Calvin and Bavinck on the Lord’s Supper

By R. N. Gleason

Min. Lelylaan 40, Rijswijk, (ZH), Holland

In a time when many are reconsidering their positions in regard to the Lord’s Supper and its participants, it will be helpful to listen to two Reformed theologians. I have chosen the combination of Calvin and Bavinck because the former is a solid foundation for Reformed thought, and the latter because of his excellence as a Reformed thinker who is not readily accessible to the English-speaking world. In the case of Bavinck I have chosen material which, in general, has not been translated.[1]

We shall attempt to show how Bavinck was in agreement with Calvin, but, at the same time, how Bavinck at times would modify portions of Calvin’s thought. This will provide a good model of how one ought to work: being dependent upon reliable sources, yet not slavishly following another theologian.

Our sources for dealing with Calvin will be the various editions of the Institutes,[2] the Corpus reformatorum,[3] Barth and Niesel’s Opera selecta,[4] and the commentaries.[5] In the case of Bavinck, we shall rely on his mature thought as he recorded it in his main work: the Gereformeerde dogmatiek.[6]

Interestingly enough, Bavinck dealt with this question of the Lord’s Supper rather early on in his career. In 1887 Bavinck wrote an article entitled “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.”[7] This article was later included in a book with other important articles from his pen.[8] A year later, when Bavinck was the rector of the Reformed seminary in Kampen, he delivered a speech which dealt with the catholicity of Christianity and the church.[9]

It is self-evident that the views of the church and the Lord’s Supper are inextricably bound. Historically speaking, it comes as no surprise that Bavinck spent his energies dealing with these subjects. He was then working hand-in-hand with Abraham Kuyper and others to affect a union between two very closely related Reformed groups in the Netherlands.[10] These articles were contributions in the fight for unity which finally occurred in 1892.

In 1895 the first volume of the first edition of the Gereformeerde dogmatiek was published. This volume was followed by successive volumes until the final volume, volume four, was published in 1901.[11] It is this fourth volume which contains Bavinck’s paragraphs on the church and the sacraments, among others. When one compares the various editions through which the Gereformeerde dogmatiek went, it is relatively easy to trace the metamorphoses through which Bavinck’s thought went. When one compares the various editions on the Lord’s Supper, however, the changes are negligible.[12] In essence, then, the first edition of the Gereformeerde dogmatiek contains what Bavinck wanted to say about this subject.

Our methodology in this article shall be to discuss the idea of the sacraments, in general, in the theologies of Calvin and Bavinck, in order to lay the groundwork for what will follow. Thereafter, we shall examine the role of the covenant, in general, and the role of the promissio, in particular, in conjunction with the doctrine of the covenant. We shall also attempt to determine what exactly these two theologians mean when they talk about the signification, substance, and effect of the Lord’s Supper. This discussion will necessitate that we also touch on the all-important doctrines of the unio mystica and the sursum corda. We shall end the article with a summary and conclusions.

I. The Sacraments in General

Calvin began chapter four of the 1536 edition of the Institutes by stating that “a sacrament never lacks a preceding promise but is rather joined to it by way of appendix, to confirm and seal the promise itself, and to make it as it were more evident to us.”[13] Shortly thereafter he refers to a statement of St. Augustine’s that the sacraments are “‘a visible word’ for the reason that (they) represent God’s promises as painted in a picture and set them before our sight, portrayed graphically and in the manner of images.”[14] And, again: “The term ‘sacrament’ …embraces generally all those signs which God has ever signalled to men to render them more certain and confident of the truth of his promises.”[15] These statements, taken together, give us several important insights into the most salient “moments” in the structure of Calvin’s theology. By indicating what these moments are, we must keep Krusche’s warning in mind:

Die Versuche, Calvins Theologie als von einem bestimmten inhaltlichen Grundprinzip, von einer ‘Zentrallehre’ her entworfen oder auf sie bezogen zu verstehen (sei es das Prinzip der Ehre oder der Souveränität Gottes oder die theozentrische Schöpfungs- und Erlösungsidee oder die Lehre von der Prädestination oder von der Heiligung), sind misslungen. Es gibt kein einheitliches materiales Grundprinzip, von dem her sich Calvins Theologie deduktiv ableiten liesse.[16]

What we must see in the explications of the theology of Calvin as well as that of Bavinck is that there are several “lines” of thought which are skillfully interwoven in the fabric of their works. It is our task here only to indicate what these “lines” are and to leave it to the research of the reader to see how these thoughts are integrated in other loci of the theology of these men.

Of great importance is the basic structure of Calvin’s Institutes. We need not go into detail on this issue for there are numerous books available which do this quite nicely.[17] For our purposes suffice it to say that the inclusion of the doctrine of the Trinity and the Holy Scripture in Book 1 is decisive for the rest of the Institutes. Neuser has reproduced the structure of the Institutes in a sumniary, yet satisfactory, manner. He says:

Die Lehre von der Heiligen Schrift legt er bekanntlich in Buch I, Kapitel 6 bis 9, dar. Wenn er in Buch II, Kapitel 9 bis 11, das Nebeneinander von Altem und Neuem Testament untersucht, so behandelt er damit bereits ein Problem der Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift. Von Buch III, Kapitel 2 an steht die Predigt im Vordergrund. In Buch IV ist die Verkündigung der Kirche das Thema; die Heilige Schrift wird nur noch an wenigen Stellen erwähnt.[18]

Thus, when we come to the fourth book of the Institutes Calvin is building and depending upon the groundwork which he has laid in the three previous books. The second book of the Institutes is entitled “The Knowledge of God the Redeemer in Christ, first disclosed to the Fathers under the Law, and then to us in the Gospel.”[19] Early in this second book Calvin makes a statement which is very much reminiscent of what we have seen at the beginning of this section, namely the element of the promissio.[20] In 2.5.8 Calvin states: “But what God promises, as Augustine says, we ourselves do not do through choice or nature; but he himself does through grace.”[21] These words are determinative for what Calvin says in the well-known chapters 10 and 11 where he deals with first the similarity and then the differences between the OT and NT. (H. H. Wolf has written an excellent monograph on these chapters, so it will not be necessary to deal with this here in a detailed manner.)[22]

For our purposes a few quotations must suffice. Recall, we are examining the notion of promise in relationship to the idea of the covenant. He says: “The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation.”[23] Later in that chapter Calvin reiterates the facts that the covenant in the OT was also one of grace, and that the blessings offered in the OT dealt not only with physical, temporary blessings, but were in essence spiritual and eternal in nature.[24] Summarizing, it can be said “that the OT fathers (1) had Christ as pledge of their covenant, and (2) put in him all trust of future blessedness.”[25] In chapter 11 Calvin lists five differences between the two Testaments. We shall not treat all of these differences, but the second one should briefly get our attention. That difference is simply this: “the NT reveals the very substance of truth as present.”[26] The gravity of this statement will make itself felt in the course of this article. Of note is the structure of the Institutes at this point. After having dealt with the differences and similarities of the OT and NT, Calvin then gives himself to the task of writing on the office of the Mediator. The movement from chapters 10 and 11 to chapter 12 shows how carefully Calvin structures the Institutes. But what does this have to do with the promises of the covenant? Calvin answers this question thusly:

Yet those ancient sacraments looked to the same purpose to which ours now tend: to direct and almost lead men by the hand to Christ, or rather, as images, to represent him and set him forth to be known. We have already taught that they are seals by which God’s promises are sealed, and, moreover, it is very clear that no promise has ever been offered to men except in Christ (2 Cor 1:20).[27]

