So, everyone got a handout, right? So, hopefully that'll be helpful as we talk through the class.
! Just as a kind of a warning, I don't know if that's the right word, but we're going to talk definitely more about theology,
particular theological topics, and getting into the weeds of them. And so, a little less history, a little bit more theology,
but I think you'll see why we need to talk about these things.
Are you referring?
I am. Thanks for asking.
So, Zwingli, he was born on New Year's Day in 1484, just a couple months before Luther, actually.
And he's born in a village in the Swiss Alps, so he's from Switzerland.
He comes from a peasant family that actually clawed their way out of poverty.
So, with Ehrlich Sr., he's his dad, he becomes a respective village leader.
Come on in. Take a handout. Take a handout. Come on in, guys.
Come on in. Find a seat. There's some over here.
Just sit this way.
Please.
Tyler, right?
Yeah.
Good seeing you. Thanks for coming.
We're just getting started, so you don't miss anything.
So, Ehrlich Sr., he becomes a respected village leader and a magistrate.
And if you were here last week, you remember how Luther's parents wanted him to become a secular lawyer
so that he can come back to the family business and serve that business and help his family.
But Zwingli's parents actually aren't like that at all.
They actually wanted Zwingli to become a priest from the get-go.
And so, with their status, with their money, they arranged for Zwingli to receive a really good education.
They sent him to the best of schools.
And almost immediately as he's studying from a young age,
it becomes very quickly apparent that he's exceptionally bright.
He's a really good student.
While at the University of Vienna for his bachelor's degree,
he was specifically trained to become a humanist.
So, Sean actually talked about the word humanist,
and I'm using that word differently, right?
So, does anyone know what humanism is in the Renaissance?
Do you know, Julia?
I feel like you would probably know.
Do you know?
Is it, like, kind of based off utilitarianism, but in a way, like, for human force?
That's one aspect that Sean just talked about today.
Yeah.
I think in the medieval times, they used it a little bit differently.
Okay.
Yeah.
Do you know?
Yeah?
It was, like, emphasizing people and, like, turning to individual intelligence,
rather than seeing, like, from the lens of, like, Christianity or faith.
Yeah, yeah, for sure.
And especially turning inward and emphasizing learning,
their particular thing was emphasizing their motto in Latin called ad fontes,
which was just in English, back to the sources.
So, a humanist was someone who was keen on always turning back to the original source.
So, they were keen on studying classical literature, studying the languages.
And so, you can kind of see how the Reformation is influenced a little bit by Christian humanism
because of their one, their main tenet, sola scriptura.
It takes on a humanist feel, like, let's get back to the original source.
Let's study the original Hebrew.
Let's study the original Greek.
And so, in Vienna, he becomes deeply influenced by this tradition.
And he studies very, very extensively the original languages, the Latin, the Greek, the Hebrew.
Zwingli actually becomes so good at Greek, and he teaches himself Greek, actually,
because he copies all of the New Testament by hand in Greek.
So, he forces himself to do that.
And so, that's how he learns the language.
It's himself.
And you're going to see how becoming proficient in the ancient languages
actually influences him and his preaching in the future.
So, we'll take a look at that.
After he's done with these studies, he becomes a Catholic priest in Glarus, Switzerland.
And he takes up, for the first time in his life, the mantle of pastor, and he shepherds his flock.
He serves that post for 10 years, from 1506 to 1516.
And it's actually in this period of his life that he commits some of the worst sins,
the gravest moral failures of his life.
We talked about last week how priests in the Catholic Church,
they were called to lifelong celibacy.
But the not-so-secret secret of the time was that, basically,
many of the priests didn't hold to that.
Instead, they would go around sleeping around with other women.
And Zwingli, one of the greatest figures of the Protestant Reformation,
wasn't any different from the priests at that time.
And he actually ends up fathering an illegitimate child
with the daughter of a local barber in those years.
I think, again, it's a stark reminder that no one who is worth mentioning in church history,
like a Luther, like a Zwingli, is spotless.
Everyone is sinless.
Everyone has dirt on their face.
They commit some grievous sexual sins.
And in the kindness of God, he uses people like them, too.
Hey, there's a handout right there for you.
That'll be helpful.
How do we know that Zwingli actually committed the sin?
It's actually an interesting story.
Zwingli himself confesses to this sin, this sexual sin,
by his own pen, by a letter he writes.
And then some 300 years later, a renowned Zwingli scholar,
Johannes Skoltes, that's his name,
he discovers this letter in which Zwingli confesses his sin.
He repents with great godly sorrow,
and he recommits himself to live a holy life.
But personally, for Skoltes, this is a really hard moment for him.
Why?
Because Zwingli was his spiritual hero.
He loved and respected Zwingli so much.
And so how could someone so influential, so godly, commit a grievous sin?
And so after much wrestling, he actually decides to burn this letter.
To burn this letter with a candle sitting on his desk so that he could cover up the sin,
so that no one else could hear about Zwingli's moral failures.
No one else could possibly be disillusioned by Zwingli.
And I think we can understand that kind of response too, right?
I don't know, maybe you've personally experienced this or know somebody
where you have a beloved pastor.
You have a woman that you love and respect,
who discipled you for years and years,
and you end up finding that they commit serious moral sins, grievous sins.
That shakes your faith.
And I think Skoltes is going through that experience.
But after about a quarter of the letter is burned,
Skoltes, he changes his mind.
He saves the letter.
He extinguishes the flames.
And he instead says, no,
Protestantism is in the truth of all circumstances.
He archives instead the letter.
He gives it to his assistants.
And he saves the letter so that everybody can read and know of what happened.
And we Christians, we can do this
because our hope, again, does not lie in sinful man,
but it lies in the perfect man of Jesus Christ,
the only man who could bear all the weight of all our hope and expectation.
Then in 1519, Zwingli was appointed the priest at Zurich.
Zurich, rather.
It's in that nation,
one of the most significant ecclesiological positions in the entire country.
