A couple of years ago, I did an indepth study of Luther and Zwingli’s debate on the Lord’s Supper in Marburg in 1529. Since then, I have been fascinated by the differing opinions among Christians as to what takes place at the Lord’s Table.

Not surprisingly, I was highly interested in a book that Zondervan released in 2007 – a volume in their Counterpoints Series – that lays out four views of the Lord’s Supper. (See my review here.)

This year, InterVarsity Press has released a similar volume that includes five views instead of four (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, and Pentecostal). In both of these books, the representative of each view lays out the rationale and history of their respective position and then the other contributors respond with their own questions and comments.  

Regarding the addition of the fifth view (Pentecostal), the new book from IVP is a step up from the Zondervan release. But if you are looking for stronger debate and for contributors who make their case from Scripture instead of history, the Zondervan book is better.

The Lord’s Supper: Five Views contains a wealth of important information, especially in regards to the history of each position. But this historical research frustrated me at times. I found the Roman Catholic apologist, Jeffrey Gros, to be much too conciliatory. His chapter is less a statement on the RCC view and more of a history of ecumenical relations.

The Lutheran is the most passionate of all the writers. He tries to land knock-out blows to the other positions in his defense of Luther’s view. Of course, as a Baptist, I remain unconvinced. But he at least kept me interested in his arguments.

Though this book contains helpful information about the historical discussions of the Lord’s Supper between differing traditions, the authors of this book do not seek to make their case from Scripture. I kept waiting for the authors to crack open the Bible in order to prove their case. I hoped for a robust, biblical and charitable debate. But no deal. (I especially wanted the Baptist, Roger Olson, to make a Scriptural case. But he stayed in the safe territory of Baptist and Anabaptist confessionalism.) The authors of this volume assume that the reader is familiar with the relevant Bible passages. So they concentrate on the history of their tradition’s view of the Lord’s Supper.

So is this book helpful? Yes. Especially if you want a historical overview of the different traditional views on the Lord’s Supper. But if you’re looking for passionate argumentations from Scripture, you’ll have to go back to Marburg.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog