Outer Rim Territories

Musings, ramblings, and nonsense from the fringe of space and time
« Back to blog
 

Examine Thyself: Solid Declaration VII and 1 Corinthians

“Examine Thyself: Solid Declaration VII and 1 Corinthians”

Christopher R. Gillespie

Confessions 3

07 May 2009

Introduction St. Paul’s exposition of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians chapter ten and eleven in the Formula of Concord article VII serves essentially in its confession. The authors use Paul to respond to the Sacramentarians and the denial that unbelievers receive the real bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper to their judgment. Christ’s true body and blood are the substantial gift which God grants to the communicants, both worthy and unworthy, in the Lord’s Supper. Christ’s words “Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you” are meant literally. In the sacrament, the communicant receives Christ’s body and blood. It is not merely a sacramental or spiritual presence but rather a real, supernatural presence effected through Christ’s Word. This real presence is taught by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians chapters ten and eleven. By evaluating the concordist’s exegesis and application, we can better learn how their understanding should inform our doctrine and practice today. This paper will consider the error of the Philippists and response and application of the 1 Corinthians by the concordists. The paper will offer an excursus on worthy reception of the Supper according to the remainder of the Lutheran Confessions. Finally, it will discuss in brief a number of modern documents which use either 1 Corinthians ten and eleven and the Formula. History of the controversy To properly understand the use of 1 Corinthians within this article, we must understand the controversy leading to its creation. Sacramentarians were those who followed Melancthon and loosely associated with Zwingli and Bucer. The sacramentarians denied Christ’s bodily presence in the Lord’s Supper. This necessarily followed from a denial of the two natures of Christ. Under the principle finitum non capax infinitum, Calvin denied that there was a full communication of attributes (communicatio idiomatum) between the two natures of Christ. Zwingli followed Calvin in this rationalistic reductionism, denying Christ’s bodily presence in the Supper. If the divine attributes are not communicated to Christ’s humanity, then His ascended body and blood cannot be present in the Supper on earth. Shortly before leaving for Eisleben, Luther expressed concern of this crypto-Calvinist teaching on the Wittenberg faculty. He intended to examine all the staff on his return but died while in Eisleben. Shortly thereafter, Luther’s concerns manifested themselves, namely by the followers of Melanchthon, hereafter referred to as Philippists or sacramentarians. The spiritual-only mode of presence of Calvin and Zwingli was confirmed compatible by both in the Consensus Tigurinus (Zurich Consensus of 1549). Melancthon’s adopted the same soft view of the literalness of the verba and Christ’s omnipresence according to the human nature as is confirmed by his role in the Interims. Two other faculty members, Peucer and Cracow, convinced Prince August that their view of the Supper was the genuine faith. Under the elector, they published their Corpus Doctrinae, which included the altered Augsburg Confession and Apology, a preface by Melancthon and Melancthon’s Loci. Later called the Corpus Philippicum, it became the confessional base for all of Saxony in 1560. Opposition to this view of the Supper came quickly. Chemnitz in the North, Brenz in Württemberg, Chytraeus in Rostock, and Andreä in Tübingen resisted the Philippist view. Yet, the Philippists continued with the support of Elector August to promote their view, publishing their Von der person… Grundfest of 1571, Catechesis Wittebergica of 1571, and Exegesis perspicua, whose debated authorship was once understood as Calvin’s successor Theodore Beza. When electoral and ducal Saxony fell under August, the Philippists ran those they considered “ubiquitists” (Christ’s body is extended throughout the universe) out of the territory. The Philippist agenda was unmasked before the Elector when a mistakenly delivered letter revealed their plans to convert the territory to a Calvinist view. Elector August responded favorably to the Lutherans, reinstating them to their positions. Elector August along with sympathetic Lutheran princes commissioned Andreä, Chemnitz, and Selnecker to compose the “Bergic Book,” the foundation for Formula articles VII and VIII. Error The error of the Philippists, or sacramentarians as they are called by the Formula, is clearly outlined in the opening to article VII. “If pressed to set forth their essential position in all candor and clarity, they with one voice declare that the true, essential body and blood of Christ are absent in the Supper … according to their own words, ‘We say that the body and blood of Christ are so far from and distant from the signs as the earth is from the highest heaven.’”