It's a position of prominence,
of influence,
and it's really at this pastorate that the Swiss Reformation starts to kick off.
And how does it kick off?
The very first Sunday of his pastorate,
he'd go on to shock the entire congregation by his Sunday sermon,
his first Sunday sermon.
And what did he do that was so shocking?
What he does is that he opens up his Bible,
he starts in the book of Matthew,
and he preaches Matthew 1, 1.
Chapter 1, verse 1.
And then he continues to preach chapter by chapter,
verse by verse, line by line.
Again, I mean, that sounds normal to us
because that's what we do every Sunday, literally.
But back then, this was a revolutionary idea.
This was a revolutionary idea back then, right?
Because the Catholic churches,
what they were expected to do
was to follow the lectionary system.
They were hand-picked verses,
chapters from the papacy itself
to then all these other churches
were supposed to follow and preach.
Instead of doing that,
then he goes preaching through a book of the Bible,
and it's called Lectio Continua.
That's Latin, right?
And he's actually the first reformer
to ever start preaching like this.
And I want to talk a little bit about this, right?
We at Trinity preach like this too.
That's the main diet of how you're going to hear sermons.
Can you think about why?
Why is it important that we preach like this?
We preach verse by verse, line by line.
We go through passage by passage.
What do you guys think?
Yeah, for sure.
Just can't pick and choose.
Yep.
Yeah.
Exactly.
There's so much to that
that you could talk about, right?
You can't cherry pick
your favorite theological topics.
If you just want to talk about one particular thing,
then you could just always talk about that.
You can skip over the hard passages.
Right?
There are many passages
that when I've been assigned to Falls on My Week,
I'm like, man, this is a tough passage to preach.
Like, how am I going to preach this for 40, 50 minutes?
And always God gives me stuff to say.
And I know, Sean, it feels likewise.
But you can't pick and choose.
You can't ride your personal hobby horses.
More ideas on why it's important
that we preach expositionally, verse by verse.
So, Zwingli's preaching is very powerful.
Crowds come in droves
to then hear what he has to say
as he expounds the scriptural text week by week.
And, again, talked about this already,
but Zwingli studied the Greek New Testament.
He taught himself Greek.
And so, like I just said,
his preaching challenges more and more
of the established practices of the Catholic Church,
promoting things like sola scriptura,
the priesthood of all believers,
things that we talked about last week,
if you were here.
And, particularly, he goes against fasting regulations,
clerical celibacy, veneration of the saints,
and, particularly, the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
So, we're going to fly over those things.
But, in particular, one area of reform for Zwingli
is in the worship service.
It's kind of one of the big things that he decided to do.
And he comes up with the regulative principle of worship.
The regulative principle of worship.
Does anyone know what that means or what that is?
Has anyone heard of that?
So, this really becomes one of the hallmarks
of the Reformed tradition.
One of the key ideas of the Reformation,
really, is God is concerned with,
most concerned with what?
Is it humans?
Is it us?
Is it his church?
Is it creation?
He's concerned with all those things, of course.
But what he's most concerned with is his glory,
his own glory.
Right?
And so, if God is most concerned with his own glory,
then how we worship him,
how we glorify him,
how we honor him,
matters to God.
And so,
he sees that God has given instruction
in his scriptures on how,
guidelines on how we are to worship him.
Right?
The scriptures should regulate,
right?
The regulative principle.
The scriptures should regulate how we should worship
and what we should do when we gather for Sunday worship.
Right?
So, on the other hand of this,
right, you have the regulative principle of worship on one hand.
On the other hand is something called the normative principle of worship,
which holds that whatever scripture doesn't explicitly forbid,
then you are allowed to do.
Do you hear the difference?
It's quite different, actually.
So, one says,
I'm only going to do what scripture tells me to do.
The other says,
whatever scripture doesn't forbid,
doesn't tell me to do,
I can do.
And so, they would argue,
the normative guys,
they would argue that
as long as our worship is edifying,
it doesn't directly contradict a practice
that's explicitly forbidden in scripture,
it's then acceptable for us.
We could do it.
But there are particular problems,
I find,
with the normative principle,
our church would find,
it's because there's not a really strong internal filter
with the normative principle, right?
If anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted,
then where is the line?
Where does it stop, right?
You could maybe argue for dramas,
skits, movie clips, right?
Sunday service.
I don't know if you've ever been to a church like that.
But if, again, there's no line,
then why not a stand-up comedy set?
Why not a magic show?
What about a rock concert?
Scripture doesn't prohibit any of those things explicitly,
so, you know, that's all fair game.
But I think there needs to be some kind of line that's drawn, right?
And especially because the normative principle
doesn't have a strong internal filter,
I think it tends to import
whatever the surrounding culture
finds attractive at that time.
All right, so let's say comedy,
just harping on that,
is a big thing, I don't know.
So then we find, okay, that could work.
So let's use a comedy set.
Let's do this new innovative thing
in our church service.
And likewise, I think it's ultimately
promoting this idea of pragmatism.
We'll just do what works.
That's what ultimately will govern
what we do in Sunday service.
What works, what gets people in the door,
what gets money in our pockets, right?
I think there could be issues
with the normative principle.
So, looking at the regulative principle,
do you guys have,
I don't have your Bibles out.
You have your Bible.
Could you read Leviticus 10, 1-2 for us?
Just two verses.
Thanks, Daniel.
Yep.
Now, Nadav and Abihu, the sons of Naren,
each took his censure and put fire in it
and laid into the son of the unauthorized fire
to the Lord, which he had not come in.
And the fire came out from before the Lord,
and they died before the Lord.
Yeah.
So, I think this is like a classic example
of why people should hold
to the regulative principle of worship.
Right?
They offer, Nadav and Abihu,
they offer unauthorized strange fire.
But I think the key,
the phrasing of what Daniel just read
is important, right?
It doesn't say that God commanded them
not to do that.
But it says that God
had not commanded them to do so.
So, there's a difference there.
It's not that they're explicitly
rejecting an explicit command,
but it says that God
had not commanded them to do this.
