AND THE LORD’S SUPPER
By
William Tyndale
began his
work of translating the Bible in 1519. However, opposition by those who
did not
want the Bible translated into English was so fierce that he was forced
to flee
to
Therefore, even though he wrote little
about baptism
— and some of the things he did publish may have been written by others
who
withheld their names for fear of persecution — when it comes to baptism
and the
Lord’s supper, we know his views were essentially what was being taught
at the University
of Wittenburg.
Concerning
Baptism
By the time William Tyndale arrived in Wittenburg,
Luther had rejected the idea that infants could be saved through the
faith of
their parents, and stressed personal faith in Christ. A faith “which
accepts
the promise as a present reality and believes that the forgiveness of
sins is
actually being offered” (Apology to the Augsburg Confession, article
13).
As to what was being
taught at Wittenburg. In 1520 Martin
Luther had published a book
entitled, “The Babylonian Captivity of
the Church,” and baptism was one of the topics dealt with in that
book. One
year later (1521) Luther’s colleague Melanchthon
published a longer work entitled, “Loci
Communes” (Common Topics). Unlike the somewhat controversial and
divisive
book that Melanchthon published about 20
years later,
this book was highly regarded by Luther.
Both of those books
would have
been available to Tyndale, and both of
them view
baptism as consisting of two parts: 1- the promise of God’s grace in
Christ,
and 2- the outward sign (ceremony) which God has connected with that
promise.
Or, as Luther himself put it, “The first thing in baptism to be
considered is
the divine promise… The second part of baptism is the sign, or
sacrament, which
is that immersion into water from which also it derives its name.… For,
as has
been said, signs are added to the divine promises to represent that
which the
words signify.” [From
Luther’s, “The Babylonian Captivity of
the Church”.]
After
Abraham was justified through faith in God’s promise, the Bible tells
us that
circumcision was instituted as a token or sign of God’s covenant with
Abraham,
and the righteousness he had through faith. (Compare Genesis 15:6 and
Luther and Melanchthon saw similar
signs given throughout scripture.
For example: The rainbow was given as a sign (or token) of God’s
promise to
never again destroy the world with water (Genesis
Now, even though
Luther regarded
the outward ceremony of baptism as a sign, he disagreed strongly with
those who
said that baptism is only a sign and nothing more. Because God
instituted
baptism as a way of confirming His promise of forgiveness in Christ,
those who
explain away the promise of grace connected with baptism cast doubt on
God’s
promise (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38). And, by casting doubt on God’s promise
they
hinder the work of salvation by making that promise of “no effect”
(Mark
Having said this, I
want to make
it clear that baptism is not the only way we can receive God’s promise
of
forgiveness in Christ. God gives us that same promise through
preaching, having
the gospel explained to us, reading his Word, and through the Lord’s
Supper.
However, it is important to understand that baptism is not a work that
God
requires, but a way of telling us that when we came to Christ our sins
were
washed away.
Without personal
faith in Christ
baptism is incomplete. It is faith in Christ that brings us the true
baptism,
the inner baptism, the baptism of the Spirit — which consists of having
our
sins washed away by the blood of Christ (1John 1:7). Without faith in
Christ,
we remain stiff-necked and unbaptized at
heart, no
matter how many times we have been baptized with water. That is why
Luther
said, “Without faith baptism avails nothing” (Large
Catechism).
Tyndale
And Infant Baptism
Since Tyndale
(like Luther)
believed that baptism had replaced circumcision as a divine testimony
that we
have been justified by faith, he saw God’s command to circumcise
infants as
evidence of His approval of infant baptism. However, he was not willing
to go
as far as Luther went, or use some of the arguments that Luther used,
in
defense of infant baptism. Likewise, he did not assume that those who
were
baptized automatically received God’s gift of faith. Instead, he
believed that,
just as many who had been circumcised as infants remained stiff-necked
and
uncircumcised at heart, many who have been baptized as infants remain
stiff-necked and unbaptized at heart.
(Romans
2:28-29, Jeremiah
Concerning
The Lord’s Supper
Like
baptism, the Lord’s Supper consists of two parts. First, the promise of
forgiveness in Christ, which is set forth in His words, “My body… is
given for
you,” and “My blood… is shed for you for the remission of sins.” And
second,
the outward ceremony, which was instituted as a divine testimony to
that
promise of forgiveness.
