\
Despite the bitter tone of the debates at Marburg, signs of the Holy Spirit’s presence surfaced throughout the discussion.
By the end of the Colloquy, Luther and Zwingli wept together and asked forgiveness for bitter words. Both remained firm in their convictions and encouraged the other to ask for God’s enlightenment. Luther uttered the famous line, “Your spirit and our spirit cannot go together. Indeed, it is quite obvious that we do not have the same spirit.”
It is unfortunate that Luther and Zwingli saw their differences on the Lord’s Supper as excluding any possibility for political and religious alliance. The two Reformers agreed on 14 out of the 15 articles of faith. The Lord’s Supper, the sacrament given by our Lord to be the place for brothers and sisters to come to the table in unity, proved ironically to be the doctrine that has kept the Lutheran and Reformed traditions from greater fellowship.
In the 1540 version of the Augsburg confession, Luther’s disciple Philip Melanchthon worded the article on the Lord’s Supper in such a way as to mute the differences between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions.
Today, much of the animosity between the Reformation traditions has passed. Evangelical Lutheran, Reformed, and Baptist groups have reaffirmed their commitments to the Reformation understanding of the gospel, even though maintaining distinctions on issues related to church polity, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.
The popular radio program, The White Horse Inn, features a panel discussion between four ministers, one Lutheran, one Reformed, one Presbyterian, and one Baptist. Though they maintain distinct views on the Lord’s Supper and other issues, the common ground between each Reformation tradition is evident to listeners.
The question of Christology formed the basis for Luther and Zwingli’s fierce debate on the Lord’s Supper. Both the Reformers believed the implications of their beliefs about the Lord’s Supper to be too important for compromise. Both also had an exaggerated view of what those implications might be. In a day when the religious beliefs of society were exclusive, these two Reformers agreed that unity must be based on truth in all doctrine, not just in certain areas.
Though Zwingli and Luther were tolerant of matters “indifferent,” neither one believed the Lord’s Supper to be a minor issue of indifference. The debate over the Lord’s Supper occupied a primary place in both Luther and Zwingli’s theologies because of the Christological issues at stake and the philosophical underpinnings of their respective schools of thought.
Perhaps the best response to studying the Marburg Colloquy today is praying fervently that the act of the Lord’s Supper would once again proclaim Christ’s body, broken for us on Calvary, instead of the broken body of Christ in his Church.
written by Trevin Wax. copyright © 2008 Kingdom People Blog.
Trevin, thanks for this article.
A friend of mine wrote a very good article on Martin Bucer who attempted to seek consensus and was vilified by Reformed and Lutheran alike! I guess if Bullinger and Luther both attack you, you must be right in the middle!
Bucer: A Reformer In The Midst
http://www.reformationucc.org/2008/01/15/martin-bucer-a-reformer-in-the-midst/
Comment by Charles — February 16, 2008 @ 11:51 am
This was a fantastic series. I was impressed with the concise, yet highly informative nature of the articles. Thanks you for posting them.
Comment by Martin Pitcher — February 18, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
Sorry. I don’t want to be pedantic, but klOmenon=broken is not in the best texts; it’s for us, not broken for us, in 1 Cor 11:24 you’re referencing at the end of your piece, as John 19:36 notes re Christ’s fulfillment of Ps 34:20>Ex 12:46 makes clear. Just FYI to keep Christ’s fulfillment of prophecy in our awareness. In that line I regret the ignorance of many inventing the tripartite fiction of moral/ceremonial/civil law that has no Biblical support for it, merely an old Judaizing tactic to keep the old law and Jesus both, forgetting Jesus’s absolute John 19:30 TETELESTAI (=it is finished) declaration! Which part of “It is finished” do these folks not understand? When a covenant is finished no one would ever think of continuing to fulfill its terms, and yet those who imagine the moral law is still in force that never could save anyone (forgetting the whole Romans antiJudaizing argument on the score exemplified in 6:1), especially the ever fatal tenth no coveting commandment no one keeps. God save us by grace through faith not of ourselves. see.desiringGod.org. God save us.
I too thank you for the article, but Martin’s idea that it was highly informative only shows how woefully lacking the Church is everywhere in understanding either the Word or world of the God around them, as with Adam and Eve stupidly preferring idolatrously to salivate over the forbidden fruit rather than seek the only glory of beholding His face. God help us! and bless you.
Comment by Russ Davis — February 20, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
As a second year theological student here in Scotland trying to get a concise overview of this subject, your article has been extremely helpful many thanks Andy Fothergill.
Comment by Andy Fothergill — March 8, 2009 @ 4:02 pm