So, hopefully you guys hear
the difference there.
So, Zwingli searches the scriptures,
and he finds that,
in his view,
that in the New Testament,
there is no instances
of instruments
that are being used during worship.
And so,
because he holds to this
regulative principle so strictly,
he actually strips his church
entirely of any instruments.
He rips out the organ,
right, from the building,
which is actually a shame
because apparently he was
quite the organist.
He was very talented.
And they keep their worship
strictly a cappella,
and they only sing through the psalms.
And there are churches today
that will do the same.
I don't know if you guys
have heard of that.
I think the OPC
will do that as well.
So, then the question comes,
why do we have instruments?
Why don't we just sing
through the psalms?
Sure.
Yeah, sure.
Why is,
was there a reason
why we said New Testament,
like,
obviously,
examples in the Old Testament
of instruments?
Yeah.
Why is that not
to answer?
Yeah.
Zwingli, in general,
he kind of has this
hermeneutic
that I think is flawed too,
where he tends to
lift up the New Testament
more than the Old Testament.
He kind of doesn't see
the Old Testament
as important.
And so,
he gives much more weight
to the New Testament,
which is a great question,
right?
Which is exactly
my pushback, right?
It is in Scripture,
right?
You see lyres and harps
and things like that.
People playing
musical instruments.
So,
why do we have instruments,
right?
Why don't we just,
why do we sing
sovereign grace songs,
right?
Assuming we would probably
have a heart attack
at the idea of singing
sovereign grace songs.
So,
a lot of Protestants
would distinguish
the elements,
what's called the elements,
from the circumstances
of worship.
There are two different
categories.
Elements are
the what of worship,
right?
The main building blocks
of worship
that we should have
because it's explicitly
prescribed in Scripture.
Things like prayer,
things like preaching,
things like singing.
Those are in Scripture
that we're commanded
to do.
The circumstances
are instead the how.
How do we do
those things?
And I think there's
a lot more flexibility
and freedom
in deciding
how we do
these things,
right?
Because Scripture
generally doesn't
actually teach us
exactly how
these things
need to be done,
right?
What time should we
worship?
What time should we
gather?
How long should our
service be?
Should it be two hours
or twelve hours?
Should we have AC?
Right?
Thank God for AC,
right?
Should we have AC?
Scripture doesn't
exactly say.
Should we have pews
or chairs or couches?
There are so many
different questions
that we need to
wrestle with.
I would consider
all those things
circumstances,
right?
Where we're able
to use our best
judgment,
use the God-given
wisdom to be able
to make the best
decision.
And of course
still try to be
as closely governed
and regulated
by Scripture
for those circumstances
too.
And so I think
specifically with the
issue of singing,
right?
I think within
the element
of singing
of musical
worship to the
Lord,
I think the
circumstance
of having
instrumental
accompaniment
is permissible.
That's our
view.
And so I think
we still hold
to the
regulative
principle.
Scripture is
still regulating,
it's outlining
how we worship,
but especially
because Scripture
doesn't give
the exact
details on
the circumstances,
then I think
we can have
a little bit
more flexibility
in that.
The same
year he's
installed as
a priest
in Zurich,
the entire
city is
actually struck
by a plague,
which many
historians believe
to be the
Black Plague,
which wiped
out tens
of millions
of people
across Europe.
Zurich was
no different.
It's a
terrible,
terrible disease,
high fevers,
boils,
severe abdominal
pain,
blackened
extremities
like toes
and your
nose would
become black,
your fingers.
This plague
incapacitated
people and
often killed
people within
one week
from catching
it.
But you see
Zwingli's
pastoral heart
when congregants
of his very
church,
they become
ill.
They're home
bed,
they're stuck
at home,
and while
many of
Zwingli's
loved ones
are telling
him,
don't go
to them,
don't go,
he nonetheless
still visits
their homes
to be able
to sing
worship,
to read
scripture,
to exhort
and encourage
them in
their faith.
Nothing
stops Zwingli
from being
able to
reach out
to them.
And maybe
some of us
can relate
to a little
thing called
COVID five,
six years
ago,
right?
Especially
we didn't
really know
how everything
would shake
out.
Would you
have gone
into the
houses of
those who
were infected
of COVID
when we
didn't know
what was
going on?
if you
thought it
was a
deadly
plague,
maybe you
disagree with
whether that
would be a
wise decision
for Zwingli
to go.
I think
that's a
fair discussion
for conversation.
But you
can't argue
that Zwingli
wasn't an
earnest,
sacrificial
pastor.
He loved
his flock
and he put
his life
on the
line.
And as
a big
surprise to
no one,
he then
contracts
the disease.
He contracts
the plague
and he becomes
quite sick.
But his
entire church,
seeing how
Zwingli,
he didn't
let anything
stop him
from going
out,
reaching out,
loving on
his flock,
they all
rally.
They all
rally behind
him in
prayer.
They pray
ceaselessly
for their
pastor and
Zwingli
miraculously
survives.
He heals.
It actually
takes him
three months
to recover.
He's just
in bed,
stuck in bed
for three
months,
but he does
eventually
fully recover
by God's
grace.
And historians
note that
this experience
really deepened
his sense
of divine
calling and
it deepened
his theological
convictions of
God's sovereignty.
We're not going
to talk a lot
about God's
sovereignty,
those things in
this seminar,
but it really
influences him
in a mighty,
mighty way.
And it seems
to be a key
moment in
shaping Zwingli,
particularly as
a reformer.
It all
comes to a
head,
coming back
to the
Reformation,
thinking about
the Swiss
Reformation,
three years
later in
1522,
an event,
what is called
the Affair
of the
Sausages.
It's an
affair,
it's a
sausage fest.
As Zwingli
is preaching
more and
more about
reformational
ideas,
he leads
his church
again to
this idea
of sola
scriptura,
that scripture
is the
ultimate
authority in
our lives.
