The Journal of E P Theological Association · The Journal of the Pentecostal Theological Association (JEPTA) is a peer-reviewed international journal which has a pedigree stretching

JEPTA 2009.2

I

The Journal of

the European Pentecostal

Theological Association

Vol.29. 2 (2009)

Editor: William K Kay

JEPTA 2009.2

1 THE JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN PENTECOSTAL THEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

ISSN: 0774-6210

Vol. XXIX No. 2 (2009)

Copyright ©2009 EPTA

Editor Revd Dr William K Kay, Centre for Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies

Bangor University, Gwynnedd, Wales LL57 2DG, UK

Editorial board William K. Kay, Desmond Cartwright (ELIM archivist, UK) Andrew Davies

(Mattersey Hall, UK), Anne Dyer (Mattersey Hall), Hubert Jurgenson

(Theologisches Seminar Beroea, Germany), Richard Massey, David Petts,

Jean-Daniel Plьss (EPCRA), Carl Simpson (ETS Kniebis, Germany), Donald

Dean Smeeton, (Eastern Mennonite University), Cees van der Laan (Free

University, Amsterdam), Paul van der Laan (South Eastern University

Florida), Keith Warrington (Regents Theological College, UK), Matthias

Wenk (Institut Plus, Switzerland).

Editorial policy The Journal of the Pentecostal Theological Association (JEPTA) is a peer-

reviewed international journal which has a pedigree stretching back to 1981

when it began as the EPTA Bulletin. Despite its European origins JEPTA has

interests in Pentecostalism world-wide., It aims to promote and report

research and scholarship in Pentecostal and Charismatic studies especially

in relation to five fields of study:

Theology

Pentecostal / charismatic education

Pentecostal history

Charismatic history

Missiology

The journal welcomes interdisciplinary debate and dialogue.

Editorial Addresses

Editorial Correspondence should be addressed to the Editor above. Books

for review should also be sent to Dr Kay.

JEPTA 2009.2

14JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN PENTECOSTAL THEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Calvin, Spirit, Communion and the Supper

Larry Daniel Siekawitch1

Abstract

John Calvin has been one of the most influential theologians in the history of

Christianity. Caricatures abound where he is portrayed as an intellectualist without

a heart, divisive and an antagonist toward evangelism – none of these are true. By

looking at his doctrine concerning the Lord’s Supper we will see a man with deep

affections and a great interest for unity in the body of Christ, someone whom

Pentecostals can glean from with profit.

His views regarding the Supper were not simply a compromise between Zwingli and

Luther, but rather reflect a conscious attempt to be both biblical and ecumenical. A

survey of the evolution of his thought will reveal the unique contribution to

Christianity he brought that did not change in substance, but rather in depth. After

looking at a survey of his writings on the subject of the Lord’s Supper we will look at

the importance of the Spirit in Calvin’s theology. The Spirit was Calvin’s solution

for how the benefits of the Supper were applied to the Christian without seeing the

elements themselves as magical. When the believer partakes in the Supper combined

with faith, the Spirit produces the benefits, especially communion with Christ.

Calvin’s presentation of the Supper in one sense can be seen as a compromise

between Zwingli and Luther as a marvellous attempt at bringing unity in the body

of Christ, but it is also a masterful endeavour to present the Biblical truth of the

place of the Spirit and communion in the Supper.

Introduction

In Pentecostal circles John Calvin has either been ignored or vilified by

many. It is the hope of the writer that some of the caricatures of Calvin

would be eliminated and a new appreciation for his contributions to

theology would ensue. Calvin has been called ‘the theologian of the Holy

1 Professor of Bible and Theology at Elim Bible Institute, 7245 College St., Lima, NY,

14485, 585-624-5277, [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

L. SIEKAWITCH

JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN PENTECOSTAL THEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION15

Spirit’2 and communion with God has been cited as the center or heart of his

theology.3 If these declarations are true then it can be seen why Pentecostals

may want to take a second look at Calvin. A study of his pneumatic element

in the Lord’s Supper reveals his ecumenicity, high view of the Spirit and

experiential faith. Some questions we will address include: Was Calvin’s

doctrine of the Supper an irenic compromise of Luther and Zwingli, an

original Biblical contribution, or both? What part did communion with God

play in his understanding of the Supper? Where does the Holy Spirit fit in?

First we will give an historical overview of the progression of Calvin’s view

of the Supper to see it in its historical context. Next we will look at Calvin’s

understanding of the Spirit. Finally the Holy Spirit, communion with Christ

and the Supper will be considered.

Historical Overview of Calvin’s View of the Supper

Martin Luther heavily influenced Calvin’s early teaching on the Supper. It

has been said that Calvin borrowed his ideas on union with Christ from

Luther’s Sermon Upon the True and Sacred Body of the Christ (1519),4 as well as

his rejection of transubstantiation from The Babylonian Captivity. But it

appears that even from the very beginning of Calvin’s writings on the

Supper he sought a middle ground between Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, as

Alexander Barclay said, ‘Calvin seemed destined to be a mediator.’5 Luther

rejected the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation where the bread and

wine become the body and blood of Christ and are therefore considered a re-

sacrifice of Christ, but he maintained a real presence of the body and blood

of Jesus in, with and through the elements (consubstantiation). Zwingli, the

founding reformer in Zurich, denied both the Catholic transubstantiation

and the Lutheran consubstantiation, holding to the belief that the elements

2 Benjamin Warfield, ‘John Calvin the Theologian,’ in Calvin and Augustine, edited by

Samuel Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1956), p. 484. 3 Willem van’t Spijker, Calvin and the Holy Spirit, edited by Peter De Klerk (Grand

Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1989), p. 44. It should be noted that by center of theology I am not referring to the concept of ‘central dogma’ popular among nineteenth century theologians, but rather that of central importance.

4 Francois Wendel, Calvin (Durham, NC: The Labyrinth Press, 1987), p. 330. 5 Alexander Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (Glasgow: Jackson,

Wylie, and co., 1927), p. 113.