Now, it is
important to realize that Christ’s words, “My body… is given for you,”
and “My
blood… is shed for you” are just another way of saying, “I died for
your sins”.
Both statements are referring to His death on the cross, and both
statements
mean the same thing. To believe that Christ’s body and blood were
“given” and
“shed” for you is to believe that He died for your sins. There is no
difference.
Therefore,
when you partake of the Lord’s Supper believing that Christ’s body and
blood
were “given” and “shed” for you, you are by faith accepting His
sacrifice [i.e.
His body and blood] as the atonement for your sins. And, all who accept
His
sacrifice as the atonement for their sins truly receive His body and
blood, not
as physical food, but as the atonement for their sins.
Now, even
though
Luther regarded the outward ceremony of the Lord’s Supper as a sign, he
firmly
believed that Christ’s body and blood are being given to those who
partake of
the Lord’s Supper. However, he did not believe that Christ’s body and
blood are
physically present. Lutheran theology has historically rejected that
idea. (Book of
Here is what Luther said: “Now this treasure is conveyed
and communicated to us in no other way
than through the words “given and shed for you for the forgiveness of
sins.” In
these [words] you receive the double assurance that it is Christ's body
and
blood, and that it is yours as your treasure and gift… And inasmuch as
He
offers and promises forgiveness of sins, there is no other way of
receiving it
than by faith… that which is given in and with the sacrament cannot be
grasped
nor appropriated by our body. This is done by faith in the heart, which
discerns this treasure and desires it.” (Large Catechism)
According to this
view, Christ
gives His body and blood to all who come to the Lord’s Supper, but only
those
who believe that He died for their sins receive it. However, in his
polemical
statements Luther sometimes spoke of Christ’s body and blood being
present in
the sacrament in a way that even unbelievers receive it — and there is
where Tyndale differed from Luther. The “Formula of Concord” speaks of this when it says, “There
is
therefore a twofold eating of the flesh of Christ” (Book of Concord, Tappert edition, page 580, 61.) The first way is
the way
that I have described above. The second way,
is a way
in which even unbelievers receive Christ’s body and blood. When the “Formula of Concord” was drafted it
specifically rejected the idea that “unbelieving and impenitent
Christians do
not receive the body and blood, but only bread and wine”. [Book of
Who
is Worthy
The fact
that the Apostle Paul warns us of the danger of partaking of the Lord’s
Supper
to our own condemnation tells us that the Lord’s Supper is not for
everyone
(1Corinthians 11:27-31). Moreover, the fact that it is faith in Christ,
not
works, that makes us righteous in the sight of God tells us that “There
is only
one kind of unworthy guest [at the Lord’s Supper], namely, those who do
not
believe.” (Book of
For that
reason, it should be obvious that the Lord’s Supper should never be
offered to
unbelievers. Nor is it for children, or those who are mentally unable
to
examine themselves. Furthermore, the fact that anyone who remains
unrepentant
after being dealt with according to the steps of Matthew 18:15-17 is to
be
treated like a “heathen man,” tells us that the Lord’s Supper is
not to
be offered to those under church discipline.
The fact that we are
to exclude
those who are sexually immoral, yet unrepentant (1Corinthians 5:1-5),
tells us
that such people are deceiving themselves if they think God accepts
them (1John
1:6 and 2:4). And, that includes all homosexuals (1Corinthians 6:9-11).
We are
not showing love to such people if we do not warn them of God’s
condemnation
and their need to repent.
Conclusion
“One would indeed think it to be utterly
impossible
for a Christian minister to teach that the Sacraments produce salutary
effects ex opere operato; [i.e. just by performing the act] still, that is what happens
again and again. // If I am justified, if I obtain grace by my act of
submitting to baptizing or by my act of going to Communion, I am
justified by
works, and that, altogether paltry works, scarcely worth mentioning.
For that
is what Baptism and Holy Communion are when viewed as works that we
perform. It
is a horrible doctrine, wholly contradicting the Bible,
that
divine grace is obtained if a person at least makes external use of the
Sacraments. The truth is that Baptism and Holy Communion place any
person under
condemnation who does not approach them with faith in his heart.” (C. F. W. Walther, Law and Gospel, pages 351
and 346)