[i] The sacramentarians first confessed that the Lord’s Supper “is only an outward sign through which Christians can be identified and in which nothing other than mere bread and wine … are distributed” (4). Later they confessed, that Christ was present only according to his divinity. “[A spiritual presence] meant that he is present with his power, his activity, his benefits, to be enjoyed through faith, because through the Spirit of Christ, which is omnipresent, our bodies, in which the Spirit of Christ dwells here on earth, are united with Christ’s body, which is in heaven” (5). According to the sacramentarians, “in the Supper, with the bread and wine, he gives us his true body and blood to eat (but to be enjoyed in a spiritual matter through faith, not orally through the mouth)” (6). Thus, the words of institution are not to be taken in a literal sense but rather as figurative speech, that is, sacramentally. This eating of Christ’s body in heaven is personal, based on the individual faith. Response The concordist’s intention in the creation of the Formula of Concord is clearly defined in its subtitle, namely, to clarify, correct, define, and explain the unaltered Augsburg Confession concerning controversy since its inception.[ii] Their defense against the sacramentarians follows this initial purpose. Quoting from Augsburg article X, “the true body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine in the Holy Supper and are distributed and received there.” Further confession includes the Small Catechism on the Lord’s Supper, the Apology article X, Cyril, and 1 Corinthians 10. Next, the Wittenberg Concord of 1536 is cited, despite its misuse by those in Geneva and Zurich. Its signers taught that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, distributed, and received. They held to the sacramental union of the body and blood to the bread and wine in the sacrament. The Wittenberg Concord held “that the institution of the sacrament, as it was performed by Christ, is effective throughout Christendom and that its power does not rest upon the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister who distributes the sacrament, nor upon the worthiness or unworthiness of the one who receives it because, as St. Paul says, even the unworthy receive the sacrament” (16). As is taught by 1 Corinthians 11:27-32, the unworthy receive the Supper to their judgment because they receive it without true repentance and faith. The grace and benefits are given to those who repent and find comfort through faith in Christ present in the Supper. Dr. Luther closed “every subterfuge and loophole” (17) used by Geneva and Zurich by drafting the conciliar Smalcald Articles. “The bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, which is not only offered to and received by upright Christians but also by evil ones” (SA II, 6). Following with Luther in the Large Catechism[iii], the Lord’s Supper is made a sacrament and not ordinary bread and wine by Christ’s Word. Luther emphasizes this Word to relieve consciences that He is truly present in body and blood. His Word cannot deceive. No one can alter this sacrament, even by misuse. Further, Luther argues against the individual making the sacrament valid, either by worthiness or faith. No matter whether the communicant is worthy or believes, the sacrament, as it was performed by Christ makes a valid Supper. Luther’s Great Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) sought prevent the sacramentarian error.  “In the Sacrament of the Altar, the true body and blood of Christ are orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine, even if the priests who distribute them or those who receive them do not believe or otherwise misuse the sacrament. It does not rest on human belief or unbelief but on the Word and ordinance of God” (32). Luther states in his Brief Statement concerning the Holy Sacrament (1544), “the Lord’s bread in the Supper is his true, natural body which the godless person or Judas receives orally just as well as St. Peter and all the saints. Whoever (I say) does not want to believe that should not trouble me … and should not expect to have fellowship with me. That is final” (34). Application From this exposition of the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, Small and Large Catechisms, and the confessional documents of Luther, the concordists establish the foundation for their extended treatment of two facets of the Supper: the real presence and modes of reception. The remainder of the paper will focus the Formula’s treatment of 1 Corinthians, namely to establish that unbelievers receive the sacrament to their judgment. This principle has already been established by the Formula’s quotations of the Wittenberg Concord, the Smalcald Articles, the Large Catechism, and Luther’s two confessions concerning the Supper. The understanding of proper reception as taught by the Formula is bound to the discussion whether the sacrament is eaten purely spiritually or orally by the mouth. 1 Corinthians 10:16 is cited as “a special, clear witness to the true, essential presence and distribution of Christ’s body and blood in the Supper” (54). From St. Paul, we learn that the bread and the cup instituted at the first Supper is the same bread and cup which we break and bless in our Supper. Paul refers to the cup as the blood of Christ and the bread as the body of Christ. He does not refer to them in figurative or spiritual language. Therefore, Paul is speaking of both sacramental and oral reception of Christ’s body by all who receive. Why is Paul articulating this for the church at Corinth? According to the Formula, Paul was “discouraging and warning those who ate from the sacrifices to idols and practiced fellowship with heathen worship of the devil and at the same time when to the table of the Lord and shared Christ’s body and