CALVIN SPIRIT COMMUNION

16 JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN THEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

of the Lord’s Supper were ‘figurative and symbolical.’6 Some want to rescue

Zwingli by saying he did not mean the Supper was a ‘bare’ sign and so they

claim he allowed for a spiritual presence in the Supper,7 but in all of his

writings on the subject he argues against any real presence, seeing the

Supper as a memorial and an avenue for giving thanks to God for what he

has done; he never refers to a communion or spiritual presence to be

experienced in the partaking of the bread and wine.8 Zwingli’s stance is

probably the most predominant position of most Baptists and Pentecostals

today. But in his reaction to the Catholics and Lutherans he may have

inadvertently truncated the meaning of the Supper.

A brief study of Calvin’s 1536 edition of the Institutes, his Short Treatise

on the Holy Supper of Our Lord Jesus Christ (1540), the Consensus

Tigurinus (1549), The Second Defense Against Westphall (1556), his 1559

edition of the Institutes and a short summary of his beliefs on the Supper

written at the end of his life called Best Method of Obtaining Concord will

help us see Calvin’s uniqueness and his conciliatory skills. In this brief

synopsis we will pay special attention to his mention of the Holy Spirit as

well as how he parallels and diverges from Luther and Zwingli.

1536 Institutes

Calvin was a remarkable man. Originally from France, he was forced to flee

for his life to Geneva because of his evangelical beliefs. He was converted

sometime between 1532 and 1533 and penned his first edition of the

Institutes in August 1535; this being the case, one would expect the first

edition to reveal a lack of preparation, but Ford Lewis Battles correctly notes

concerning his writing on the Supper that he ‘enters the debate not as a new

voice just beginning its labours, but as if Calvin had long been debating the

6 G.W. Bromiley, editor, Zwingli and Bullinger (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,

1953), 199. 7 Bromiley., Zwingli and Bullinger 179. 8 In his lengthy treatise ‘On the Lord’s Supper’ he has ample opportunity to mention

communion and spiritual presence, but defers. In his discussion of 1 Corinthians 10:16 where communion is mentioned he argued that koinonia should be understood as the community of the believers rather than a personal fellowship with Christ. Bromiley, Zwingli and Bullinger., 236-237.

L. SIEKAWITCH


points at issue.’9 As far as our study is concerned, though he elaborated

considerably on the Supper by the 1559 edition, all the emphases concerning

the Spirit are in place at this early date at least in embryonic form. These

emphases included: The Spirit nourishes the believer, especially by

strengthening his or her faith through the Supper; the Spirit connects the

believer to Christ rather than Christ coming down into the Supper; the Spirit

increases communion with Christ as the believer partakes in the Supper; the

Spirit inspires thanksgiving and praise as well as unity in the body as the

church takes the Supper in remembrance of what Christ did for her.

The 1536 Institutes are not very conciliatory and though it should be seen

as a median position between Zwingli and Luther, it attacked Luther,

rejecting the idea of ‘the real presence of the body’10 and the concept of

ubiquity.11 Calvin quoted Zwingli favorably for the most part, but unlike

Zwingli he spoke of the Supper as spiritual nourishment for the soul.12 Since

Jesus has gone up to heaven he is only present on earth spiritually. It is the

Spirit that imparts the benefits of Christ’s blood to us, which ‘strengthen,

refresh, and gladden’ us,13 so we are to seek Christ in the Supper to feed our

souls and ‘obtain him spiritually.’14 The Supper is an ongoing provision or

‘continual food on which Christ spiritually feeds the household of his

believers.’15 For Calvin, even at this early stage, the Spirit is highlighted in

regard to His responsibility for the distribution of the benefits of the Supper.

9 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1536 Edition translated and annotated by

Ford Lewis Battles, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. lii. It would be safe to say he had read Zwingli, Luther and Bucer by this time.

10 Calvin, Institutes, p. 110. 11 Calvin, Institutes, p. 106. Ubiquity is the idea that Christ’s glorified body is able to be

in more than one place at a time; his body can be everywhere. Battles points out that Calvin is referring to Luther’s statements in The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ Institutes,., p. 282 and Calvin goes so far as to call anyone holding this position a madman. Institutes, p. 106.

12 He calls the bread ‘spiritual food, sweet and delicate’ where our faith is fed. Calvin, Institutes, pp. 110 and 107, see also p. 93.

13 Calvin, Institutes, p. 103. 14 Calvin, Institutes, p. 104. 15 Calvin, Institutes, p. 120.



Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper of Our Lord Jesus Christ

In 1538 Calvin was forced out of Geneva by the Genevan Council and spent

three years in Strasbourg as a university lecturer and pastor of a

congregation of French refugees. These were some of the happiest years for

Calvin.16 At this time Calvin was greatly influenced by Martin Bucer, the

lead reformer of that city and a strong supporter of unity among Protestants.

Bucer magnified the importance of the Holy Spirit in his theology. At this

point it will be helpful to show Bucer’s beliefs about the Supper, especially

the place of the Holy Spirit in our communion with Christ when we

participate in the Supper.

Bucer wrote three important works on the Supper that reveal a

progression in thought as well as willingness to compromise for the sake of

unity. In 1526 he wrote ‘The Apology of Martin Bucer’ on the Eucharist in

response to accusations made by John Brenz who had devised the Lutheran

formula adopted by the Lutheran clergy meeting at Schwabisch-Hall in 1525.

In Bucer’s Apology representing the Strasbourg Preachers, he thoroughly

rejected any form of a physical presence of Christ in the Supper.17 He began

by stressing his distaste for disputes because of the division they cause.

Though he advocates unity he was not very conciliatory at this time. There

is little attempt to pacify Brenz, and the document is focused almost entirely

on rejecting the Lutheran belief in the real presence of Christ in the Supper.

In this writing the Supper is seen as a memorial only,18 and any idea of the

sacraments as confirming or strengthening faith is absent.19 Also there is no

16 Carter Lindberg, The European Reformations (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1996),

p. 258. 17 One can see the similarity here with Calvin’s later position in the 1536 Institutes. 18 Bucer stated, ‘The Spirit seems to us to teaching [sic] nothing further than this. For in

those passages he has presented the Supper as being nothing more for us than the solemn commemoration of Christ’s death endured on our behalf.’ Martin Bucer, Common Places (Appleford, England: The Sutton Courtenay Press, 1972), p. 321. Here he is clear that the Supper means ‘nothing more’ than a commemoration.

19 He stated, ‘Wherefore those who teach that faith is confirmed by the use of the sacraments, or that just as herbs and certain other things are applied for the healing of the body, so the sacraments serve as instruments for the soul’s salvation to God, will be furnishing ready proof that someone other than the Holy Spirit is the author of their teaching. As faith is begotten by the operation of the Spirit, so it is increased and confirmed by the same, while the Spirit himself is granted and imparted by the Father by virtue of the merit of Christ and not in the least by virtue of the use of the sacraments.’ Bucer, Common Places, p. 320. Here he seemingly rejected the Supper even as a means of the Holy Spirit for strengthening faith.

L. SIEKAWITCH


mention of communion with Christ in the participation of the Supper. But

even at this early stage we see some hints of what Bucer and Calvin will

teach later. He said, ‘In this act of remembrance, if we believe, we truly but

spiritually eat and drink his body and blood, and are nourished for eternal

life.’20 This sounds like the Supper is supposed to be a means for spiritual

nourishment. Perhaps he embraced the concept of spiritual nourishment on

an ongoing basis for the strengthening of faith even at this time, but the

Apology is so polemic against the ‘carnal eating’ of Christ that he appears to

have contradicted himself in other places in the document. He made

reference to the ministry of the Spirit in ‘directing the minds of the believers

above’ signifying we are somehow taken up to the presence of God rather

than the flesh of Christ brought down to us in the elements;21 this idea will

be more fully developed in the writings of Calvin. For Bucer there is a

‘spiritual presence and eating’22 for the faithful of the ‘bodily body of Christ,

but spiritually and in a manner that conveys blessing.’23 These blessings in

the Supper are experienced by the work of the Spirit; Christ physically

remains in heaven, and the Spirit produces the results. Bucer only briefly

touched on these aspects of spiritual blessing at this time, but they will be

expounded upon as he sought amelioration between the Zwinglians and

Lutherans.24

Ten years later he wrote the Account of the Concord entered into in 1536

at Wittenberg between Luther and the Theologians of Upper Germany on

the issue of the Eucharist where he included the Articles or Formula of

Concord25 and expounded upon them. It appears Bucer took almost a 180-

degree turn from the previous document.26 He admitted to

20 Bucer, Common Places, p. 325. 21 Bucer, Common Places, pp. 325-326. 22 Bucer, Common Places, p. 336. 23 Bucer, Common Places, p. 338. 24 One cannot help but notice the early similarities with Bucer’s early writings and

Calvin’s 1536 Institutes. 25 An article seeking agreement between the Swiss and German churches that up to this

point were at odds with each other. The Catholic church was beginning to organize and so it was critical for the survival of the Reformation that they try to put aside their differences. The major point of contention was their differences on the Lord’s Supper.

26 W.P. Stephens notes, ‘The effect of this shift in emphasis and understanding is seen in the Gospels (1536). References that might offend are omitted and any idea that the bread and wine are bare signs of an absent Christ is rejected.’ W.P. Stephens, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer (Cambridge: University Press, 1970), p. 254.



misunderstanding Luther and so went out of his way to stress a ‘true

presence’ of Christ in the Supper. He wholly agreed to the statement in the

Concord, which said, ‘Accordingly they maintain and teach that with the

bread and the wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially

present and presented and received.’27 So long as ‘substantially present’

doesn’t mean ‘presented as food for the stomach’ he had no qualms using

and teaching this phrase. He is clearly seeking unity by giving the benefit of

the doubt to the Lutherans,28 but he has also brought in a new emphasis on

his own part of a spiritual eating of Christ’s body where the sacraments are

‘channels of divine grace.’29 He said, ‘His true body and true blood are truly

presented, given and received with the visible signs of bread and wine.’30

The Supper is no longer simply a memorial for Bucer, but rather a means for

ongoing communion with Christ: ‘By receiving it [the sacrament] they might

have Christ living in them ever more and more, and might live in him and

worthily celebrate the benefit of his death.’31 In the first document there was

no mention of communion with Christ in the partaking of the Supper, but in

the 1536 document it becomes the centerpiece of the sacrament. He

continued to emphasize the role of the Holy Spirit in this communion who

‘brings about and increases in us faith and any goodness we possess’

through the partaking of the Supper.32 Two years later Calvin came to

Strasbourg, where Bucer significantly influenced him, as we shall see.

Like Bucer, Calvin saw a ‘true communication’ of Christ in the Supper.33

Christ’s body is presented to us in the Supper. It should be noted that he

does not say with the Concord of Wittenberg that Christ’s body is both present

and presented.34 Bucer probably had some difficulties with the language of

the body being present because the Lutherans clearly meant by present the

27 Martin Bucer, Common Places, p. 362. 28 Two points of contention that are never really solved are the questions ‘Is Christ bodily

present in the elements?’ and ‘Is the Supper efficacious to the unbeliever?’ 29 Bucer, Common Places, p. 358. 30 Bucer, Common Places, p. 359. 31 Bucer, Common Places, p. 365. 32 Bucer, Common Places, p. 357. 33 Calvin said, ‘To deny that a true communication of Jesus Christ is presented to us in

the Supper, is to render this holy sacrament frivolous and useless – an execrable blasphemy unfit to be listened to.’ Calvin, Selected Works, p. 161.

34 Bucer, Common Places, p. 362.

L. SIEKAWITCH


body of Christ was present locally in the elements.35 How Christ’s body can

be presented without being in the elements is a mystery, but Calvin

indicated the solution: ‘In order to exclude all carnal fancies, we must raise

our hearts upwards to heaven, not thinking that our Lord Jesus is so

debased as to be enclosed under some corruptible elements.’36 Here we see

Calvin’s doctrine of sursum corda of which he will expound upon more

thoroughly as his view matures. The idea is that rather than Christ’s body

coming down to earth, the partaker of the Supper is spiritually raised to

heaven and spiritually feeds on the body of Christ.37 Colossians 3:1-3, 1

Corinthians 10:16, 11:23-26 and Ephesians 5:28-33 were critical texts in

support of this belief. Christ’s body is not brought down to us, but instead

we are raised spiritually with Christ and partake of his body spiritually

when we join in the Supper in faith. This mystical communion takes place

by the work of the Spirit: ‘A life-giving virtue from Christ’s flesh is poured

into us by the Spirit, though it is at a great distance from us, and is not

mixed with us.’38 This brings us to the next element Calvin had in common

with Bucer, the emphasis of the Spirit.