Back then,
the church
only baptized
on Easter
Sunday,
and so in
preparation for
their baptism,
all catechumens,
all baptismal
candidates,
people who
are trying to
get baptized,
they were
required to
fast for
40 days,
which is
also what
we know as
Lent,
right?
They were
required to
fast,
and the
idea was
it was for
them to
be able to
cleanse
themselves,
to prove
themselves in
some sense
worthy of
their baptism,
and that
over time
you see that
practice slowly
but surely
be expanded
again to
this works
righteousness,
this Catholic
works righteousness
idea that
it's an
expression of
penance,
it's an
expression to
earn merit
before God,
you have to
fast for
Lent to
be able to
be worthy
for him on
Easter Sunday,
and so the
Catholic Church
actually bans
the eating of
any meat
at that time,
so during
Lent,
no meat was
allowed to be
eaten,
and just as a
side note,
again,
if you decide
to personally
fast for
Lent,
I think that's
great,
you're totally
free to
do so,
but I'd
warn you
not to
slip into
the Catholic
mindset,
the works
righteousness
mindset,
that fasting
is what's
going to
make you
acceptable
before God,
only again
the imputed
righteousness
of Christ,
the perfect
righteousness
that was
received by
faith,
that's what
makes you
acceptable.
So they
study the
scriptures,
they see
that Lent
is nowhere
in scripture,
this fasting
from meat
is nowhere
in scripture,
scripture,
and so
basically as
a PR
stunt,
a group of
Zwingli's
congregants,
they come
together,
and they
have this
deliberate
act of
protest by
throwing this
sausage fest,
they come
together,
and they
smoke a
bunch of
sausages,
bunch of
links,
and they
eat publicly.
Zwingli
actually doesn't
eat with
them,
but in a
sermon later,
he defends
this act,
and he
again claims
that the
Catholic
church is in
the wrong
here.
So it
seems like
a small
trivial act
of just
getting together
with your
buds and
eating sausages,
but this
small act
carried enormous
theological
weight,
and in
many ways
the affair
of the
sausages
is kind
of like
Zwingli's
95 theses,
it's like
his version
of it,
where it's
the first
time he
openly
challenges
the Catholic
church in
such a way
that the
church now
needs to
respond.
So they
have to
respond.
The bishop
of Constance's,
he condemns
this sausage
eating event,
and so in
response,
the Zurich
city
counselors,
the actual
city government,
they step
in and they
call for
public debates
in 1523.
In preparation
for these
debates,
Zwingli
drafts his
version of
the theses,
he drafts
67 theses,
which are
again like
Luther's
theses,
but only
that Zwingli's
is much
more broad
in theological
breadth and
much deeper
in theological
depth as
well.
Zwingli
debates
publicly
some
Catholic
representatives
that were
sent by
the church
on these
issues like
Sola Scriptura,
on issues
like Lent
and fasting,
and honestly
the contest
is a total
sham,
it's like a
total fixed
thing.
The city
counselors
already sided
with
Zwingli,
they were
the judges,
they already
sided with
Zwingli
before the
first words
were even
spoken.
For them
personally,
they're thinking
about money,
they're thinking
about power,
because enormous
amounts of
money is
flowing out
of Zurich
into Rome
at that time
through tithes,
through fees,
through indulgences,
ecclesiastical
taxes.
So siding
with Zwingli,
siding with
the Reformation
meant that they
could keep
that wealth
local,
they could keep
that power
internal.
So they
declare Zwingli
as the
leader,
and this
city,
the canton
of Zurich,
it officially
becomes
Protestant.
Back then
there was no
separation of
church and
state,
right?
So they
made it
officially
illegal to
teach Catholic
doctrine in
their city.
So they
remove images
of venerated
saints,
they reject
fasting laws,
they abolish
the mass,
you had to
become
Protestant
if you
were to
live in
Zurich.
So we're
going to
talk much
more in
depth about
some theological
topics given
Luther's,
Zwingli's
history.
So one of
the most
consequential
theological
controversies in
the Protestant
Reformation is
between Zwingli
and Luther.
Do you guys
know what he
argued?
Yeah,
yeah,
please.
We're going to
talk about
Zwingli and
Luther.
Do you guys
know what they
fought about?
Anyone know?
They had a
huge major
feud.
Something about
the communion.
Yeah,
exactly.
All about the
Lord's Supper.
And it ends
up getting
super,
super messy.
Luther says
some quite
harsh things
about Zwingli.
And as we
talk about the
Lord's Supper,
I think it
could be helpful
to outline the
four views of
the Lord's Supper.
Do you guys
happen to know
any of them?
Oh,
okay.
You do know
all of them.
Great.
Well,
you know,
transubstantiation
is the Roman
Catholic view.
It was and is
the Roman
Catholic view
that what they
argue is that
during the
Lord's Supper,
the bread and
wine,
it actually
physically becomes
the body and
blood of Jesus
Christ.
they're influenced
by Aristotle
and his
philosophical
pattern of
thought.
So Roman
Catholics,
when they
talk about
transubstantiation,
they have two
categories about
speaking about
something,
right?
And one
category is the
substance and
the other
category is
called the
accidents.
Accidents not
meaning like,
oopsie,
I messed up.
Like,
it's completely
different.
the substance
of things,
of something,
is the
essential reality,
the true nature
of a thing,
whereas the
accidents are
more the
outward properties
that could be
swapped,
could be changed
without actually
affecting the
substance of
that thing.
So it's a
little confusing,
but hopefully
this analogy
will help.
If you look
at me,
right,
what is my
substance?
I'm a human
being.
And I have
my accidents,
right,
that I'm
Asian,
I have
black hair,
I wear
glasses,
those are all
my outward
properties,
accidents.
If you were
to swap
any of those
things,
right,
if I dyed
my hair
blonde,
if I got
rid of my
glasses,
if I got
taller,
shorter,
whatever,
I would
still,
my substance
would still
be a human
being.
So that,
I think if I
were to dye
my hair,
that would
be something
called an
accidental
change.