blood. He warned them so they would not receive his body and blood to their judgment and damnation” (57). The Formula understands Paul to be teaching that whoever eats in an unworthy manner “dishonors, misuses, and desecrates Christ, who is present there, just as those Jews did who in fact really seized the body of Christ and put him to death” (60). Through Paul the same principle as Luther in his Brief Statement above is established, namely, the godly and ungodly both receive the sacrament. Who are those who are unworthy? Paul means those “godless hypocrites, such as Judas and his kind, who participate in no spiritual sharing with Christ and who go to the table of the Lord without true repentance and conversion to God … This, they sin grievously by eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ unworthily” (60). Extensive references in support from the ancient Church Fathers and teachers were included in the Torgau book but excised with Bergic.[iv] The Formula recognizes this answer from Paul requires further explanation. “It is essential to explain with great diligence who the unworthy guests at the Supper are, namely , those who go to the sacrament without true contrition or sorrow over their sins and without true faith or the good intention to improve their lives” (68). “The true and worthy guests, for whom this precious sacrament above all was instituted and established, are the Christians who are weak in faith, fragile and troubled, who are terrified in their hearts by the immensity and number of their sins and think that they are not worthy of this precious treasure and of the benefits of Christ because of their great impurity, who feel the weakness of their faith and deplore it, and who desire with all their heart to serve God with a stronger, more resolute faith and purer obedience” (69) .Numerous citations to support this assertion are given (Matt. 11:28; Matt. 9:12; 2 Cor. 12:9; Romans 14:1-3; and John 3:16). Finally, the Formula states that “worthiness consists not in a greater or lesser weakness or strength of faith, but rather in the merit of Christ” (71). The Formula also articulates against another mode of eating promoted by the Philippists. To preserve the true Christian teaching about the Supper, a useful rule and guide is presented: “nothing has the character of a sacrament apart from the use [usus] instituted by Christ or the divinely instituted action [actio].” (85) The sacramentarians instead referred to the usus fidei, that is, the spiritual practice of faith a making a valid sacrament. Here again, worthy reception is not governed by faith but instead by the true Word and institution. It remains true sacrament regardless of who receives it. Indeed, the concordists further state in reaction to the council at Trent, “we also reject the teaching that the worthiness consists not only in true faith but also in a person’s own preparation” (124) and “we also reject the teaching that even true believers, who have and retain a true, proper, living faith but are lacking sufficient preparation according to the standards they have themselves devised, could receive this sacrament to their judgment, as do the unworthy guests” (125). Worthy Reception in the Book of Concord[v] Dr. Luther asks in the Small Catechism, “Who, then receives this sacrament worthily? … He is truly worthy and well prepared who believes these words: ‘for you’ and ‘for the forgiveness of sins’” (SC, VI, 10). This reliance upon faith to receive worthily is confirmed elsewhere: “the promise is useless unless faith accepts it” (Ap. XIII, 20; c.f. AC XIII, 2). Luther also states that “fasting and bodily preparation” are “good outward disciple” (SC VI, 10). But this outward preparation does not make one a worthy guest (Ep. VII, 38).  In the question concerning worthiness, Luther grants no place for good works. “Nature and reason begin to contrast our unworthiness with this great and precious blessing, and it appears like a dark lantern in contrast to the bright sun, or as manure in contrast to jewels … if you choose to fix your eye on how good and pure you are, to wait until nothing torments you, you will never go” (LC V, 56-57). The criteria for worthy reception is faith, that is, the yearning for grace and the desire for forgiveness of sins and life. “Those who are impudent and unruly ought to be told to stay away, for they are not ready to receive the forgiveness of sins because they do not deisre it and do not want to be righteous” (LC V, 58). “The only ones who are unworthy are those who do not feel their burdens nor admit to being sinners” (LC V, 74). The conclusive statement is stated in the Epitome: “We believe, teach, and confess that the entire worthiness of the guests at the table of his heavenly meal is and consists alone in the most holy obedience and perfect merit of Christ. We make his obedience and merit our own through true faith, concerning which we receive assurance through the sacrament. Worthiness consists in no way in our own virtues, or in internal or external preparations” (Ep. VII, 20). While believers receive the Supper to their benefit in faith, “those who despise the sacrament and lead unchristian lives receive it to their harm and damnation. For such people nothing can be good or wholesome, just as when a sick person willfully eats and drinks what is forbidden by the physician” (LC V, 69). While it is unanimous doctrine of the Book of Concord, it is not explicitly taught in the Small Catechism, Augsburg