In discussing the idea of sursum corda Calvin goes on to explain: ‘On the

other hand, not to impair the efficacy of this holy ordinance, we must hold

that it is made effectual by the secret and miraculous power of God, and that

the Spirit of God is the bond of participation, this being the reason why it is

called spiritual.’39 Earlier he said Christ ‘operates in us inwardly by his Holy

Spirit, in order to give efficacy to his ordinance.’40 Both Calvin and Bucer

35 Bucer stated, ‘In the Supper by the ordinance and operation of the Lord, his true body

and true blood are truly (exactly as his words indicate) presented, given and received with the visible signs of bread and wine.’ Common Places, p. 359.

36 Calvin, Selected Works, pp. 185-186. 37 In the 1536 edition of the Institutes he briefly mentions the sursum corda concept but

instead of our hearts being raised as it is stated in the Short Treatise, he says our minds should be raised up to ‘seek him in heaven’ adoring him spiritually rather than carnally. 1536 Institutes, p. 108.

38 John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 379. He went on to say, ‘For as to his communicating himself to us, that is effected through the secret virtue of his Holy Spirit, which can not merely bring together, but join in one, things that are separated by distance of place, and far remote.’ He then reminds us, ‘It is a secret and wonderful work of the Holy Spirit, which it were criminal to measure by the standard of our understanding.’ Ibid., 380.

39 1536 Institutes, p. 108. 40 1536 Institutes, p. 164.



were not willing to embrace an ex opere operato understanding of the Supper

where the elements of the Supper imparted grace whether the participant

had faith or not, which seemed to be demanded if the body of Christ is

present in the elements.41 Their introduction of the work of the Spirit was

key to their maintaining that the Supper is not simply a memorial but rather

a true participation in the body of Christ, without being physically eaten by

the recipient. The real difference between the Swiss (Reformed) view and

the German (Lutheran) view of the Supper was the spiritual eating of the

body of Christ instead of the physical eating of the body of Christ; this will

later be expounded upon.

The Consensus Tigurinus

Attempts at unity in the body of Christ were very important to the

Reformers. The Catholic Church began to unify its ranks through the

Council of Trent and maintained a concerted effort to root out all the

‘heresy’ of the Reformation. The Reformers knew that a part of this attempt

at unification by the Catholics could mean warfare and so a united front was

necessary to withstand the onslaught, not to mention the detraction of God’s

glory bred by disunity. In all of the attempts of unity the Lord’s Supper was

at the forefront of disagreement. We have noted the endeavor for unity

between Zurich and Germany in the Concord of Wittenberg, with Bucer as

the chief instigator willing to compromise by giving extreme latitude to the

Lutherans in the use of the words ‘present’ and ‘presenting’ concerning the

substance of the Lord’s body in the sacrament. Calvin follows Bucer in his

appreciation for unity. Calvin and Bucer have amazing parallels: Bucer’s

Apologia was polemic and not very advanced, which was written in 1525.

Next came Calvin’s 1536 Institutes, which was also contentious in nature and

still in the infant stage of his development of the doctrine of the Lord’s

Supper. In 1536 Bucer wrote on his agreement with the Concord of

Wittenberg as it pertained to the Lord’s Supper and came across very irenic

with a fuller doctrine of the Supper especially concerning the place of the

Spirit and communion with Christ. Calvin then wrote the Short Treatise in

1540 while in Strasbourg with Bucer showing a more developed

41 The Lutherans historically denied this but the Roman Catholics make the point that if

the actual body of Christ is being eaten, supernatural grace would be automatically effected.

L. SIEKAWITCH


understanding of the place of the Spirit and communion in the Supper and

also revealing a desire for unity between the opposing groups within the

Reformation.42 Calvin’s major attempt at unity with the churches in Zurich

can be seen in the Consensus Tigurinus of 1549 where intentionally vague

language is used in hopes to appease all groups without compromise;43 his

place for the Holy Spirit is key in this attempt for a middle ground between

the Lutherans and Zwinglians.44

In the Consensus Tigurinus Calvin is seeking unity with the Swiss

churches and therefore goes out of his way to stress the distinctness of the

sign and the thing signified without entirely separating them:

Wherefore, though we distinguish, as we ought, between the

signs and the things signified, yet we do not disjoin the reality

from the signs, but acknowledge that all who in faith embrace

the promises there offered receive Christ spiritually, with his

spiritual gifts, while those who had long been made partakers

of Christ continue and renew that communion.45

The emphasis here is on receiving Christ spiritually rather than bodily.

There is no mention of sursum Corda, which he seems to shy away from at

this time.46 Calvin made it clear that all the work done is by the Holy Spirit,

not the Sacraments, though the sacraments can be a means to accomplish his

work:

For it is God alone who acts by his Spirit. When he uses the

instrumentality of the sacraments, he neither infuses his own

42 Calvin was even willing to agree to the Augsburg Confession, probably because he

knew the intent of the author, Philip Melanchthon who held to a similar view of the Supper along with Bucer as well as John Bradford. Alexander Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, p. 138-139; 121. See also John Bradford, The Writings of John Bradford (Carlisle, Penn: Banner of Truth Trust, 1979), 1:82-110 and Philip Melanchthon, Loci Communes (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992), pp. 145-153.

43 He denied the use of vague speech but does want to state the belief in such a way that all can agree without denying the importance of truth. Calvin, Selected Works, pp. 208-209.

44 Calvin explicitly stated he was seeking a middle ground in his explanation of the Consensus: ‘If a middle course has been observed by us, who will not call those obstinate enemies of the truth, who choose rather to carp maliciously at a holy consent, than either civilly embrace, or at least silently approve it?’ Selected Works, p. 210.

