Customer Reviews

Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Keith Mathison does an excellent job of conveying the history and meaning behind the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper. In an era when Christians seem to think the religion was founded at their conversion this book gives an excellent overview of our heritage. Mathison also delves into the reason why most confessional churches have dropped the weekly observance of this very important Sacrament.

I do have one very serious problem with the book however and that is why I gave it only three stars. In the first chapter Mathison quotes prolifically from Calvin's Institutes, book 4, chapters 14 & 17, to lay down the foundation for his argument. Unfortunately he makes it sound as if Calvin believed that absolutely NOTHING happens to the unbelieving heathen who partakes despite the warnings not to. This is not what Calvin believed at all as is evidenced from the very chapters Mathison quoted so freely from.

I will use two sections here for brevity's sake and advise you to read Calvin's Institutes along with the book.

1)Mathison quotes from 4.14.7 to prove that the Supper is only "effective" to the one who takes it with a believing heart. But Calvin does state in that section that "The wicked incur a heavier condemnation [for partaking]"

2)Two pages later he quotes Calvin's quote of Augustine, "In the elect alone the sacraments effect what they represent." He fails to quote further where Augustine is quoted as saying, "...the Lord's morsel was poison to Judas, not because he received evil, but because and evil man evilly received a good thing."

There are several more omissions that I encourage readers to look up. It is due to these omissions that the common American reader (who probably does not own a copy of the Institutes let alone have read it) might agree with Mathison's conclusion about paedo-communion. His reasoning is disturbing. Toward the end of his argument for paedo-communion he begins to sound as if he believes that our children's baptism is an agent of their salvation and, if pushed, he might actually come down on the side of those who believe in baptismal regeneration. He argues that we cannot bar from the table any who have been baptized. He sets up a straw-man argument when he compares the barring of infants and children from the table to the barring of elderly senile folks. This is ludicrous. Any pastor who knows his constituents will know whether they had previously shown signs of faith. What we are waiting for in our children are those signs of faith.

I do not speak as one who has never wrestled with this. I have three young boys and, as a mother, I must say the idea of paedo-communion is very appealing. I know what communion effects. I know that my children are in need of what it effects. But as a mother who knows her children AND who has a firm belief in the historical Reformed & Presbyterian view of communion, I cannot in good conscience subject my children to possibly more wrath on the off-chance that they are not saved.

Not all Israel is Israel. God loved Jacob but despised Esau. Yet they were both circumcised...the sign & seal for which baptism is now the replacement.

Mathison's Given For You on Calvin's view of the Supper is a must have. Not overly profound; reads kind of like a really, really good, long seminary paper, and occasionally cliched. But about as good of an overview as I've seen. Lots of nice, clearly outlined, short sub-chapters. Makes a good argument for wine in the Meal and even for paedo-communion. The part on Nevin is especially good. He also shows there were important differences on the meal between fellow Princeton theologians (as well as between fellow Scottish theologians, Southern, etc.). Because he wrote a book on postmillennialism I had avoided this one for some time, but I'm glad I gave him a chance.

Three other books to consider: NT Wright's The Meal Jesus Gave Us; Peter Leithart's Blessed are the Hungry; and Robert Letham's one (Letham gives a counter-balance to Mathison on the Paedo-communion stuff).

I bought this book an a whim and was very glad that I did. Mathison has done contemporary Christianity a service buy publishing this work.
He gives the reader a solid background in the issues concerning the Reformation debate on the Eucharist. In it, I believe, he vindicates the three major players - Luther, Zwingli and Calvin - explaining how Calvin wasn't as far from Luther and how Zwingli eventually came over the Calvin's position. Thus almost unifying the magesterial reformers on such an important reformational topic.
Mathison also gives us a masterful look at post-reformation thought on the issue, citing all of the major confessions and catechisms from the Reformation to today - as well as looking at major theologians throughout church history.
The one drawback was his treatment of Jonathan Edwards - which is understandable considering the only published sermons of Edwards on the Supper make him appear Zwingliian. However there are a series of unpublished sermons on the Lord's Supper that clearly prove that Edwards was a Calvinist when it came to this means of grace. There is an excellent article in Pro Ecclesia - A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology (Vol. vii - No. 3 - Summer 98) by William J. Danaher, Jr. that exposes Edwards for the Calvinist that he is.
Also, it would be nice in a subsequent edition if Mathison would highlight the view of the early Particular Baptists which was undoubtedly Calvinistic - as opposed to some of the later one's who developed a memorialist view.
Mathison's exegesis of Old and New Testament texts enlighten the reader to see how Biblical Calvin's view is. We would do well to harken to Mathison's exhortation to return to this rich view of the Supper.