Not again,
like,
oops,
I changed it,
but an
accidental
change,
an outward
change,
a superficial
change in
that sense.
But if you
had this
piece of
wood,
let's say,
and you
paint it
all red,
what would
that be?
That's still
an accidental
change,
right?
It's still a
piece of
wood,
but now let's
say you
burn it to
smithereens.
You have a
campfire,
you burn
it.
That would
be a
substantial
change,
because it's
no longer a
piece of
wood,
but it's
now smoke
and ash,
something like
that,
right?
So,
all that
background is
important,
because Catholics
believe that
when the
priest
consecrates
the bread
and wine,
both,
before they
do that,
rather,
the substance
and the
accidents,
they match
of just
ordinary bread
and wine.
But after he
consecrates it,
the accidents,
the things that
don't define a
particular thing,
it remains of
bread and wine.
It looks,
tastes,
smells like
bread and wine,
but the
substance,
it's a
substantial
change.
They argue
that the
substance of
that thing
is actually
the body and
blood of
Jesus Christ.
Do you guys,
are you guys
following me?
It's kind of
confusing,
but hopefully
that makes
sense.
So,
physically,
what you are
eating is
literally the
body of
Jesus Christ.
Physically,
what you are
drinking is
the blood of
Jesus Christ.
It might taste
like bread,
it might taste
like wine,
but you're
physically eating
Jesus'
blood,
body and
blood.
Right?
That's what
their understanding
of the Lord's
Supper is.
But the
reformers,
they push back
on this
doctrine heavily.
For one,
this is
Zwingli's
argument,
they argue
that this
really just
feels like
a philosophical
abstraction.
It's way
too complicated.
I don't know
if you guys
know the
acronym
KISS.
Do you
guys know
what that
is?
Keep
it
simple
stupid?
That's
essentially
Zwingli's
point.
Keep it
simple.
If it
tastes like
bread,
looks like
bread,
smells like
bread,
what is
it?
It's
bread.
It's
bread.
That's
what he
argues.
And then
also if you
think that it's
actually the
body and
blood of
Jesus Christ,
I think
inevitably
there's some
consequences to
that.
if it
actually
becomes
body and
blood,
then it
would only
be right
and appropriate
to then
worship this
piece of
bread,
to worship
this cup
of juice.
Whenever we
receive it,
we should
venerate it
with all
our hearts
and souls
and minds,
as Sean
just talked
about.
And this
is also
particularly
why the
church
actually
don't
allow the
laity,
the lay
people,
to drink
of the
wine back
then,
because
they're
kind of
condescending.
They thought
they were
uneducated.
They were
going to
mishandle
the wine
and just
essentially
spill it
and drop
it and
treat it
with not
enough
respect.
I think
oddly enough,
we have
kind of
the opposite
problem,
because we
just have
breadcrumbs
all over
the floor.
A good
Catholic
would have
a total
heart attack
seeing the
way that we
do communion.
So that's
a little bit
about transubstantiation.
Did I hear a
question?
No?
Okay.
The next
position on the
Lord's Supper
is Luther's
and it's
called
consubstantiation.
So consubstantiation
or real
physical
presence.
So Luther
rejects
transubstantiation,
maintaining that
the bread
and wine
do physically
remain
ordinary
bread and
wine.
But Luther
is insistent
on interpreting
Jesus'
words when he
says,
this is my
body.
He insists
that it needs
to be interpreted
literally.
And so he
rejects the
transubstantiation
view,
but he still
thinks it's
being literal.
So in order
to make sense
of all that,
he says that
Jesus is
physically
present in,
with,
under the
elements.
So con,
meaning with,
right?
With or in
this position.
He believes
that the bread
and wine,
they still
physically remain
bread and wine,
but Jesus'
body and
blood are
physically
present with
and in
them.
So,
again,
kind of a
confusing
position.
Is it like a
cow-toe?
Is it a piece
of Jesus
inside it?
I'm honestly
not sure of
the metaphysics
behind it,
you know.
It could be.
I think of it
as just that,
yeah,
Jesus is eaten
alongside
these elements.
Yeah.
What do you
mean by that?
The spirit,
like,
when you
receive Christ,
like,
he involves
us.
Yeah.
Yeah,
but he's
insistent on
it being a
physical
phenomenon,
whereas I
think that's
a spiritual
phenomenon.
And so,
again,
just to
explain a
little bit
of his
view,
this is
going to
get technical,
hopefully you
guys can
follow.
But Luther
and the
Lutheran
church today,
they follow
a very
unique
Christological
position in
order to
justify this
view of the
Lord's
Supper.
And so,
do you guys
know what
is the key
tenet in
Christology?
They're just
numbers.
Doctrine of
Christ.
Two
natures,
one person,
right?
That Jesus is
what?
Fully God,
fully man.
First time I
went to a
Bible study
in college,
a friend of
mine said,
Jesus is
half God,
half man.
I think that
actually might
have been my
best friend.
And I just
remember him
getting totally
chewed out.
Probably shouldn't
have gotten
chewed out,
but he did
get chewed
out.
And that's
the problem,
right?
He is two
natures.
He's fully
God,
fully man,
but he is
one person.
That's like the
key tenet of
all Christology,
and you'll see
that throughout
church history.
If you disagree
with any of
those things,
one nature,
one person,
that's a
heresy.
If you think
of two
natures,
two persons,
that's a
heresy.
It has to be
two natures,
one person.
And so,
you see this
idea,
two natures.
You have his
human nature,
his divine
nature.
Luther thinks
that his
divine
attributes,
particularly
omnipresence,
that God is
everywhere all
at once,
his divine
attributes from
his divine
nature can be
communicated to
his human
nature.
So,
it results in
this idea that
Christ's human
nature can be
ubiquitous,
can be everywhere
all at once,
omnipresent.
So,
that's how
they justified
this idea,
right?
Because I
think the
right idea is
that Jesus'
human nature
is just only
singularly located
in heaven,
right?
At the right
hand of the
Father.