45 John Calvin, Selected Works, p. 202. 46 He will return to the idea of sursum corda in the 1559 Institutes.



virtue into them nor derogates in any respect from the effectual

working of his Spirit, but, in adaptation to our weakness, uses

them as helps; in such manner, however, that the whole power

of acting remains with him alone.47

The Holy Spirit advances, nourishes, confirms and increases our faith and

feeds our souls through the sacraments,48 accomplishing their chief end,

which is communion with Christ.49

The Second Defense Against Westphall (1556)

By 1556 it is clear that Calvin and Bucer have taken a different tone toward

the Lutherans. Hope for unity has been lost and congenial speech has been

replaced with pejorative accusations.50 Calvin wrote his Second Defense to

oppose the Lutheran Joachim Westphall who attacked the Consensus

Tigurinus. In this writing Calvin demonstrated no tolerance for the idea that

‘Christ is sensibly chewed by the teeth,’51 which he described as ‘dragging

the body [of Jesus] down from heaven.’52 He disagreed with Westphall in

three major areas:

First, he insists that the bread of the Supper is substantially the

body of Christ. Secondly, in order that Christ may exhibit

himself present to believers, he insists that his body is

immense, and exists everywhere without place. Thirdly, he

insists that no figure is to be admitted in the words of Christ,

whatever agreement there may be as to the thing.53

Though Calvin is very polemical in this writing it should not be

considered a reaction because he doesn’t pendulum swing away from his

47 Calvin, Selected Works, p. 203. 48 Calvin, Selected Works, pp. 204-206. 49 He states, ‘The end for which the sacraments were instituted…is to bring us to

communion with Christ.’ Calvin, Selected Works, p. 209. 50 Bucer spoke of the ‘utterly detestable bread-worship of the antichrists;’ not exactly

conducive for unity building. He was probably referring to the Catholics but he does not differentiate between the Catholics and Lutherans in this particular discussion. Bucer, Common Places, p. 392.

51 Calvin, Selected Works, p. 244. 52 Calvin, Selected Works, p. 268. 53 Calvin, Selected Works, p. 232.

L. SIEKAWITCH


previously held understanding; instead he refined his beliefs. He

maintained his emphasis on communion with God as well as the Spirit

playing the major role in the benefits obtained from the Supper. The chief

contribution of the Second Defense toward Calvin’s understanding of the

Supper is the development of the idea of sursum corda.

In stating that he abhorred the idea of a local presence of the body of

Christ in the Supper, calling it ‘gross fiction,’ he presented his own view:

For I hold that Christ is not present in the Supper in any other

way than this because the minds of believers (this being an

heavenly act) are raised by faith above the world, and Christ,

by the agency of his Spirit, removing the obstacle which

distance of space might occasion, conjoins us with his

members.54

Here we see the idea of the mind or heart of the believer being raised up

spiritually to Christ in heaven where he or she spiritually feeds on the

physical body of Christ, what some have affectionately called the ‘beam me

up Scotty’ view.55 He said that a ‘true and real communion, which consists

in our ascent to heaven, and requires no other descent in Christ than that of

spiritual grace’ takes place by faith, where Christ infuses ‘his vivifying virtue

in us’ without moving his body from heaven.56 It is a ‘true and real

communion’ but not a bodily presence in the bread.57 The Spirit solves the

problem of space so that we can remain on earth physically and Christ can

remain in heaven as far as his human nature is concerned; there is no need

for the invention of ubiquity, but rather mystery is employed.58 The

Lutheran understanding of ubiquity maintained that Christ’s glorified body

could be everywhere at once, but for Calvin this confused the human and

divine natures of Christ. In his divinity Christ is everywhere (Matthew

28:20), but in his humanity he remains in heaven until his second coming

(Acts 1:11). By the ‘secret influence of the Spirit’ we truly partake in the

54 Calvin, Selected Works, p. 262. 55 Lecture on the Institutes at RTS by Dr. Richard Gamble. 56 Calvin, Selected Works, p. 262. 57 Calvin has referred to the Supper as a ‘true presence’ and a ‘real communion’ but he

has never specifically called it a ‘real presence’ which is the Lutheran position. 58 He stated, ‘Christ, by the incomprehensible agency of his Spirit, perfectly unites things

disjoined by space, and thus feeds our souls with his flesh, though his flesh does not leave heaven, and we keep creeping on the earth.’ Calvin, Selected Works, p. 278.



flesh of Christ, experiencing the benefits of that flesh in the Supper without

physically eating that flesh.59 This idea of sursum corda was in its infant stage

prior to the contention with Westphall, but is now fully developed.60 Christ

remains physically in heaven and the believer stays on earth, but the Spirit

affects communion between Christ and the believer through the means of

the Supper, and communicates the benefits of the body of Christ to the

believer spiritually when faith is displayed.

1559 Institutes

The 1559 Institutes is the most thorough of Calvin’s treatments on the Lord’s

Supper and the most mature. He first discussed the sacraments in general

and then the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in particular and in both places

his central focus was on the Holy Spirit’s work to achieve intimate

communion between Christ and the believer, especially through the means

of the Lord’s Supper. First we will look at the place of the Spirit in the 1559

Institutes, then the place of communion as pertaining to the Supper.

For Calvin nothing of spiritual significance can take place apart from the

Spirit. Without His illumination we are blind, stupid and have ‘no relish for

spiritual things.’61 The Spirit ‘opens up an entrance to our hearts for the

word and sacraments’ which he uses to ‘sustain, nourish, confirm, and

increase faith.’62 The Spirit gives faith and then increases and nourishes that

faith through the sacraments; in other words, ‘faith is the proper and entire

work of the Holy Spirit.’63 There is nothing magical about the sacraments;

59 He says, ‘I acknowledge, however, that by the virtue, of his Spirit and his own divine

essence, he not only fills heaven and earth, but also miraculously unites us with himself in one body, so that that flesh, although it remain in heaven, is our food. Thus I teach that Christ, though absent in body, is nevertheless not only present with us by his divine energy, which is everywhere diffused, but also makes his flesh give life to us. For seeing he penetrates to us by the secret influence of his Spirit, it is not necessary, as we have elsewhere said, that he should descend bodily.’ Calvin, Selected Works, p. 266.

60 It is interesting that Bucer never speaks of this concept in detail. He mentions the idea in passing in his early writing The Apology, but never elaborates, whereas Calvin expounds on it more and more throughout his career. Calvin is a beneficiary of Bucer’s ideas on the Supper as has been shown in the progression of their writings, but this idea of sursum corda appears to be unique with Calvin.

61 Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559) translated by Henry Beveridge, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 4. 14,8.

62 Calvin, Institutes, 4.14,8 63 Calvin, Institutes, 4.14,8

L. SIEKAWITCH


there is no ‘secret efficacy perpetually inherent in them.’64 But the Holy

Spirit uses the sacraments as a means to the end of increasing faith.65 This

understanding of the necessity of the Spirit fits well with his definition of a

sacrament:

It is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our

consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to

sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify

our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels

as well as men.66

The Holy Spirit seals his promises in our hearts and strengthens our faith

through the sacraments.