Confession, and Apology. The manducatio indignorum is not denied by these writings. As the preface to the Formula stated, issues arose which required rejection of error in the churches of the Augsburg Confession (see History above). According to Schlink, the statements about the manducatio indignorum stand between the demand and the promise of faith. Christ’s body and blood are given with a promise and are never impotent of their power and effect. Therefore Christ draws us and impels us to the Sacrament, not our of compulsion or fear of the law but to obey and and please Christ. “If you are burdened and feel your weakness, go joyfully to the sacrament and let yourself be refreshed, comforted, and strengthened” (LC V, 72). Contempt for the sacrament and therefore unworthy reception is a basis for church fellowship. While not articulated in the Formula, the church can rightly articulate close[d] communion practices from other writings of the Lutheran Confessions. The confessions rightly associate the exercise of church discipline as a means defend the faith. The power to retain and forgive sin is properly called the power of the keys (SA III, vii, 1). Pastors and bishops have the power to exclude sinners from the Christian congregation via excommunication (c.f. AC XXVIII, 21). Specific to the practice of the Lord’s Supper and unworthy reception, the “small” excommunication “is that public, obstinate sinners should not be admitted to the sacrament or other fellowship in the church until they improve their behavior and avoid sin” (SA III, 9). False teachers and openly wicked sinners are to be excluded from the supper. “Excommunication is promounced on the openly wicked and on those who despise the sacraments” (Ap XI, 4). Those who despise the sacrament have rejected its promise and are thereby no Christian and can have no forgiveness of sins. Contemporary Interpretations Many recent documents considered the proper understanding of “worthy reception.” The 1998 convention of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod asked the Commission on Theology and Church Relations to respond to matter admission to the Lord’s Supper.[vi] The document largely speaks on the matter of close[d] communion but does so with a lengthy exegetical treatment of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Those who were not “discerning the body” where those who by their schisms and factions, desecrated the Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper. Those who do not have faith and desire the effects of the supper, namely, the unity of the church, also are failing to “discern the body.” There must be repentance and faith. Finally, all communicants must examine themselves and find divinely-created willingness to remove divisions and preserve unity. On the whole, their exegesis agrees with the Formula although with greater emphasis on intra-church fellowship. In addition, there is significant discussion of pastoral discretion and oversight of the Supper not mentioned in the Formula VII. The role of the pastor as overseer of the supper is references  elsewhere in Concordia (AC XXIV, 35-38; XXVII, 21; SA III). Extra-denomination fellowship is discussed and rightly associated with the conflict between the Lutherans and sacramentarians. This sort of fellowship is refuted at length, although the document recognizes this extra-congregation fellowship is not the thrust of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians. C.F.W. Walther’s Pastoral Theology holds that 1 Corinthians is not about mere personal examination but “the Holy Supper is one of the marks, one of the banners of the church, one of the seals of the church’s doctrine and faith. In whichever church one receives the Holy Supper, one is confessing that church and its doctrine. There cannot be a more inward, brotherly fellowship than that into which one enters with those in whose fellowship he receives the holy Supper.”[vii] Dr. A.L. Barry’s “What About … Fellowship in the Lord’s Supper” utilizes the Lord’s Supper in terms of church fellowship. Three scripture citations are given to suggest this position: the Gospel mandates, church fellowship according to Acts 2:42, and worthy reception according to 1 Corinthians 11:26-29. According to Acts 2:42, those who commune at the same altar are declaring publicly that they are united in the doctrine of the apostles. 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 is cited to support this position. Dr. Barry quotes Stoeckhardt’s 1 Corinthians commentary saying the text rejects unionism. Stoeckhardt believes “it would be shameful hypocrisy on our part if we would have those who profess a different faith commune at our altar.”[viii] [emphasis mine] This is a different emphasis than the Formula which places worthy eating on personal contrition and faith in the promise. “What About…” does not abdicate this personal view but makes it secondary to church fellowship. “The practice of Close Communion is prompted by love and is born of the heartfelt conviction, on the basis of Scripture alone, that we must follow Christ’s command. This means refusing the Lord’s Supper to those whose belief is not known to us. It is not showing love to allow a person to do something harmful, even though he may think it is for his own good.”