The concept promissio in Calvin ought not to be understood in the sense of prophetic promises per se, but it has the more decided connotation of: fulfillment. “Verheissung und Erfüllung sind bei Calvin kein Gegensatzpaar; es gibt nur die Spannung von Verheissung und Vollendung der Verheissung (promissio und complementum promissionis).”[28] It must be made clear that this promissio is no abstract concept or principle in Calvin’s theology, but manifests itself precisely in the preaching of God’s Word, which is based upon the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Therefore, any attempt to abstract this doctrine from the heart of the gospel is doomed. Calvin and the other Reformers did not separate doctrine and gospel as we tend to do. Wolf is correct when he says: “Doctrina ist der für Calvin charakteristische Ausdruck für das verkündigte Wort Gottes und ist sowohl mit Gesetz wie mit Evangelium verbunden.”[29] This very expression of the matter, with minor differences, can be found in the theologies of Luther and Melanchthon.[30]

Die promissio ist die konkrete Form, in der das Evangelium verkündigt wird…. Der Begriff promissio begegnet in Calvins Schriften häufig, da im Mittelpunkt seiner Theologie das Evangelium steht…. Promissio ist Verkündigungswort…. Evangelium, promissio und foedus sind synonyme Begriffe.[31]

How did Bavinck explain this concept? It should not surprise us too much that Bavinck is in general agreement with Calvin’s exposition. In fact, the agreement is more than striking. In Veenhof’s article dealing with Bavinck’s idea of the unity of the OT and NT,[32] one could just as well be reading Calvin. Of course, it must be maintained that the Dutch theologians, in general, have done much more in the field of the covenant than other theologians. The concept of the “organic” development of the covenant is more explicit in Bavinck’s theology at this juncture than in Calvin’s.[33] It could be argued that Bavinck has taken over a Hegelian notion, but even if this were true, it is beyond a doubt that Bavinck has thoroughly “Christianized” this idea.[34]

He, like Calvin, does not want to limit law to the OT and gospel to the NT. This is a misnomer and those who attempt to confine law to the OT and gospel to the NT have completely missed the message of the Bible.[35] That is not to say that the two are identical. Quite the contrary is true. “Not law, but gospel is, in both the OT and NT the core of the divine revelation.”[36] The manner in which Bavinck explains this unity between the Testaments is exceedingly interesting. The starting point is the ontic unity within the Trinity which manifests itself in the noetic unity within revelation. In terms of salvation, the believers of the OT were saved in the same manner as we. “There is one faith, one Mediator, one way of salvation, one covenant of grace.”[37] The differences are primarily those of “Gestalt” and form.[38] Here Bavinck is following Calvin very closely.[39] There is what Veenhof calls a “golden thread” which is traceable in the history of OT Israel, and that is the covenant.[40] The “new” in the NT is, according to Bavinck, the fulfillment in Christ. Or, as he says elsewhere: “Christ…is the actual content of the foedus gratiae.”[41]

The central facts of incarnation, satisfaction, and resurrection are the fulfillment of the three great thoughts of the OT, the content of the gospel of the New Covenant, the kērugma of the apostles, the foundation of the Christian church, the core of the churches’ confession, and the resources of its history of dogma.[42]

Again, as with Calvin, we see that the emphasis is laid upon the preached Word. Therefore, it is not surprising that from the very first edition of the Gereformeerde dogmatiek the sections dealing with the means of grace began with a paragraph concerning the Word as one of those means. We should state the case more stringently. We have already seen that Calvin in the 1536 edition of the Institutes called the sacraments appendices.[43] This was not to indicate that they were inferior to, but rather to indicate their dependency on, the preached Word. The Word of God is the means of grace par excellence, (and) the sacraments are subordinated to that Word and without that Word they have no significance.[44] This may seem to denigrate the sacraments, but as Berkouwer has shown, the opposite is the case.[45] Even the Word, occupying the first and most important place in the means of grace, can never be disjoined from the person and work of Christ.[46] The reason is that the benefits which the Word and sacraments give are one and the same Christ. “The sacrament does not give one single benefit, which is not given through faith and received by faith in the Word of God.”[47]

There is neither a special baptism grace nor a special Lord’s Supper grace. The content of Word and sacrament is absolutely the same; they both contain the same Mediator, the same covenant, the same benefits, the same salvation, the same fellowship with God…. They differ only in the forma external in the manner, in which they offer the same Christ.[48]