The place of communion is central to Calvin’s thinking in all of his

theology and especially in his understanding of the Supper. The cross

attained the forgiveness of sins so that a person could be united with Christ.

The Supper is a means of grace where this union is remembered as well as

experienced. Calvin considered the Supper a sign and a seal. As a sign it is

a memorial for the Christian to often remember what Christ has done for

him or her. As a seal there is a blessing of grace received. The word and

sacraments are God’s means of our appropriating God’s promises, chief of

which is our communion with Christ. In this life we never arrive at full

communion with God so the Supper is an instrument God uses to further

this union until its completion when we arrive in heaven: ‘It [the sacrament]

is a help by which we may be ingrafted into the body of Christ, or, already

ingrafted, may be more and more united to him, until the union is

completed in heaven.’67 As we shall see later, it is the Spirit who brings

about the experience of communion for the believer through the Supper.

The Best Method of Obtaining Concord

Toward the end of his life Calvin made one final attempt to bring unity

between the opposing groups in a brief work called The Best Method of

64 Calvin, Institutes, 4. 14,9. 65 He states, ‘They confer nothing, and avail nothing, if not received in faith, just as wine

and oil, or any other liquor, however large the quantity which you pour out, will run away and perish unless there be an open vessel to receive it.’ Calvin, Institutes, 14,17.

66 Calvin, Institutes, 4. 14,1. 67 Calvin, Institutes, 3. 17,33.



Obtaining Concord.68 Nothing new is found in this writing, but Calvin’s

mature position is still fully represented.69 He began by defining the two

polar positions: ‘What produced the greatest hatred was the allegation by

one party that the grace of the Spirit was tied down to external elements;

and, by the other, that only bare and empty figures resembling theatrical

shows were left.’70 He then claimed that these disagreements had already

been settled by the median position he presented in the past and restated in

this writing. He declared that the Lutherans should be satisfied because he

does not see the elements of the Supper as bare symbols, but rather through

the Spirit the believer is truly nourished by the body and blood of Jesus. He

does not agree with any carnal eating of Christ (the physical eating of the

body of Christ), but the flesh of Christ is consumed spiritually. He

explained that using the word spiritual does not turn the Supper into a mere

phantom, but rather adheres to the clear teaching of Scripture and the early

writings of the Church. He also believed that his rejecting the carnal eating

of Christ should satisfy the Zwinglians and therefore everyone should be

able to be in a state of concord.

Once again his solution to the problem of disunity is the Spirit. Rather

than resorting to unbiblical notions of eating Jesus with one’s teeth or the

idea of ubiquity (that a physical body can be in more than one place at a

time) he embraces mystery – that somehow the Spirit is able to unite things

separated by space. He finishes his writing retelling briefly the idea of

sursum corda saying:

This definition answers the question, What is it to receive the

body of Christ in the Supper by faith? Some are suspicious of

the term faith, as if it overthrew the reality and the effect. But

we ought to view it far otherwise, viz., That the only way in

which we are conjoined to Christ is by raising our minds above

the world. Accordingly, the bond of our union with Christ is

faith, which raises us upwards, and casts its anchor in heaven,

so that instead of subjecting Christ to the figments of our

reason: we seek him above in his glory.71

68 This was published in January of 1561 against Tilemann Hesshuss. 69 Barclay says of this document: ‘It is the essence of his thought.’ Alexander Barclay, The

Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, p. 226. 70 Calvin, Selected Writings, p. 518. 71 Calvin, Selected Writings, p. 523.

L. SIEKAWITCH


The Spirit raises our minds to Christ in heaven where we then experience

the benefits of the body and blood of Christ as we partake in the elements of

the Supper. A true communion takes place by the Spirit through faith.

Calvin’s Understanding of the Spirit

At this point it will help to discuss briefly Calvin’s understanding of the

Spirit and his central role in the life of the believer before he or she gets to

heaven. Though Calvin always sought to remain Biblical and preferred to

‘act’ rather than ‘react’ to situations, he was caught in between two

opponents, both of which he saw as dangerous: the Roman Catholic

Church’s captivity of the Scriptures and the Radical Reformers over-

subjectivity of the Spirit.72 In the midst of this battle he forged his doctrine of

word and Spirit.73 The Roman Catholic Church believed that the laity were

not able to correctly interpret Scripture, which seemed to shackle the Spirit

to a few select people,74 but many of the Radical Reformers bypassed the

Scriptures opting for direct new revelations to all believers.75 Calvin alleged

that the Spirit speaks through the Word and Sacraments. ‘Not that the Spirit

was restricted to the preaching of the Word and to the sacraments, but that

he could not be dissociated from either of them.’76 The Scriptures and the

sacraments are not magical and are useless apart from the Spirit as far as

bringing communion is concerned,77 but they are means the Spirit uses to

reveal his truths. The Spirit wrote the Scriptures, inspires the preacher of the

Word and gives an internal witness to the hearer that the Scriptures are from

God.78 The Spirit is absolutely necessary because of the depravity of

humans. This is also true with the Supper. The Spirit uses it as a means to

72 Willem Balke says, ‘Calvin, the theologian of the Holy Spirit, wanted to guard against

Fanaticism without curtailing the freedom of the Holy Spirit in any way.’ Willem Balke, Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), p. 326.

73 See Augustus Lopez, ‘Calvin, Theologian of the Holy Spirit: The Holy Spirit and the Word of God’ in Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology (1997), 15:40.

74 See Calvin, Institutes 1.7. Calvin says this is an insult to the Holy Spirit. 1.7,1. 75 See Calvin, Institutes 1.9. 76 Augustus Lopez, ‘Calvin, Theologian of the Holy Spirit: The Holy Spirit and the Word

of God’ p. 44. 77 Both the Scriptures and the Sacraments will bring judgment on the unbeliever (John

5:39-47; 1 Corinthians 11:27-29). 78 Calvin, Institutes, 1. 7,5.



communicate to the believer and has chosen this means to bring about

communion in a special way to the believer, but is not bound to the Supper

in an automatic sense. What Lopes says about the Word is also true of the

Supper and reveals the preeminence of the Spirit: ‘The Word is not like a

talisman, which liberates its magical powers when called upon to do so, at

the whims of its possessor. The efficacy of the Word, on the contrary, is

totally dependent on the sovereignty of the Spirit.’79 For Calvin communion

can only take place by the work of the Spirit who uses the means of the

Word and the sacraments to accomplish intimate communion.