This book is an excellent and thorough overview and defense of John Calvin's orthodox position and teaching concerning the Holy Eucharist. Today's Protestants have all but completely forgotten that the Reformation was fought around the issues of the Holy Communion and what it meant. Calvin arrived at the most orthodox answer, in keeping with the Bible and the Church Fathers. However, his followers essentially abandoned Calvin's position on the Eucharist and adopted the "memorialism" of Zwingli (this was observed in the 1860s by the Anglican theologian and Bishop of Winchester Edward Browne). Mathison takes these individuals and their teachings to task, pointing out that of all of the views on the Communion (the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran, and Calvin's) only Zwingli's memorialism stands markedly outside of the Christian tradition. I'd like to comment to Mathison that the Anglican tradition has consistently embraced Calvin's Eucharistic doctrine, by such men as Archbishop Cranmer, the Wesleys, and Bishop Charles Gore (not to mention the offical Articles of Religion of the Church of England). Mathison discusses Lutheran teaching and ignores the Anglican Church and her Reformation doctrines entirely, mentioning Cranmer only in passing.

My 2.5 decades of Christian life have largely been spent in churches which hold to a purely symbolic and/or "memorial" meaning of the Eucharist/Communion (and Baptism as well). Reading the Early Church Fathers and the New Testament caused me to believe that the Early Church did not hold a merely symbolic view of these things, but I was not convinced by Catholic arguments for transubstantiation -- and other aspects and teachings of the liturgical, orthodox churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox) were problematic such that to leave Protestantism to join them for the sake of a "more meaningful" Eucharist was not an option. Almost two years ago I had a quasi-mystical experience of the Lord's presence during communion that increased my desire to know what to make of this "ritual" or "sacrament" and what it signified and how Christ's presence (or lack thereof) at the Eucharist should best be explained or understood or taught. No specific answers were forthcoming, nor additional "illumination." Then I came across this book and it rekindled my interest in the subject. (Interestingly, for the last 3 years we have been attending a "Bible Church" whose pastor is strongly Calvinistic in his beliefs and teaches a purely symbolic and "memorial" view of the Eucharist -- the very thing the author of this book critiques and rejects as being non-Calvinist and foreign to historic Christian teaching). This book could create some serious theological disturbances in denominations and churches which hold to a purely symbolic or memorial view of communion, and even if they choose to reject the author's position, I think every such church should read this book. This book is NOT just for reformed churches or Christians, but for every Christian like me who has asked "Why bother with communion or baptism if they're just symbols ... and if they're NOT just symbols, then what are they?" My personal experience was of Christ being present with us as we broke the bread and drank the cup, dining with us in His Father's Kingdom, at His table. Mathison's book doesn't present this view, but he does seriously present the argument that Christ is present to the believer and that the believer truly does (by faith) eat and drink Christ at the Eucharist.

Mr Mathison, like his book on postmillennialism and scripture, gives a thorough, clear, and sufficient case for his position.

Review of Keith Mathison's Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

Thesis: The modern Reformed church has lost sight of Calvin's robust view of the Supper leading to a neglect of the Supper in general.

Exposition of Calvin's view of the Supper: Calvin defined sacraments as "visible words from God" (7); the offer in the sacrament is objective, but can only be received by faith. The sign and seal of a sacrament must be distinguished but can never be separated. It is a seal of the promise that believers who truly partake of it partake of the body and blood of Christ. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the mystical union between the believer and Christ. We are united to Christ in baptism and grow in this union in participation in the Lord's Supper (19).

