canton authorities and engaging in different debates in different conferences held to look at doctrine. His patience paid off and many of the unBiblical traditions from the church of Rome were eventually thrown off, as his doctrine become more and more widespread throughout Switzerland.
I must say that I was reminded of Zwingli and his influence through some emails from Sam Storms of Enjoying God Ministries. I am on his email list (which you can join by clicking here) and he sent out two articles on Zwingli’s life which were very interesting to read. They are available online at EGM’s website: here and here.
Anyway, Storms pointed out something about Zwingli that really got me thinking. Zwingli was basically Baptist in his views on the Lord’s Supper. He, along with many a Baptist, viewed the bread and wine as purely symbolic: there was no presence of the Lord Jesus Christ at the Supper. Most Reformed people agree with Calvin that there is a spiritual presence of Jesus in Communion (see this previous post of mine defending that view). Luther, however, strongly disagreed with Zwingli and taught that Christ was present with the elements (although he denied Roman Catholicism’s transubstantiation belief).
Let me here give a quote from Storms’ second email on Zwingli (the information is also available in his second article linked to above) concerning the outcome of a conference held to try to get Luther and Zwingli to come to an agreement on this point.
The dialogue at Marburg initially looked hopeful. Both parties jointly affirmed 14 articles of faith (such as the Trinity and justification by faith alone). But they couldn’t agree on the nature of Christ’s presence in the elements.
The debate proved fruitless. Luther stubbornly insisted on the literal force of the words: “This is my body,” while Zwingli, no less stubbornly, pointed to the words of Jesus: “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit and life.” The dialogue was often bitter:
Zwingli: “I remain firm at this text, ‘the flesh profiteth nothing.’ I shall oblige you to return to it. You will have to sing a different tune with me.”
Luther: “You speak in hatred.”
Zwingli: “Then declare at least whether or not you will allow John 6 to stand?”
Luther: “You are trying to overwork it.”
Zwingli: “No, no, it is just that text that will break your neck.”
Luther: “Don’t be too sure of yourself. Our necks don’t break as easily as that.”
One final meeting was arranged. With tears in his eyes, Zwingli approached Luther and held out the hand of brotherhood, but Luther declined it, saying: “Yours is a different spirit from ours.” Zwingli said:
“Let us confess our union in all things in which we agree; and, as for the rest, let us remember that we are brethren. There will never be peace in the churches if we cannot bear differences on secondary points.”
Luther replied:
“I am astonished that you wish to consider me as your brother. It shows clearly that you do not attach much importance to your doctrine.”
The split was final.
I was struck by the desire of Zwingli to have a real unity with Luther in spite of differences over the finer points of Communion. And I was saddened to see Luther’s harsh reply.
This Reformation Day, I am reminded that a reformation spirit is indeed necessary. The break from Rome was necessary as the Protestant church returned to the important truths regarding salvation so clearly taught in Scripture. I think the original fundamentalist movement was an attempt to apply that “reformation spirit” of old to the problems of modernism and liberal theology. And again I applaud that spirit as necessary for the defense of the important Biblical doctrines (the fundamentals, if you will).
However, we as a church are called to unity (see the verses that are at the end of each of my posts for proof). And just because the papists of Zwingli’s day, or the ecumenists of our day will often use a call to unity to advance an attack on true Biblical doctrine, this does not negate the importance of unity. The truly fundamental and essential doctrines are advanced through unity. And secondary doctrines are just that.
While it is important for modern day Luthers and Zwinglis to hold to differing doctrines on secondary matters, it is likewise important for them to purpose to maintain a real unity in the most important matters despite those same differences. Only then, is the cause of Christ advanced in line with His own prayer in John 17. I pray that we as a church will humbly follow Zwingli’s example of prizing unity above our secondary differences.
For more info on Zwingli, see the posts referred to above by Storms, as well as this Wikipedia article on Zwingli (from which I borrowed this picture). Also see this article by Paul Mizzi, this article and this one all found at Monergism.com. And for more on Reformation Day, see the long list by Tim Challies, and a shorter one by my friend John Chitty, of blogposts dealing with Reformation Day.
Yeah, but uh, Zwingli threw Anabaptists in the river. I hope we don’t have that kind of Reformation spirit!
I look at Reformation Day like I look at July 4. America isn’t perfect. In fact, America has done much evil. But all things considered, the world is a better place today because of the United States. I can still celebrate the blessings that have accrued to me because of the Founding Fathers and what they did, even if I realize that not everything they did was good.
Interesting point on Anabaptists, Ryan. I agree that that is a wrong manifestation of “reformation spirit”. I did come across an interesting quote about Zwingli and Anabaptists from a work originally printed in 1759 called The Lives of the Principal Reformers, Both Englishmen and Foreigners by Richard Rolt. (I have the reprinted edition produced by the Scripture Commentary Society, Dunn, NC, 1997.)
Here is the quote (with the older style English “f”s changed to “s”s when appropriate).
“Zuinglius and Oecolampadius were more esteemed by the learned men of their time, than any other reformers; because they had more moderation. Zuinglius was successful against the enthusiasts, called Anabaptists: and some have confidently affirmed, that he was for putting them to death; and said, ‘let him who dippeth again, be dipped; that is, drowned:’ but it is a very improbable story, since Minius Celsus himself, namely, Sebastian Castellio, whose testimony in points of this kind ought to be credited, having publickly defended his position, ‘that heretics ought not to be put to death;’ appeals to the authority of Zuinglius, and affirms, that the Anabaptists at that time never suffered on account of their opinions, as heretics, but of their evil actions, as perjured and seditious rebels.
The first Anabaptists shewed a surprizing mixture of folly, stupidity, wickedness, and religious frenzy. An immoral fanatic is of all animals the most dangerous to the church and state; and the history of these Anabaptists is an everlasting monument of the mischief which such people can perpetuate.” (from pg. 58)
It is true that Anabaptists refused to be involved in the state, and may have even broken laws due to their beliefs. And I think there may be some truth to what this guy was saying. However, I agree that the Reformers view of believer’s only baptism was not very charitable at the least.
In another regard, it would almost seem that Luther is acting the part of a fundamentalist (or even an IFBx) in his last remarks to Zwingli! This might provide historical vindication of the “if you don’t believe like us on these 55 points, then you’re probably not saved” idea!
I agree Luther was a tough nut to crack, and it was wrong to drown Anabaptists, and it was good that their version of religious liberty has finally prevailed, but let us keep in mind that in the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church exercised authority over the secular governments, which, once the Reformation began springing up here and there, the secular governments began reacting to this by saying something like, “This time we’re going to exercise authority over the church; we’re not getting burned this time.”
While it is true that this led to the persecution of Anabaptists, who chose to express their “entusiasm” outside the bounds of civil law (which, if they were right–and some had basically Reformed theology, but many didn’t–would’ve been right), I think it also helped establish the Reformation, in Luther’s case especially, due to his backing by the government. Without their aid, when push came to shove against the Roman Church, the Reformers would have been eliminated and the Reformation may have never taken place.
Furthermore, an old book I’ve been reading by Thomas Lindsay of Glasgow, Scotland, points out that the seeds of religious liberty existed in the Reformers’ doctrine, but they were not able to thoroughly apply it for the reason I gave above, for which Calvin’s experience with the Geneva City Council proves as a good example. The Reformers didn’t always get everything they wanted. Now I know the Reformers were in some cases pretty “enthusiastic” about outlawing Anabaptist heresy, but just as we’ll ask of our descendants who find some fault with our current political positions in the future, let us view the Reformers in the context of their times, and distinguish the good from the bad without throwing out the baby with the bath water.
On the Lord’s Supper, when you say Zwingli’s view of the Supper is comparable to modern Baptists, do you include Reformed Baptists in that category, or do you see any similarity among Reformed Baptists and the rest of the Reformed tradition. I don’t go to a Reformed Baptist church, but I have viewed the similarities between the London Baptist Confession’s statement on the Lord’s Supper and the Westminster Confession. The Baptist Confession seems to be a condensed version of Westminster, retain much of Westminster’s wording, so I always figured the Reformed Baptists went Zwinglian after they began moving away from their Reformed theology on everything else, too. Can you fill in the blanks for me on that?
John,
To answer your question, I came across this statement in the Wikipedia article referenced above: “By contrast, the next generation Reformer John Calvin’s view was that Christ is spiritually but not physically present in the sacrament, but some later Calvinists such as Charles Hodge tend more towards Zwingli’s memorialism than Calvin’s doctrine.”
I do think that Baptists and possibly some Reformed Baptists, gradually changed on their position regarding the Supper. I can’t speak for Reformed Baptists—and they are definitely a small minority among Baptists today—but I think it is obvious that many Baptists believe like Zwingli. (And that is what I said, Baptist, not Reformed Baptist.) But it might be that some Reformed Baptists changed as well.
Does that help?
I guess I mean all Baptists who are Reformed, in a generic sense, rather than in the formal, denominational sense. I consider you, for example, a Reformed Baptist even though your church may not be associated with the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America. So, I suppose I should not expect any Baptist who holds Reformed views to necessarily hold to the Reformed view on the Lord’s Supper unless his congregation is formally organized under the London Baptist Confession. Thanks for your input.
John,
I would agree with Reformed views on the table, now. Before I was Reformed I didn’t understand them and would have been against that view.
Just wanted to clarify as far as I am concerned. I also do not know many Reformed Baptists, really, so I couldn’t be too much of an authority on this.