II. Signification, Substance, and Effect

In the article on Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, Bavinck gives us an insight into his own methodology. When one reads the Gereformeerde dogmatiek, for example, one is struck by the breadth of knowledge that Bavinck had of the history of dogma. Virtually every paragraph deals with the development of a given doctrine. The same is true of this article, albeit in truncated form. Bavinck does not immediately discuss Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper, but rather paints it against the backdrop of a synthesis between the doctrines of Luther and Zwingli.[49] As far as Luther is concerned, Bavinck thinks that his differences with Carlstadt were more stringent than those with Rome.[50] Zwingli’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper must be seen, from the very beginning, as a rejection of the Papal Mass.[51] Other factors, too, must be taken into consideration. For example, the types of education that each received played an important role in the reactions that each manifested towards the Romish system. Zwingli received a humanist education and rejected the Mass thoroughly; Luther was a monk, who quite late attempted to maintain his ties with Rome. Luther was born and reared in a monarchial, aristocratic Germany; Zwingli was born and reared in a free and democratic Switzerland.[52]

It was neither a German nor a Swiss who would be the one able to take the most salient points of the doctrines of the Lord’s Supper of both Luther and Zwingli, but the Frenchman, Calvin, who would coalesce the depth of the thought of Luther with the breadth of Zwingli.[53] Calvin began his work by seeking the positive points in both the Swiss and German views. Zwingli and Oecolampadius were correct in rejecting transubstantiation with its accompanying notions of physical and local presence of the body of Christ. The essence of their rejection was their opposition to the deification of the elements.[54] Yet, there remained something positive in the doctrine as taught by Luther and the Wittenbergers. Luther taught an objective and real communication of Christ, including his flesh and blood, and rejected the notion that the bread and wine remained simply empty figures and signs.[55] This might seem to some to be a contradiction that Calvin would reject the physical and local presence, on the one hand, while he accepted the objective and real communication, on the other. That this is not a contradiction will have to become more evident as we progress. What can and must be stated at this juncture is something which Bavinck did not mention in his article: the historical development in Calvin’s thought on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Certainly, Bavinck cannot be faulted for this omission since he was writing for a popular audience. Unfortunately, he omitted Calvin’s development in the Gereformeerde dogmatiek also. Hartvelt is correct in showing that there is a traceable development (ontwikkeling) through the first two editions of the Institutes up to and including the time of the Consensus Tigurinus.[56] Particularly in the discussions with Bullinger, while attempting to make the Consensus a reality, Calvin used very cautious language, for he did not desire to either lose or offend the Germans.[57] Anyone who wishes to follow this discussion in a detailed manner should consult Bizer.[58] We can only summarize at this juncture by saying that what Calvin was concerned to teach was a real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, and a communication of all of Christ’s benefits. In fact, Bavinck goes so far as to say that Calvin taught a much more real and essential presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in the Lord’s Supper than the Roman Catholics and the Lutherans.[59]

If Calvin taught this doctrine of the real presence of the Christ in the Lord’s Supper, one can and must ask the questions: How are the benefits of Christ present? and, how are these benefits communicated to the participants? To answer these questions, Bavinck directs his attention to the fourth book of the Institutes. By way of parenthesis, one should be aware of both what Calvin has already handled as well as the structure of what he has handled. Earlier in this article we dealt with the structure of the second book of the Institutes. It was then noted what the title of that book is.[60] Of further note is how small the “Christology” of Book 2 is in comparison with other books in the Institutes. Certain items in the Christology seem even to be misplaced. Take, for example, the fact that the doctrine of justification is not discussed until Book 3, which deals with the Holy Spirit. Bakker calls this relatively short Christology a Christology in “movement,” which from the very beginning is thought out in an absolutely soteriological manner.[61] The “movement” about which Bakker speaks is the very close relationship between the pneumatological and Christological in the Institutes. This movement can be seen in the transition from Book 2 to Book 3. Calvin begins Book 3 thusly:

…we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us…. he had to become ours and dwell within us…. all that he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him. It is true that we obtain this by faith.[62]

His well-known definition of faith is given in 3.2.7 where he says:

Now we shall possess a right definition of faith if we call it a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.[63]

How Calvin ties this all together must be described now.