How Is Christ Present? Christ is bodily in heaven and the reality and benefits of Christ are channeled to us by means of the Holy Spirit. The flesh, indeed the whole Christ, is given to us by means of the Holy Spirit (29):
1. The body of Christ remains in heaven and retains all its properties.
2. The Holy Spirit lifts our souls to heaven whereby we partake of the body of Christ.
3. Eating Christ is a heavenly action in a spiritual [read Holy Spirit] manner.
4. The presence of Christ is a real presence and a real descent effected by the Holy Spirit.

Historical and Biblical Surveys
Mathison then surveys the field of church history and the Old and New Testaments to bolster his thesis that Calvin's view is the biblical view.

Practical Conclusions
Mathison critiques inadequate views of the Supper (Zwingli, Lutheran, and Roman) and ends with a call for: 1) using real wine; 2) having the supper weekly or frequently and 3) urging Reformed folk to give a decent response to paedocommunion (he never actually critiques paedocommunion, making one wonder...).

Summary
This is a masterful exposition typical of Mathison. He gives tight logic, cogent argumentation and attempts to wrestle with tough, relevant issues (paedocommunion).

A thumb nail sketch ,at the start of the book, is given about the differences between transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and symbolic memorialism. I believe reading about these competing Eucharistic doctrines on pages 239 to 269 before reading about Calvin's doctrine on the Lord's Supper (pgs.. 7-48)would make Calvin's arguments clearer. One hundred pages on reformed developments of the Lord's Supper from Calvin to the present is a slow read and not very illuminating. Mathison's presentation and description of bible passages and his understanding of the Lord's Supper is very interesting. He starts with a ten page discussion about the establishment of Passover referring to the book of Exodus. In one page he talks of the bread from heaven to the nation of Israel- that it is God that provided the bread. He then goes unto describe the blood of the covenant. Using the third and fourth chapter of Leviticus, he describes the peace offering the Israelites offered up to God. Arguments are given by the author about the need for continued sacrifice. It was an imperfect system to cleanse and sanctify the sinner unto a more perfect sacrifice would be presented.

"Oh, that there were among you who would shut the doors, that you would not kindle fire upon my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand". Malachi 1:10

Keith Mathison calls this concept "pure sacrifice". What is needed for a sacrifice to be acceptable to God. Yes man should be repentive for one's disobedience to God and to hold God in reverence. One should be thankful for who God is and praise Him for His long-suffering. Mathison argues that the book of Malachi lays out an argument for a more perfect sacrificial system plus the need to imprint the love of God on people's hearts. He believes Christ death and resurrection brought this into being.

Psalms 113-118 may have been used as the songs sung as part of the Passover feast in Jesus time. Mathison further elaborates that Passover liturgy uses the words: "This is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate when they came out of Egypt." He argues those reading the phrase or making the statement did not believe the bread to be the exact same bread that was baked in Egypt. No the bread was like the bread consumed in Egypt. That it was eaten today as to share in the original experience. When Jesus says, "this is My body". He is telling us that the Bread represents the new covenant. One is no longer saved through animal sacrifice but the sacrifice of Himself. That the believers deeds are put on the account of Jesus. In a way we our accepting Jesus as paying the price for sins. Without partaking in Jesus the sinner is doomed. Mathison distinguishes between Catholic orthodoxy and Reformed. In Catholicism , the Lord's Supper is a renewal of the sacrifice each time it is partaken. In Reform theology , participants are partakers with Christ. An acknowledgment of dependence of Christ, but not a renewal of the sacrifice.

In the early church, as described in the book titled the acts of the Apostles, it is described that believers broke bread together. Mathison states this is how fellow Christians refered to the Lord's Supper.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 10:16 King James

In the revised standard version the word participation is used instead of the word communion. Both are translations from the Greek word Koinonia. The ordinance or sacrament is not to be practiced in isolation, but together in a corporate worship. That all believers come together to share in the body and blood of Jesus Christ their Savior. Jesus is the host and provider of the sacrifice once and for all to those who believe. The meal serves as a reminder, but God also uses the event to sustain, nourish, and to increase the believers communion with their Savior.