Calvin, the Spirit and Communion

Willem Van’t Spijker has rightly noted ‘Communion with Christ [is] the

heart of Calvin’s theology.’80 In our survey we saw the close connection of

the Spirit, communion with Christ and the Supper. It will be helpful to

review some of the aspects of this connection as well as some implications of

his emphases.

First Calvin recognized an element of mystery in the concept of how we

are fed by a distant Christ. The two extremes of a mere sign and the actual

eating of Christ’s flesh with our teeth were both unacceptable. A true

feeding of Christ’s body does take place in the Supper but the question of

how must be relegated to mystery. He said, ‘It were, therefore, extreme

infatuation not to acknowledge the communion of believers with the body

and blood of the Lord, a communion which the apostle declares to be so

great, that he chooses rather to marvel at it than to explain it.’81 When asked

to explain how communion takes place in the Lord’s Supper, he replied: ‘I

am overwhelmed by the depth of this mystery, and am not ashamed to join

Paul in acknowledging at once my ignorance and my admiration…. Let us

therefore labour more to feel Christ living in us, than to discover the nature

79 Augustus Lopez, ‘Calvin, Theologian of the Holy Spirit: The Holy Spirit and the Word

of God’ p. 46. Balke says, ‘Calvin insisted on a close tie between Word and Spirit. This tie was not to be taken in a magical, causal, or automatic sense. The connection is promised by God and also ascribed to the proper proclamation of the Word.’ Willem Balke, Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals, p. 325.

80 Peter De Klerk, editor, Calvin and the Holy Spirit, p. 44. 81 Calvin, Institutes, 4. 17,9.

L. SIEKAWITCH


of that intercourse.’82 He then attempted to elucidate the unexplainable by

resorting to ‘the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit.’83 He acknowledged, ‘The

Spirit truly unites things separated by space.’84 This mysterious work is

referred to as sursum corda. Ronald Wallace gives a good, succinct

explanation of sursum corda: ‘Communion with the body of Christ is effected

through the descent of the Holy Spirit, by whom our souls are lifted up to

heaven, there to partake of the life transfused into us from the flesh of

Christ.’85

A second aspect in the connection between the Spirit, communion and

the Supper for Calvin is the place of faith. Two false doctrines must be

guarded against: the idea that there is something magical in the elements

and the notion that there is something good in humans. Calvin’s solution

was the necessity of faith. The elements were useless apart from faith and

faith was a gift from the Holy Spirit. Wilhelm Niesel explains:

If the Holy Spirit accomplishes His work, the receptive faculty

of faith is created and strengthened in us: for we ourselves are

intrinsically incapable of receiving Jesus Christ into ourselves.

Neither our soul nor our physical lips are capable of receiving

the Lord who died and rose again for us. Christ Himself must

by His Spirit open our hearts to His coming. This accessibility

to Himself which He creates is called faith.86

The Holy Spirit creates and strengthens faith in us through the Word and

sacraments.87 Faith is necessary for the Word and sacraments to be affective

and the Spirit gives the faith as well as strengthens the faith through the

Word and sacraments by imparting Christ to us.88

82 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians (Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2005), 325. 83 Calvin, Institutes, 4. 17,10. 84 Calvin, Institutes, 4. 17,10 85 Ronald Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament (Eugene, OR: Wipf and

Stock Publishers, 1982), p. 206. 86 Wilhelm Niesel, The Theology of Calvin (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p.

227. 87 Calvin said, ‘Our Lord has instituted them [the sacraments] for the express purpose of

helping to establish and increase our faith,’ Institutes, 4. 14,9. 88 Calvin stated, ‘I admit, indeed, that faith is the proper and entire work of the Holy

Spirit, enlightened by whom we recognize God and the treasures of his grace, and without whose illumination our mind is so blind that it can see nothing, so stupid that



Finally the benefits the Spirit brings by means of the Supper must be

mentioned. Calvin said, ‘We expect salvation from him – not because he

stands aloof from us, but because ingrafting us into his body he not only

makes us partakers of all his benefits, but also of himself.’89 Through our

union with Christ we experience his benefits and through ever-increasing

communion we experience those benefits more and more.90 The Supper is

an aid to this communion and experience of Christ’s benefits when received

in faith ‘by the means of the Holy Spirit.’91 First let’s notice the experiential

nature of our encounter with Christ and his benefits then let’s observe the

specific blessing of sanctification.

For Calvin the sacraments, when ‘accompanied by the Spirit, the internal

Master, whose energy alone penetrates the heart, stirs up the affections.’92

Though Calvin should not be considered a mystic, he definitely saw

Christianity affecting the whole person. Our minds are transformed and our

affections are stirred as well as our wills changed. True knowledge of God is

increased through the instrumentality of the sacraments ‘so as to possess

him [Christ] more fully, and enjoy him in all his richness’ (emphasis mine).93

Calvin asserted that we are to ‘feel within ourselves the efficacy of that one

sacrifice’ through the Supper.94 Like the Puritans after him he used

it has no relish for spiritual things. But for the one Divine blessing which they proclaim we count three. For, first, the Lord teaches and trains us by his word; next, he confirms us by his sacraments; lastly, he illumines our mind by the light of his Holy Spirit, and opens up an entrance into our hearts for his word and sacraments, which would otherwise only strike our ears, and fall upon our sight, but by no means affect us inwardly.’ Calvin, Institutes, 4. 14,8.

89 Calvin, Institutes, 3. 2,24. 90 He went on to say, ‘Christ is not external to us, but dwells in us; and not only unites us

to himself by an undivided bond of fellowship, but by a wondrous communion brings us daily into closer connection, until he becomes altogether one with us.’ Calvin, Institutes.

91 Calvin, Institutes, 4. 14,17, 16. 92 Calvin, Institutes, 4. 14,9. 93 Calvin, Institutes, 4. 14,16. 94 Calvin, Institutes, 4. 17,1. see also 4. 17,11 where he claimed that through the ‘mystery

of the Supper…. First we might become one body with him; and, secondly, that being made partakers of his substance, we might feel the result of this fact in the participation of all his blessings’ (emphasis mine). In describing the mystery of the Supper he said, ‘I rather feel than understand it’ (emphasis mine). Calvin, Institutes, 4. 17,32.