Recall we are dealing with the signification, substance, and effect of the Lord’s Supper in this sub-section. Calvin discusses these aspects in Inst. 4.17.11–15. He begins by stating that the mystery of the Supper consists of two things: physical signs and spiritual truth.[64] “The signification is contained in the promises, which are, so to speak, implicit in the sign. I call Christ with his death and resurrection the matter, or substance. But by effect I understand redemption, righteousness, sanctification, and eternal life, and all the other benefits Christ gives to us.”[65] Calvin combines the Word very closely with the sign.[66] We have previously seen that apart from the Word the signs are powerless. Niesel explains: “Daher sind die sichtbaren Gestalten Brot und Wein ohne die verdeutlichenden Worte nicht nur kraftlose und tote Elemente, sondern schädliches Gaukelwerk. Sie nützen nichts, wenn sie nicht auf die Verheissung gegründet sind”;[67] and, “In den sichtbaren Zeichen bietet er uns ein Abbild dar von den unsichtbaren Dingen, welche uns durch die Verheissung zugesagt werden.”[68]

As we have earlier seen, the place of the promissio is exceedingly important for Calvin and for Bavinck, too. But the promise does not come to us abstractly, but through the Scriptures. Both Calvin and Bavinck can correctly be called theologians of revelation,[69] and, certainly, both of them place a great deal of emphasis on the doctrine of the testimonium Spiritus sancti. Krusche’s comment concerning Calvin might just as well be used for Bavinck: “Das innere Zeugnis des Heiligen Geistes ist also nicht—und das ist wichtig zu beachten—der Grund für unsere Gewissheit, in der Schrift es mit Gottes höchsteigenem Wort zu tun zu haben—, sondern das testimonium ist die diese Gewissheit bewirkende Ursache.”[70] Now it begins to become evident exactly how important the Holy Spirit is in the theologies of Bavinck and Calvin, and, at the same time, what the content of the preached Word and the distributed Word is. It is precisely within the context of the relationship between the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments that the true character of the sacraments is seen. The content of both is identical: Jesus Christ. The difference between them is simply the form. The preached Word is an invisible Word and the sacraments are visible Words.[71] For the promise we are directed towards the cross, because it is in the cross of Christ that the promise has been fulfilled. God calls his promises “covenants” (Gen 6:18; 9:9; 17:2) and his sacraments “tokens” of the covenants.[72] “Or we might call them mirrors (speculum) in which we may contemplate the riches of God’s grace, which he lavishes upon us. For by them he manifests himself to us as far as our dullness is given to perceive and attests his good will and love toward us more expressly than by word.”[73]

Recall how Calvin has previously defined the signification: The signification is contained in the promises, which are, so to speak, implicit in the sign.[74] In the same section Calvin further qualifies what he means by stating:

I say, therefore, that in the mystery of the Supper, Christ is truly shown to us through the symbols of bread and wine, his very body and blood, in which he has fulfilled all obedience to obtain righteousness for us. Why? First, that we may grow into one body with him; secondly, having been made partakers of his substance, that we may also feel his power in partaking of all his benefits.[75]

Does this mean then that Calvin is talking in term of a spatial presence of Christ’s body? The answer is a definitive “No!” and is due, in part, to the so-called extra Calvinisticum. I say “so-called” because it is manifestly plain that Calvin was not the originator of this notion, but it is simply an expression of Chalcedonian theology.[76] Calvin’s explanation of the presence is somewhat lengthy, but certainly worth quoting:

For as we do not doubt that Christ’s body is limited by the general characteristics common to all human bodies, and is contained in heaven (where it was once for all received) until Christ return in judgment (Acts 3:21), so we deem it utterly unlawful to draw it back under these corruptible elements or to imagine it to be present everywhere. And there is no need of this for us to enjoy a participation in it, since the Lord bestows this benefit upon us through his Spirit so that we may be made one in body, spirit, and soul with him. The bond of this connection is therefore the Spirit of Christ, with whom we are joined in unity, and is like a channel through which all that Christ himself is and has is conveyed to us.[77]

This statement will be crucial for the next section, which treats the substance of the Lord’s Supper. Before we touch on that aspect, however, we should briefly note the role which the promise plays in Bavinck’s presentation. He is of the opinion that the role of the promise of God has not been clearly seen in Reformed theology, both in regard to baptism and the Lord’s Supper.[78] Often the question is raised concerning the infant who is baptized and later leaves the church. Did the sacrament not work in that case? What of the biblical notion of the corelationship between the promise and faith?[79] Even Bakker, in his otherwise excellent article, speaks in an unqualified manner concerning the corelation between promise and faith,[80] even though Berkouwer has given a sound explanation to the contrary.[81] If Bakker is speaking of the general rule, then we are in complete agreement. If he is taking this corelation in the sense of Barth and other anti-paedobaptists, we disagree. For as Bavinck says, the sacrament is not the sealing of the receiver of the sacrament, but of God’s promises.[82] In the case of the baptized infant, the sacrament says nothing concerning the future condition or status of the child, but, rather, explains how God is both now and in the future: faithful to his covenant promises.

The questions are: What is that promise? and, What is its content? And the answer is not to be stated in a general manner such as: there is forgiveness of sins and eternal life in Christ, the Savior of sinners, but more definitely this is the answer: And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee (Gen 17:7). The objectivity, the certainty, and therefore the rich comfort in the covenant seals [bondszegelen] is quite often denied. The sacraments are instituted for the believers; for the members of the covenant fellowship, and they confirm and ratify, by means of the invisible signs that God will remain their God eternally in Jesus Christ.[83]

The second point of discussion was that of the substance or the materia. This element must be seen in close relationship with that of the covenant and the promissio that we have just seen. Niesel rightly says:

Gott ist wahrhaftig. Was er zusagt, das lässt er auch geschehen. So wird beim Abendmahle nicht nur etwas verheissen, sondern weil es sich dabei um ein Verheissen Gottes handelt, wird der Inhalt der Verheissung uns auch wahrhaft dargereicht, ‘nicht anders, als wenn Christus selbst gegenwärtig sich unserem Anblick darböte und unsere Hände ihn greifen würden’.[84] 

Durch die Symbole Brot und Wein wird Christus uns wahrhaft dargeboten. Sie sind nicht die Sache selbst, wohl aber Instrumente und Organe, durch die uns der Herr seinen Leib und sein Blut gibt.[85]

With these statements Niesel approximates what we touched on earlier in the discussion of the real presence. Again, it must be unequivocally affirmed that Calvin taught a doctrine of the real presence of Christ in this sacrament.[86] More radically yet, it ought to be understood that this included the doctrine of the flesh of Christ.[87] Book 4 of the Institutes provides an ample supply of quotations to this effect and one could find innumerable instances that would fully support this thesis. I shall select but two to make my point. In 4.17.10 Calvin writes:

Even though it seems unbelievable that Christ’s flesh, separated from us by such great distances, penetrates to us, so that it becomes our food, let us remember how far the secret power of the Holy Spirit towers above all our senses, and how foolish it is to wish to measure his immeasurableness by our measure. What then, our mind does not comprehend, let faith conceive: that the Spirit truly unites things separated in space.[88]

And in 4.17.11, which we have previously quoted, we saw that we have been made partakers of his substance. The substance which is communicated is not simply the deity of Christ, but the flesh, also. It cannot be stressed enough that Calvin places a tremendous amount of emphasis on this partaking of the flesh. “So ist das Leben für uns nicht in irgendeiner unerreichbaren Ferne, sondern wir können es im Fleische selber finden.”[89] In a letter to Bullinger in 1548 Calvin wrote these words:

Im Abendmahl, wenn uns da die Zeichen des Fleisches und Blutes Christi dargereicht werden, so werden sie uns, sagen wir, nicht umsonst angeboten ohne dass auch die Sache selbst für uns bestünde. Daraus folgt, dass wir Christi Leib essen und sein Blut trinken…. Wir werden teilhaft des Fleisches und Blutes Christi, so dass er in uns wohnt und wir in ihm, und so geniessen wir alle seine Heilsgüter.[90]

Certain things are manifestly clear in the above mentioned statements. Firstly, God’s grace; his revealed benevolence in Christ is the absolute materia of the sacraments.[91] Secondly, Calvin’s emphasis is upon the participation in both the deity and the humanity of Christ in the sacraments.[92] This is not a subject that simply appeared in Book 4, but rather, its discussion had been planned into and integrated throughout the Institutes itself. Again, we must return to the beginning of Book 3 for a proper perspective.

…we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us…. We also…are said to be “engrafted into him” [Rom 11:17], and to “put on Christ” [Gal 3:27]; for, as I have said, all that he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him…. the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself.[93]

These words from Book 3 give us a partial answer to the question concerning the real presence of Christ in the sacraments, as well as how we participate in his flesh and blood.

Bavinck begins one of his sections in the paragraph dealing with the Lord’s Supper in this manner: “Although the Lord’s Supper is essentially a meal, it has, in addition, its own spiritual significance and appropriation.”[94] And later he says:

The materia sacramenti…in the Lord’s Supper is, therefore, the body and the blood of Christ, just as they in his sacrifice for the congregation are broken and poured out for the forgiveness of sins—that is the crudfied and dead-and-buried Christ with all of the obtained benefits and blessings which he acquired through his death.[95]

Bavinck calls the flesh of Christ the substance of our spiritual life.[96] Following Calvin he says that when one contemplates the substance, one should think, primarily, about the “life-giving power.”[97] Calvin, himself, when speaking in terms of the distribution of Christ’s own flesh and blood, frequently exchanges the words flesh and blood with the word power (vis, vigor, virtus), which is given from the flesh and blood of Christ.[98] Now we have come almost full circle and again find ourselves in the realm of the “extra-Calvinisticum.” Christ is in heaven and remains in heaven, yet his flesh and blood is the substance of the Lord’s Supper. Yet, for both Bavinck and Calvin, this poses no ineluctable problem.

Christ’s flesh remains in heaven, but the Holy Spirit knows no (insuperable) distances. And just as he objectively binds the souls of the believers with Christ, he subjectively works and strengthens that faith in us, through which that fellowship (with Christ) is mediated and through which we are lifted up to heaven.[99]

It should be patently clear that the discussion has come to be centered on the work of the Holy Spirit in applying the whole Christ to the believer. This is otherwise known as the unio mystica. “Through the Holy Spirit we have true fellowship with Christ himself and we become participators in all of his benefits.”[100] This mystical union, the hidden fellowship of the believers with Christ is, in the first place, the closest yet most incomprehensible union with the person of Christ, with his divine and human nature, with his soul and body, with his flesh and blood and thereafter participation in his riches and gifts.”[101] Certain qualifying remarks must be made here. What Bavinck and Calvin are discussing is not mysticism. The mystic says to God, “I am you,” but in the mystcal union the believer says to God, “I am yours.” Secondly, neither Bavinck nor Calvin were desirous of giving a thorough-going explication of how this union is affected. When Bavinck, therefore, says that this union is incomprehensible, he is not flying into some type of subjectivism, but rather realizes that he has come to the boundary of his abilities. Meijers’ dissertation deals with the balance which Bavinck continuously attempted to maintain between objectivity and existentiality.[102] One of Bavinck’s most famous statements in the Gereformeerde dogmatiek is found in the beginning of vol. 2, where he says: “Mystery is the life-element of Dogmatics.”[103] This seems to me to be nothing more than a reproduction of what Calvin states rather frequently in Book 4, namely that the union is better experienced than explained.[104] Again, enough emphasis cannot be placed on the rejection of all subjectivism in the statements dealing with experience. After Calvin has made the statement concerning the fact that the union is better experienced than explained, he deals immediately with the promissio as revealed. The same applies to Bavinck. What can be said, then, in a more positive vein about what this unio mystica is?