But they
argue that
Jesus' human
nature is
actually
physically
everywhere,
which is why
they can then
say that
Jesus is
physically
along with
the elements
in thousands
of churches
on Sundays
where they're
all celebrating
the mass,
that he could
be everywhere
all at once.
The problem
with that view
is that if
you impart
divine attributes
to a human
nature,
what does
that human
nature become?
No longer
human,
right?
It loses
what makes
it distinctly
human.
So,
Calvin,
this is his
particular arm
and he presses
this hard.
After the
resurrection and
ascension,
Jesus'
human nature
is only
present at
the right
hand of
God and
his human
presence can
be physically
everywhere all
at once.
So,
hopefully that
argument made
sense.
Third,
you have
Zwingli's
position.
It is 2 o'clock.
You have
Zwingli's
position,
which is
called the
memorialist
view,
something that
Zwingli,
he adopts
this position
so that he
can buck
as far as
away,
he distanced
himself away
as far as
possible from
the Roman
Catholic view.
So,
he lands on
this and
he argues
that the
Lord's
Supper was
primarily and
only a
memorial.
It's just a
symbolic act
of remembrance.
And
Zwingli
observes that
Jesus himself
says,
do this in
remembrance of
me.
That's a key
fact of
whenever we
celebrate the
Lord's Supper,
is that we
should be
remembering the
death, the
sacrifice of
our Lord and
Savior Jesus
when we
partake of
the Lord's
Supper,
right?
And so
Zwingli
strongly
disagrees that
there is any
bodily presence
with the
elements of
the table.
And so
for Zwingli,
essentially the
elements are
functioning
merely as
visual aids.
They're just
visual aids for
us to
remember.
But if
remembering is
the only
point,
then I
think the
pushback would
be that a
sufficiently
devout
Christian,
someone who's
sincerely
remembering the
Lord Jesus
during the
Lord's table,
it doesn't
really matter
whether you
eat or you
drink or not.
As long as
you remember.
So let's say
that you are
in Trinity and
you don't
actually go up
to take the
elements.
Or you take
the elements and
you remember
Lord Jesus,
you're so
thankful,
you're weeping,
you remember
the death and
sacrifice to
Jesus, but
then you decide
not to
partake.
Zwingli would
just say that
that's essentially
the same thing.
It doesn't
really matter
where you
eat or
drink.
I'm running
short on time,
so I'll move
on to the
fourth position,
which is actually
our own
churches and
denominations
position,
which is a
real spiritual
presence.
Christ is only
physically present
in heaven.
He's not
physically with
us when we
eat and
partake of
the supper.
Yet against
memorialism,
Christ does
give himself
to be eaten,
to be drunk,
right?
Not physically,
but spiritually.
So I think
that there is
an actual
impartation of
grace on you
when you
partake of
the Lord's
supper.
So it
matters, I
think, when
you eat and
when you
drink.
You are
called to
do so,
right?
I told this
story last
week, but
just for those
of you who
guys were
new.
About two
weeks ago,
our sister
Bailey, she
can't eat
gluten, so
she comes up
to the
table and
the gluten-free
crackers, they
were all
empty.
So I was
like, oh
shoot, I
don't know
where they
are.
And I
thought we
just didn't
have it.
So I'm so
sorry.
I just say,
oh, I'm so,
so sorry.
We don't
have anything
for you.
And I think
just as a
means to make
me feel
better, she
just says,
oh, it's
okay, I'll
eat it in
spirit.
So I was
like, okay,
I don't know,
I don't have
the crackers,
so what can
I do?
And then
someone else
actually comes
up and says,
oh, actually
the crackers
are down
here.
So I'm
like, oh,
thank God.
So I
asked Sean,
like, even
though it's
maybe awkward
or out of
place, I
asked Sean
to bring
the cracker
over to
her so that
she can
partake of
the Lord's
supper.
And I
think we're
insistent on
doing that
because,
again,
there's an
impartation of
grace.
It actually
matters that
you physically
eat.
So,
again,
Zwingli would
say that
Christ is
just merely
remembered
during the
supper.
Calvin would
say that
Christ is
truly received
spiritually
through the
supper.
So hopefully
that gives a
little bit
more color
whenever,
one last
statement,
hopefully that
gives a little
bit more
color whenever,
you know,
whoever's doing
the Lord's
supper at the
time,
whether Sean
or me
or whoever.
We always
say, by
your word
and spirit,
consecrate
these elements,
right, so
that while they
remain ordinary
physical bread
and juice,
but spiritually
to us,
they may be
the life-giving
body and blood
of Jesus
Christ.
That's Calvin's
view.
That's this
real spiritual
presence view
kind of summed
up in one
line.
Keep moving.
So back to
the story,
right,
Luther and
Zwingli,
at this point,
they're aware
of each other.
At the beginning
of their
relationship,
they're actually
quite cordial.
They treat
one another
with mutual
respect,
but once
Luther finds
out about
Zwingli's
position on
the Lord's
Supper,
they go
back and
forth,
write letters,
and the
debate becomes
increasingly
bitter,
public.
Luther thought
that Zwingli's
view emptied
the Lord's
Supper of
all of its
power and
grace,
and Zwingli
thought that
Luther didn't
break away
enough from
the sacramentalism
from the
Catholic Church.
And so the
conflict reaches
its full
conclusion at
the colloquy
of Marburg
in 1529.
And it's
called by
actually a
German prince,
Philip of
Hesse,
I'm not
exactly sure
how to say
that,
because he
wants a
Protestant
unity to
stand against
the powerful
and rich
Catholic
Church.
And there
the leading
reformers like
Luther and
Zwingli,
they come
together,
they try to
rectify and
unify their
theological
views.
And remarkably,
between the
two of
them,
they actually
agree on
14 out
of 15
theological
articles.
So there
is remarkable
theological
unity,
but of
course the
one point
that they
disagree is
on the
Lord's
Supper.
Luther
demanded
that they
write literally
this is my
body,
and Zwingli
insists that
he write,
that they
write,
this signifies
my body.
