The divine power and sacramentality of the word of justification raises the issue of predestination. We will discuss this question in greater detail on the basis of Luther’s answer in The Bondage of the Will (1525) in a future chapter. Here it is important briefly to note how Luther deals with the issue in light of his doctrine of the sacramentality of the gospel.
Although Luther comments on predestination somewhat infrequently, he does have a clear doctrine of predestination derived from engagement with St. Paul and St. Augustine of Hippo.1 Nevertheless, unlike Augustine, Luther describes election as executed by God in and through the preaching of the promise in Christ. In a passage in “A Sermon on Preparing for Dying” (1519) Luther writes:
Therefore fix your eyes upon the heavenly picture of Christ, who for your sake went to hell and was rejected by God as one damned to the eternal perdition, as He cried on the cross, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?” Behold, in that picture your hell is overcome and your election assured, so that if you but take care and believe that it happened for you, you will certainly be saved in that faith.2
The objective bodily presence of Jesus is a necessary corollary of the full assurance the gospel brings. In his earthly ministry Jesus was physically present with sinners and had fellowship with them through common meals in order to assure them of his eschatological verdict in their favor. Our physical bodies are our availability to one another.1 To pledge one’s self to another is put one’s self physically at the disposal of that other.
In giving the gospel-promise, God makes himself a servant and puts himself at the disposal of his creature (Phil. 2:7). God put himself at the service of his creatures first in the Tabernacle/Temple and its sacrifices in the Old Testament. Next the Lord assumed a body and became a human person in the Incarnation. He thereby continues his act of self-giving by making his bodily presence available through the Lord’s Supper.
Christ’s work reconciles God and humanity. This occurs both objectively and subjectively. Moreover, since each person of the Trinity is involved, reconciliation takes on a threefold movement. This threefold movement can be summarized in the distinctive realities of atonement, justification (both objective and subjective), and election.1 The New Testament distinguishes each aspect of reconciliation from the others, although theologians have often confused them throughout Church history.
The event of atonement constitutes the first movement of reconciliation, or redemption, as already examined in the last section. The movement of atonement proceeds from the Son to the Father. Having received all things from the Father, the Son is capable of returning himself to the Father in the power of the Spirit….
Universal Objective Justification
The second movement of reconciliation is universal and objective justification.2 Universal objective justification is the Father’s response to the Son’s payment for the sin of the whole world. The Father declares the whole world forgiven on the basis of the Son’s objective atoning work. Objective atonement and objective justification are therefore distinct and should not be confused with one another: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (Rom. 5:18, emphasis added). And “. . . in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them [i.e., justification]” (2 Cor. 5:19, emphasis added).
No passage of Scripture ever describes the Lord’s Supper itself as a sacrifice. Neither does the New Testament speak of ministers as priests re-presenting Christ’s work… Moreover, from an evangelical perspective, a sacrificial concept of the Mass problematically makes it into a work, albeit one enabled by grace….
The Lord’s Supper as Sacrifice
Although the Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice in itself, this does not mean it has no connection with the sacrificial work of Christ. As American Lutheran theologian Charles Porterfield Krauth notes:
The idea of sacrifice under the Old Dispensation sheds light upon the nature of the Lord’s Supper. . . Sacrifice through the portion burnt, is received of God by the element of fire; the portion reserved is partaken of by men, is communicated to them, and received by them. The eating of the portion of the sacrifice, by the offerer, is as real apart of the whole sacred act as the burning of the other part is. Man offers to God; this is sacrifice. God gives back to man; this is sacrament. The oblation, or the thing offered, supplies both sacrifice and sacrament, but with the difference, that under the Old Dispensation God received part and man received part; but under the New, God receives all and gives back all: Jesus Christ, in His own divine person, makes that complete which was narrowed under the Old Covenant by the necessary limitations of mere matter.1
David Scaer adds that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice from God’s perspective, but a sacrament and testament from the perspective of believers. In other words, in the Lord’s Supper, Christ, as part of his priestly ministry, holds up his previously sacrificed Body and Blood to the Father. This intercessory act reminds the Father of the forgiveness of sins won on the cross. God then delivers forgiveness through the testament of the Lord’s Supper to believers.
However, there remain substantial differences between Roman Catholic teaching regarding the sacrifice of the mass and Lutheran doctrine. A key difference is that for Lutherans Christ himself is the active agent of the Lord’s Supper, rather than a priest acting in persona Christi. Moreover, according to Lutheran teaching, communicants passively receive the promise in the Lord’s Supper. Reception directly into the mouth clearly confesses this belief. In post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism, however, communicants actively enter into and participate in Christ’s self-offering to the Father. Instead, Lutherans, with Scripture, affirm the Lord’s Supper as a visible word of promise received by passive faith and not a grace-enabled work.
The Augsburg Confession affirms the ancient and medieval consensus of the catholic Church that Christ’s flesh and blood are substantially present in the Eucharist: “Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.”1 This avowal of the substantial presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in the Lord’s Supper was integral to the Lutheran Reformation from the beginning. In On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Martin Luther criticized the practice of communion in one kind (i.e., the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic practice of withholding the cup from the laity), transubstantiation, and the idea of the Mass as a sacrifice for the living and the dead. Nevertheless, unlike most other reformers, Luther very clearly confessed the real presence based on canonical and evangelical principles. Since the real presence was overwhelmingly the catholic consensus of the Church from its inception, the catholic principle also applies to this theological question.
Martin Luther, The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ—Against the Fanatics, 1526 (AE 36:329ff.) – image: St. John Lutheran Church, Wheaton, IL
Paul’s Affirmation of the Substantial Presence
First, with regard to the canonical principle, the New Testament straight forwardly affirms the substantial presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. As Luther tirelessly emphasized, the words of institution themselves (“this is my body . . . this is my blood”) do not admit a metaphorical interpretation. The words of institution are a promise regarding the sacramental elements set before the Christian. Moreover, they are also deed-words that accomplish the consecration so that the bread and wine become vehicles conveying the true body and blood of Jesus to all recipients.