[ix] There is a significant danger in over-emphasizing the fellowship nature of the supper using 1 Corinthians. While koinonia is certainly in the mind of Paul, his emphasis is first upon the discernment of Christ’s body and blood in the supper. The Supper is no mere agape fest. In a Theological Observer column, David P. Scaer critiques an article by German Lutheran theologian Helmut Thielicke. Thielicke encouraged children to go the rail for a blessing during distribution. He says, “whether [the children] are given the bread and wine or are simply blessed is a secondary question. Either way, the main motif in infant baptism is here taken up again, namely reception into the fellowship of believers and incorporation into the body of Christ.”[x] Scaer asserts that Thielicke’s attitude toward the sacraments comes down on the side of Calvin rather than Luther. Thielicke’s view of the Supper sees the elements of bread and wine as incidental. The offense against Christ’s body (1 Corinthians 11:29) is the selfish disregard for others in the fellowship and not the lacking of awareness of the sacramental bread. For Theilicke the Lord’s supper gives symbolic expression to the intimate fellowship of the congregation rather than being a real and actual participation in Christ. Consequently, 1 Corinthians warns against offending Christ’s body, the church, and not Christ’s body present in the sacramental elements. Such an exegesis is inconsistent with the Formula and wrongly encourages both open and infant communion. ELCA theologian Timothy Wengert proposes this sort of exegesis is consistent with the Formula. “One of the advantages of a “spiritual” understanding of the Lord’s Supper (that is, a view that argues that Christ is present in the Supper among only those who believe) seems to be that there is no such thing as “unworthy” communicants … Even though Luther pointed out that this verse had to do with the Corinthian congregation’s total disregard for their poor fellow Christians [and not necessarily with a faulty doctrine of the Supper), later Lutherans connected this warning to false belief and immoral behavior.”[xi] In Wengert’s view, the doctrinal confession of the communicant should take a back seat instead to the practica issues. “It becomes clear that precisely the weak, who are most likely to count themselves among the unworthy, are the 'worthiest’ of all. Instead of taking the legalist’s path and defining worthy communicants as those with true sorrow, true faith, and good intensions - which is what one would expect … the concordists take a different, more pastoral route … Just to show how serious they are about the gospel and how convinced they are that the gospel of inclusion trumps our laws of exclusion, the concordists then add quotations from the Gospels and Paul: ‘Come to me, all you who are weary!’ (Matt. 11:28); ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick’ (Matt. 9:12).”[xii] Wengert concludes by articulating an open communion view. “We do not make ourselves worthy at all! Christ does. Now everything is turned in its head, and the good news of  a communion table open to all the weak triumphs over all attempts to fence the table to include only the strong and to exclude those who need the Great Physician’s ‘medicine of immortality.’”[xiii] To his credit, Wengert understands the Formula correctly that the proper reception is a personal matter. Yet, he misunderstands both St. Paul and whole of Concordia. Proper reception is indeed personal but never private. The concordists themselves were writing against fellowship with the sacramentarians. Paul is writing against the communicants of Corinth receiving the Supper if they cannot confess of the true bodily presence of Christ and their need for forgiveness. Conclusion This paper is not an exhaustive treatment of either 1 Corinthians ten and eleven or the Lutheran understanding of “worthy reception.”[xiv] Rather, sought to define “worthy reception” according to the Formula first and the remainder of the Confessions second. The Formula confesses that we should reject those from receiving the Supper who understand it in a merely spiritual, highly personal way, while not believing the Lord’s body and blood are there truly and sacramentally present. The proper reception of the sacrament according to the Formula’s treatment of 1 Corinthians are those who are contrite and repent and who have faith. They confess that Christ’s body and blood (corpus verum not mysticum) are there present for their forgiveness and strengthening in faith. We eat with our mouths (manducatio oralis). As with Luther, the Formula reinforces that worthy eating is dependent on the merit of Christ and not the preparation of the communicant. Even so, preparation and understanding of the Apostles’ creed, Lord’s Prayer, Ten Commandments, and words of institution serves as proper examination for the worthiness of the communicant. By the Creed, he confesses the faith of the church and believes the same. By the Lord’s Prayer, he knows what the Lord has promised and does for him. By the Ten Commandments, he knows his sin and need for a savior. By the words of institution, he confesses and believes that the Lord is truly present for him in body and blood for the forgiveness of sins. Works Cited
  • Kolb, Robert, and Timothy J. Wengert, eds. 2000. The Book of Concord:: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. xii, 774 p vols. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
  • Schlink, Edmund. Theology of the Lutheran Confessions. Translated by Bouman, Herbert J A., and Paul F. Koehneke. xxix, 353 p vols. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Pub. House, 2003, 1961.