That one
word change
they can't
agree upon.
And so
the feud
never
resolves.
And it
actually gets
so bitter
that Luther
goes on to
say about
Zwingli
that he
was seven
times more
dangerous than
when he was
a papist,
when he was
a Catholic.
And he
famously declared
that he would
rather share
wine with
Catholics
than to
drink it
with
Zwinglians.
So this
famously splits
the Lutheran
tradition from
the Reformed
tradition.
So again,
if you have
any questions
or curious
about why
there are so
many denominations,
what is the
Lutheran church
about,
what is this
church,
you have to
study church
history.
So this
really marks
the break
of the
Lutheran
tradition,
why we
have
Lutheran
churches
today,
and why
we have
churches,
Reformed
churches
like
Presbyterians.
Okay,
I want to
talk about
baptism.
It's an
important part.
So on
this topic
of a
sacrament,
I want to
highlight
Zwingli's
teaching on
baptism.
And I
want to
highlight it
because I
think Zwingli's
position of
baptism actually
marks one of
the most
remarkable moves
in church
history for
doctrine,
for theology.
He does
essentially
something that
no one has
ever done in
the history of
the church.
Since the
early church,
baptism has
always been
tied in with
the idea of
faith.
Faith is a
prerequisite to
be baptized.
You need
to have
faith so
that you
can be
properly
baptized.
That's
so integral
to the
idea of
baptism.
So then
the question
comes,
what about
babies?
What about
infants?
So
following
Augustine,
the medieval
thought actually
was that
the church
essentially
provides
faith for
the baby.
that they
believed on
behalf of
the baby.
It's like
an alien
faith that
gets imparted
on to
the child.
So
others as
the centuries
go on,
they see that
this really
doesn't make a
whole lot of
sense.
Faith by
its definition
is something
that you must
do on your
own for
oneself.
So this
idea of
alien faith
doesn't stick.
So then
here comes
Luther.
He's also
an infant
Baptist.
He's a
paedo-baptist.
He also
agrees you
need to
have faith
to be
baptized.
You can't
separate the
two.
So then
how can
infants
then be
baptized?
Well,
Luther
essentially
believes that
by the
mystery of
God,
the baby
actually
does
believe.
The baby
believes,
has faith,
knows Jesus
Christ,
loves Jesus
Christ.
That's
why they
can get
baptized.
And you
might push
him,
saying,
Luther,
how in
the world
does that
work?
Baby can't
do anything
for himself.
He doesn't
even know
Jesus.
And he
will push
back saying
that it
is the
mystery of
God for
us not
to know.
It's only
by God's
sovereignty,
all his
wisdom,
only God
knows,
we don't
know.
And so
when the
parents or
the godparents
of the child
are asked,
does the
infant believe,
does he or
she want
to get
baptized?
And the
parents answer
in the
affirmative,
yes.
By the
mystery of
God,
Luther thinks
that it
actually is
the infant
that believes.
So there's
another group,
theological group,
called the
Anabaptists.
I don't know if
you guys have
ever heard of
them,
the Anabaptists.
And they
take a look at
this,
and they
conclude that
this simply
does not
make any
sense.
Anabaptists,
which also means
to re-baptize,
they actually
emerge from
Zwingli's own
reform movement
in Zurich,
but they
actually push
the ideas
further along
than Zwingli's
comfortable with.
And they
also have a lot
of theological
wacky ideas,
and we won't
get into
them there,
but they
reject infant
baptism in
favor of
believers'
baptism.
And so it's
only those
who can make
a credible
profession of
faith,
only them,
that should
get baptized.
And so they
make strong
arguments for
believers'
baptism,
which then
forces Zwingli
to consider
new ways
to defend
infant baptism.
And so in
his groundbreaking
essay,
aptly titled
On Baptism,
he opens
by explaining
that for his
views of
baptism,
he's reticent
to share
them.
But he's
essentially being
forced by the
Anabaptists.
And he starts
by declaring
that all the
church fathers,
everyone in
church,
before his
time,
essentially made
a huge error
on baptism.
It's an
extremely bold
claim,
saying for
1500 years
since Christ,
everybody got
this wrong,
right?
I'm the one
who's getting
this right.
Again,
very,
very bold.
And here's
the remarkable
change that
Zwingli makes,
right?
So if you
have the
three,
faith,
baptism,
and infants,
they try to
keep all those
together.
What Zwingli
does is he
kicks out
faith,
the need
for faith.
So you
no longer
need faith
to be
baptized.
So he
severs that
link.
It's a
non-essential
for the
sacrament of
baptism.
And instead,
baptism primarily
becomes a
covenantal sign
or an
external marker
that you are
of the people
of God.
So it
doesn't depend
on your
personal faith.
right?
I'm going to
try to
diagram really
quickly something
that my
seminary professor
did and I
thought it was
so helpful.
So I'll try to
do it really
quickly.
So these
circles,
these outer
circles,
define the
people of God,
the covenant
community of
God.
So on the
right,
or on the
left,
you have the
Old Testament
community of
God.
And the
New Testament,
you have the
New Testament
community of
God,
right?
So what,
what defines,
how do you
get into
the community
of God in
the Old Testament?
Do you guys
know?
That's a
circumcision,
exactly.
Right?
So that's what
defines,
just being
defined as
the people of
God.
But this
inner ring,
it defines
those who
are of the
theological,
the spiritual
remnant,
those who
actually have
faith.
So you have
on the
outside,
people like
Esau,
who are
still considered
people of
God,
but they
don't have
genuine faith.
But then you
have the
chosen,
the Jacobs
inside.
So how do
you get in
here?
Yeah,
you need to
have genuine
faith.
And so
Zwingli's main
argument is
that there is
a continuity
of these
covenants.
He sees the
same idea.
So in the
New Testament,
what he sees
is that
this act of
getting into
the covenant
community of
God is
baptism.
Baptism is
that,
right?