L. SIEKAWITCH


experiential language to describe the affects of the Supper when combined

with faith and the Spirit.95 He was not satisfied with a mere notional faith.96

Not only does the Supper arouse our affections, it conforms our wills to

Christ when combined with faith and the Spirit. Though the gospel reveals

our justification should be sought extra nos (outside of us), through the Spirit

Christ becomes in nobis (in us) and actually makes a difference in our lives.97

For Calvin the Spirit was not only the solution to the problem of the bodily

absence of Christ, but the synthesis of justification and sanctification as well.

In fear of stereotyping it might be said that for the Lutheran camp of the

Reformation an attempt was made to separate justification from

sanctification as far apart as possible; the Reformed branch endeavored to

keep them as close as possible without losing their distinction;98 for Calvin

communion with God was the solution. In communion the Spirit transforms

the believer, gradually making him or her more like Christ.99 We possess the

benefits of Christ’s death through communion with Christ, which the Spirit

accomplishes.100 This appropriation is through faith, but faith itself comes

from the Spirit.101 The Supper is a means of grace by which we experience

communion with God afresh and thus appropriate the benefits of Christ’s

death, one of which is our sanctification.102

95 He commented, ‘Moreover, as we see that this sacred bread of the Lord’s Supper is

spiritual food, is sweet and savoury, not less than salutary, to the pious worshippers of God, on tasting which they feel that Christ is their life, are disposed to give thanks, and exhorted to mutual love; so, on the other hand, it is converted into the most noxious poison to all whom it does not nourish and confirm in the faith, nor urge to thanksgiving and charity.’ Calvin, Institutes, 4. 17,40.

96 He says, ‘He is offered by the promises, not that we may stop short at the sight or mere knowledge of him, but that we may enjoy true communion with him.’ Calvin, Institutes, 4. 17,11.

97 Peter De Klerk [ed], Calvin and the Holy Spirit, p. 44. 98 J. Calvin, Commentary on the first Epistle to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 1:30. Also

Calvin, Institutes,, 3. 2,8. 99 Calvin, Institutes,, 3. 1,1-5. 100 He says, ‘The Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectually binds us to himself.’

Calvin, Institutes, 3. 1,1. 101 He says, ‘Faith itself is produced only by the Spirit.’ 3. 1,4 102 Calvin, Institutes, 4. 17,11.



Conclusion

It is evident that the Holy Spirit played a chief role in Calvin’s doctrine in

general and specifically in his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. It is also clear

that communion with God was at least a central focus in his understanding

of the purpose of the Supper and perhaps his entire system of theology.

Was his interest in the Spirit, communion and the Supper lost to the next

generation of reformers and beyond? It would be a worthwhile study to see

how Calvin has influenced the church even to this day in his particular

emphasis of the Spirit, communion and the Supper. It is apparent he at least

influenced heavily the Puritans. In the early seventeenth century Richard

Sibbes wrote extensively on the Holy Spirit and in the later part of the

seventeenth century John Owen also covered the doctrine of the Spirit in a

comprehensive manner. Both of these Puritans also heavily emphasized the

place of communion with God, especially as it is experienced in the Supper.

Sibbes stated:

Fifthly, and especially, when the soul is touched with the Spirit of God

working faith, stirring up dependence, confidence, and trust on God.

Hence ariseth sweet communion. The soul is never at rest till it rests on

him. Then it is afraid to break with him or to displease him. But it

groweth zealous and resolute, and hot in love, stiff in good cases; resolute

against his enemies. And yet this is not all, for God will have also the

outward man, so as the whole man must present itself before God in

word, in sacraments; speak of him and to him with reverence, and yet

with strength of affection mounting up in prayer, as in a fiery chariot;

hear him speak to us; consulting with his oracles; fetching comforts

against distresses, directions against maladies.103

Notice that Sibbes understanding of the Holy Spirit, communion and the

sacraments are identical to Calvin’s teaching. He went on to encourage the

believer to seek his or her happiness by seeking the Holy Spirit who will

bring communion to the saint, especially through the sacraments.104

103 Richard Sibbes, The Works of Richard Sibbes 7 Volumes (London: Tho. Cotes, 1637), 7:69. 104 Sibbes, The Works., 7:71-73. The Westminster Confession also revealed dependency on

Calvin in its doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. In paragraph one of Chapter 29 it stated: ‘Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto

L. SIEKAWITCH


Calvin brings a rich but balanced understanding of the Supper with his

emphases on the Spirit and communion with God. He avoids the absurd,

but does not simply turn the institution to a mere memorial. His influence

has continued to the present, blessing multitudes of Christians. We concur

with the comments of I. John Hesselink in his article ‘Calvin, The Holy

Spirit, and Mystical Union’:

My hope is that this survey of a few aspects of Calvin’s

doctrine of the Spirit does indeed confirm the thesis that Calvin

is a theologian of the Holy Spirit. Focusing on this dimension

of his theology reveals a personal, dynamic, and experiential

side of the Genevan reformer often overlooked. This is also a

dimension in our own faith and work that is often missing.

Hence we can well emulate Calvin – and above all, God’s

Word – in seeking to be Spirit-filled and Spirit-led servants of

Jesus Christ.105

Calvin could not be considered a Pentecostal, but his experiential

doctrine of the Supper should be seen as a resource for further encounter

with the Spirit. Pentecostal churches have excelled in highlighting the work

of the Spirit in experiential encounter with Christ in the worship service,

especially during the singing of praises and practice of the spiritual gifts.

Promoting another avenue for intimate communion with Christ as

experienced in the Lord’s Supper would seem to be a natural fit for the

Pentecostal movement. Though the Pentecostal might not agree with

everything Calvin taught, his theology should still be recognized as a

valuable resource for experiential contact with Christ.

Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body.’ And then in paragraph seven it stated: ‘Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses‘ , M.H. Smith, Westminster Confession of Faith. Index created by Christian Classics Foundation; Published in electronic form by Christian Classics Foundation, (Greenville, SC: Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary Press, 1996).

105 I. John Hesselink, ‘Calvin, the Holy Spirit, and Mystical Union’ in Perspectives (1998): Vol. 13, 1:18.

Documents

The Journal of E P Theological Association · The Journal of the Pentecostal Theological Association (JEPTA) is a peer-reviewed international journal which has a pedigree stretching