Jesus states in Matthew 26:29:

But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it with you in my Father's kingdom.

The author says this means that Jesus will not drink the cup unto the second Advent of Christ. This is a promise of another Lord's Supper where all of God's elect are with a physical present living Savior. When a Lord's Supper is practiced today, Jesus is there and living--but we cannot perceive Him through sight and He is not drinking the cup with us.

The Lord's Supper serves as a sign of the new covenant. The blood of lambs is no longer desired by the Father, but only the Blood of The Lamb -- The Blood of God's Son Jesus Christ. There is no longer the need for continual sacrifice, because the most perfect permanent sacrifice was made once and for all.

The Bread of Life discourse is told in John Chapter six. Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you will have no part of my Kingdom. Mathison explains how a Christian is to partake of Jesus? Salvation does not comes to those who do not identify themselves with the one who died on the cross. Both Catholic and Lutheran theology argue for a mere physical consumption of the body and blood of Jesus.

I read this book over the course of several months. The author has throughly researched Calvin's doctrine of the Euchrist and has shown that he did not reject the Real Presence of Christ. I have reached similar understanding of the Lord's Supper on my own and am please to see that my understanding does agree with Reformed theology as it was originally understood. I do believe in freguent, in fact weekly Communion and I winch every time I have Communion at the Baptist church that I attend when they say it is just a memorial. That is why I monthly also attend an Anglican church to have Communion as it was meant to be observed. Thanks for the great exposition of the Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper.

Dr. Keith Mathison has produced an excellent followup to his last excellent work, the Shape of Sola Scriptura. Like that work, this book is concerned with recovering the richness of doctrine from the Reformation. Here, the author is recovering, defending, and defining Calvin's view of the Eucharist. Calvin's view involves the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Since he doesn't fall into transubstantiation Roman Catholics will think he denies the Real Presence. Since most Protestants (including the Reformed) deny any sort of Real Presence, this will seem weird at best, Romish at worst.

This book fits into a general category I would call "the catholic Reformed" movement. There is a significant and growing number of people who are Reformed but at the same time more broadly catholic. In other words, they are connected to and give consideration to the church prior to the Reformation. Also, the catholic Reformed (and some others) have views closer to the original Reformers than many modern Reformed, although these two groups still share a lot in common. There are a variety of reasons for this, but this book cannot be understood apart from this context.

This book is written primarily for those who are Reformed, so all can recover the richness of Calvin's doctrine. Almost immediately into the book, Dr. Matthison covers the original Reformed Eucharistic beliefs and how a divergence from those beliefs came about. If you are not Reformed, would you care about this? Probably not. If you are arguing about fidelity to the Westminster Confessions, etc., this matters.

Dr. Matthison then goes on to give a biblical defense of his position. He also critiques other views. He gives a wonderful, but short, critique of the Roman Catholic position. He also wonderfully highlights the significance of the Passover meal in a way that supports his position. In the appendix he covers Eucharistic views from the Didache to Aquinas, and that section is most helpful and useful.

Lastly, Dr. Mathison covers controversial practical issues like the use of wine and padeocommunion.

If you are Reformed, this book is a must. If you want to understand the Lord's Supper better, it is also a must. This book will be useful in general. This book is a gift and should be read and bought.

Back when I was a Calvinist, I read Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper by Keith Mathison. At the time I was convinced of Mathison's position and disturbed by all the Zwinglianism I saw around me. Since I've become a Lutheran, I thought it might be a good idea to revisit this work.

Given For You is probably the best defense of the Calvinist position on the Lord's Supper. It does a good job of accurately and honestly representing Calvin's position and tracing position of Calvinist and Reformed churches throughout history.

However, exegetically the book is very weak and very complicated. The reader is left with the impression that unless he has PhD there is no possibility that he could ever interpret the Scriptures for himself. If Mathison is correct in his teachings then the doctrine of perspicuity must be nonexistent. The book makes it apparent that Calvin's position is not based upon the clear teachings of the Scriptures but upon philosophical speculation. Calvin teaches that in the Lord's Supper the Holy Spirit lifts us up to heaven to spiritually receive Christ's body and blood but the Bible never says anything like this.