  • Rosin, Wilbert, and Robert D. Preus. A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord. St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1978.
  • Kolb, Robert, and James Arne Nestingen. Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001.
  • Wengert, Timothy. A Formula for Parish Practice. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2006.
  • Klug, Eugene, and Otto Stahlke. Getting into the Formula of Concord. St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1977.
  • Commission on Theology and Church Relations. Admission to the Lord’s Supper: Basics of Biblical and Confessional Teaching. Kirkwood: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1999. http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/admisup.pdf (accessed May 7, 2009).
  • Walther, C F W. Walther's Pastorale, That Is, American Lutheran Pastoral Theology. Translated by Drickamer, John M. 300 p : vols. New Haven, Mo.: Lutheran News, 1995.
  • Barry, A.L. What About... Fellowship in the Lord's Supper. Kirkwood, Mo.: Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_fellowship-lordssupper.pdf (accessed May 7, 2009).
  • Scaer, David P. "Should children go to the communion rail for a blessing : a follow-up by Helmut Thielicke." Concordia Theological Quarterly 46, no. 2-3 (April 1982): 242-243.
[i] Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, eds. 2000. (The Book of Concord:: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. xii, 774 p vols. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), SD VII, par. 2-3. (hereafter SD VII quotations will appear parenthetically by paragraph number. Other Book of Concord citations will be indicated by “Text Article, paragraph.” ) [ii] SD Preface, BOC 2000, 524. [iii] LC V, 12-19. [iv] Robert Kolb and James Arne Nestingen, Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001), 220-244. The Catalog of Testimonies includes these references from Basil, Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret, Cyprian, Leo, Gregory the Great, and Ambrose. [v] The following section is consolidated from Edmund Schlink, Theology of the Lutheran Confessions. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Pub. House, 2003, 1961), 174-180. [vi] Commission on Theology and Church Relations, Admission to the Lord’s Supper: Basics of Biblical and Confessional Teaching (Kirkwood: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1999),  http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/admisup.pdf (accessed May 7, 2009). [vii] C.F.W. Walther, Walther's Pastorale, That Is, American Lutheran Pastoral Theology, trans. John Drickamer (New Haven, Mo.: Christian News, 1995), 110-111. [viii] A.L. Barry, What About... Fellowship in the Lord's Supper (Kirkwood, Mo.: Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod), 2, http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_fellowship-lordssupper.pdf (accessed May 7, 2009). [ix] Ibid., 2. [x] David P. Scaer "Should children go to the communion rail for a blessing : a follow-up by Helmut Thielicke." Concordia Theological Quarterly 46, no. 2-3 (April 1982): 242-243. [xi] Timothy Wengert, A Formula for Parish Practice (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2006), 127. [xii] Ibid., 131. [xiii] Ibid., 132. [xiv] For additional discussion: Martin Chemnitz, Ministry, Word, and Sacraments: The Lord's Supper (St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 2007), 127-149, 171-183; Johann Gerhard, Elmer M. Hohle, David O. Berger, and James D. Heiser, A Comprehensive Explanation of Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper (1610) (Malone, Tex: Repristination Press, 2000), 427-457.

Posted July 15, 2009 by Christopher Gillespie