And so
following kind
of Jesus'
languages with
the wheats
and the
tares,
you have
the wheats
on the
outside,
and you
have the
tares,
sorry,
wheats
and the
tares
here,
right?
So you
still need
genuine
spiritual
faith to
be able to
be considered
the remnant
of the
faithful,
but he
makes this
connection
between
circumcision
and baptism,
right?
That circumcision
and who
got circumcised?
When were you
supposed to get
circumcised?
Yeah,
exactly.
Babies,
male babies
specifically,
but he
makes that
connection now
that baptism
is just
the mere
New Testament
version of
circumcision.
You guys,
are you guys
following?
Why we
don't
baptize
babies,
why we
are believers
back to
we're a
Baptist
church,
is this
question,
what is
new?
What is
new about
the New
Covenant?
There has
to be
something new
about it,
right?
Can someone
open up
your Bible
again and
read Jeremiah
31?
Jeremiah 31.
31.
And just
read there
for a little
bit.
Ah,
the days
are coming,
when I
will make
a new
covenant
with the
people of
Israel
and with
the people
of Judah.
It will not
be like
the covenant
I made
with their
ancestors
when I
took them
by hand
to be
the God
of Egypt
because
they broke
my covenant
though I was
a husband
to them,
declares
the Lord.
This is
a covenant
I will make
the people
of Israel.
After
this time,
declares
the Lord,
I will throw
my laws
in their minds
and write
it on their
hearts.
I will be
their God
and they
will be
my people.
No longer
will they
teach their
neighbor
or say
to one
another,
know the
Lord,
because they
will all
know me
from the
list of
them to
the greatest.
Detail
is the
Lord.
for
I will
forgive
their
sins
and
remember
their
sins
and
remember
their
sins
for
more.
That's a good place to stop.
Thanks.
Thanks, Zipporah.
Do you guys understand the point I'm trying to make by reading that passage?
Is what is new about it?
Is that these people,
these covenant community,
they're marked by genuine faith.
They have God's laws written on their hearts,
right?
And so,
we have a problem.
I don't think that there's necessarily this problem.
I mean,
again,
there are wheats and tares,
unfortunately,
in the church,
but I don't think that's by design,
right?
So,
I think to be able to enter into the covenant community of God,
you need to still have faith as a prerequisite of baptism.
And so,
sometimes you hear Baptists,
like,
we're the new kids on the block,
because for 1,500 years,
they always practiced infant baptism,
which also might not be exactly true.
There are some church fathers,
like Tertullian,
who questioned that practice as well.
But,
I think there needs to be,
it needs to be said that
even people who baptize babies,
they have to make some theological innovations,
recent theological innovations,
so that they could justify their practice.
They disconnect faith and baptism.
Do you guys,
hopefully that makes sense,
right?
Coming up on time,
we're at 2.30.
So,
I'll just fly through the rest of this.
This is another instance
that's kind of a smear on Zwingli's campaign,
or legacy,
rather.
Some more about the Anabaptists.
So,
we already talked about the first disputation
in 1523.
But,
in the following disputations to come,
it's actually Zwingli versus the Anabaptists.
And,
he feuds with them over issues like infant baptism,
and particularly over the separation of church and state.
On the latter issue,
over issues like,
over issues like religious liberty,
and separation of church and state.
The Anabaptists are actually
a little bit ahead of their time.
They argue for things like
separation of church and state.
And so,
for a couple of these different reasons
of these disagreements,
Zwingli now considers his former disciples
very dangerous radicals.
And so,
under the influence of Zwingli,
the church council of Zurch,
they condemn the Anabaptists,
and they condemn,
they execute them as heretics.
Most notably,
famously,
drowning Felix Manns
in 1517,
or 1527,
to which Zwingli,
he doesn't make any objection at all.
The rest of the Anabaptists scatter,
and their movement spreads,
it survives,
and it eventually goes on to influence
the development of other branches
of Christianity,
like the Amish,
or the Mennonites.
So,
if you know anything about the Amish Mennonites,
this is kind of the root
of where they get started.
And it remains one of the great ironies
of the Reformation
that many reformers,
they sought freedom
from persecution from Rome,
but they deny that same kind of treatment
to people who reformed further than them.
Finally,
getting to his death,
back to the life of Zwingli.
Now,
at that time,
Switzerland wasn't a united nation.
It's actually a confederation of cantons,
a confederation of different cities and towns.
And there was no,
as I said,
no separation of church and state.
And there's a division of cantons.
There's kind of a growing tension,
a civil war brewing,
between the Protestant cantons,
like Zurich,
and then the Catholic cantons.
And this tension escalates so bad
that it amounts to open conflict.
And it leads to war,
the second war of Kappel in 1531.
And so Zwingli,
he's decked in full armor.
He actually goes out to battle
with his troops,
the troops of Zurich,
as a chaplain,
as a spiritual leader.
Um,
but very quickly,
Zurich and her forces,
uh,
they realize they are badly outnumbered,
and they are soundly defeated.
Um,
his body,
uh,
I think that,
I don't know if this is actually true,
it could be legend,
but,
uh,
the story goes that
he was found wounded,
but alive,
on the battlefield.
And the Catholics come,
and they find him,
and ask him,
do you want your last rites?
Do you,
do you want to renounce,
uh,
all your heresies?
And he says no,
and they kill him on the spot.
His body is then
ritually humiliated,
it's reduced to ashes,
and,
uh,
he,
he's not given a proper burial,
proper funeral.
Um,
Zwingli should have been less concerned
to defend the gospel
by political and military means,
but,
I think at the heart of it,
the,
the heart of Zwingli
is captured in one of his last admonitions,
is to do something bold for God.
Right?
He,
that's his heart's desire,
to do something bold for God.
Um,
and he,
he goes out with a bang in battle.
As I've said,
Zwingli is the,
the start of the reformed tradition,
um,
in Switzerland,
and he's actually a major influence on John Calvin,
who is a second generation reformer.
And,
we're gonna take up the mantle,
and,
and talk about him next week.
So,
that concludes all the,