What I find the most disturbing in the book is the author's lack of understanding of other positions--especially the Lutheran position. Throughout the book, the author does make reference to what he believe is the Lutheran position but most of the time it is some kind of strange Calvinist caricature of the Lutheran position. The author lists some good Lutheran books in his bibliography but I get the impression that he has never actually read them. He seems to be repeating some of the same old misconceptions about Lutherans found in Hodge and other writers.

The most concentrated critique of Lutheranism is found on pp. 256-260 under the heading "Consubstantiation." The very presence of the title shows that the author is attacking a straw man. Neither Luther nor the Book of Concord teach consubstantiation. Luther and the Lutheran confessions refuse to adopt a philosophical position when it comes to the Lord's Supper and refuse to try to describe how the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ since the Scriptures do not offer an explanation, they simply confess it to be true.

Pages 257 says, "Because his doctrine of the Eucharist demands the simultaneous presence of Christ's human body in numerous locations, Martin Luther formulated the doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's human body." Luther did not invent the doctrine of ubiquity. Medieval theologians such as Guitmond and Alger had already taught this doctrine. The doctrine of ubiquity never made it into the Lutheran confessions. Luther simply offered it as a possibility. Some prominent Lutheran theologians promoted the doctrine of ubiquity while other equally prominent theologians such as Martin Chemnitz taught something different. Mathison believes that the teaching of the communication of the attributes distorts orthodox Christology. This objection has been answered rather thoroughly by Martin Chemnitz who shows that the church fathers who defended the orthodox position also taught the communication of the attributes and demonstrated that the original intent of the ecumenical creeds included the communication of the attributes. As far as I know, no Calvinist has disproved Chemnitz in this regard.

On page 259, Mathison claims that "Luther did not teach that the bread is Christ's body. He insists that the bread remains bread and that Christ's body is present simultaneously with the bread." But this is most certainly not true. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 10:16 in 1528, Luther says, "...it not only says, 'This is Christ's body,' as we read in the Lord's Supper, but mentions the bread which was so broken and says, 'The bread is Christ's body,' indeed, 'The bread which we break is not only the body of Christ but the distributed body of Christ.' The fact that bread is also present does not negate the fact that this is His body.

On pages 259-260, Mathison says that the Lutheran insistence on a corporeal presence requires a redefinition of what a body is. But Lutherans do not attempt to define it and so redefinition is not necessary. As Luther himself pointed out, Jesus did things with His human body that ordinary people cannot do. Jesus passed through walls. I can't pass through a wall. But it would be wrong to conclude that Jesus didn't really have a body just because He was able to do things we cannot do. The demand for a Jesus whose human body can only do things that other people's bodies can do requires a different Jesus from the one found in the Scriptures.

I don't expect everyone to convert to Lutheranism but it would be nice if people writing these books took the time to really understand opposing positions and were able to honestly represent them. From reading their writings, I think Luther and Zwingli understood what the other's position was. Beza and Andreas seemed to understand each other's position. I'm not convinced that Calvin understood Luther's position and perhaps is to blame for the long history of Calvinists who don't understand the Lutheran position. It seems so very strange to me. In many ways the Calvinist position seems to be the most difficult to understand--you have the Holy Spirit lifting people's spirits to heaven to feast on Jesus body and blood and all kinds of arguments from philosophy. The Lutheran position is simple and shouldn't be so misunderstood. This is My body. This is My blood. I have some books on my shelf written by recent Lutheran theologians on the Eucharist and they honestly represent the Calvinist position. One of them goes on at length to describe the slightly different views of different Calvinist groups throughout history. But of the Calvinist books written on the Eucharist that I've read, I can't find a single one that honestly represents the Lutheran position.

Luther's argument against Zwingli was rather simple. Luther's position came straight from the words of institution. In This is My Body Sasse summarizes Luther's four arguments against Zwingli on p. 340: "the article of the Christian faith that Jesus is perfect God and man in one person, undivided and inseparable; that God's right hand is everywhere; that God's Word is not false and cannot deceive; that God has and knows of various modes of being in any place, and not only the one which the philosopher calls local."