In the first place, we must direct our attention to what Calvin says about this doctrine: “Therefore, that joining together of Head and members, that indwelling of Christ in our hearts—in short, that mystical union—are accorded by us the highest degree of importance, so that Christ, having been made ours, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed.”[105] The manner in which Bavinck describes this union is reminiscent of Luther’s statement that the further we pull Christ into the flesh, the better it is for us.[106] Bavinck says:

That fellowship is not simply presented in terms of participating in his (Christ’s) benefits. It is also not simply a mere concurrence in thinking, feelings, and desires, nor is it simply a disposition, nor a unanimity, but, rather it is indeed the closest possible bond of one person with another; of the entire Christ, both his divine and human nature, with soul and body, with the person of the believer, also with soul and body.[107]

Bavinck calls the doctrine of the unio mystica the “kernel” or the “heart” of Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper.[108]

Zwingli had taught that there was no other fellowship with all the benefits which Christ purchased for us on the cross. That was not sufficient for Calvin. There was another, deeper fellowship; a fellowship not only with the benefits but, also, with the person of Christ himself; with his own flesh and blood.[109]

Christ’s own words were not simply: my Spirit or my deity, but my flesh, my blood is truly food and drink.[110] With these statements Bavinck takes this doctrine out of the realm of the doctrinal and places it squarely in the realm of the practical. In fact, anyone who has taken the time to truly study the works of someone such as Calvin or Bavinck cannot truly comprehend why those men are so often accused of teaching “cold” doctrines. These words dealing with the Lord’s Supper and the mystical union of the believer with Christ are not isolated doctrines but point us to the object of our faith. We have already seen how Calvin defined faith.[111] Krusche rightly adds:

Es ist für den Glauben wesentlich, ein Gegenüber zu haben. Dieses Gegenüber, auf das er gerichtet ist, ist das Evangelium von Jesus Christus und seiner für uns geschehenen Heilstat. Der Gegenstand des Glaubens ist also nicht eine Lehre und auch nicht einfach eine Botschaft, sondern in dieser Botschaft eine Person und ihr Werk. Darum tritt der Glaubende nicht nur in eine Erkenntnisbeziehung zu dem Bezeugten.[112]

This means that there is a double working of the Holy Spirit. This is not to be explained in terms of a “second blessing” or a bifurcation in his work, but rather a double working within the context of a beautiful unity. This unity comprises both the mind and the heart, and, therefore, the whole man, “und er besteht in der Einheit von Erkenntnis und Vertrauen, was besonders gut in der Bezeichnung des Glaubens als eines Ergreifens und Umfangens der Verheissung, eines sich Stützens auf sie und eines Ruhens in ihr zum Ausdruck kommt.”[113]

Calvin treats this subject of the unio not only in the Institutes, but also in various commentaries. There, he does not always utilize the same terminology to express himself, but for the discerning reader, the intention is clear. In John 14:20 he speaks of the unio on coniunctio cum Christo; in Rom 11:17, insitio or insertio in Christum; in 1 Cor 1:9, communio, communicatio, or participatio cum Christo; in Eph 3:17, habitatio Christo in nobis; and in Eph 4:15, coalescere cum Christo.[114] This union is simply one of the many manifestations of the love of the good God for his people. It is not enough that Jesus is Immanuel—God with us; God also desires to be God in us.[115]

A statement made by Bavinck in his article about Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper manifests a close scrutinization of the implications of Calvin’s thought. Bavinck, when talking about the unio mystica in Calvin, turns his thoughts to the notion of the manducatio perpetua. He says:

The mystical union—the hidden and secret union of the believer with Christ—exists not only in that moment in which one participates in the Lord’s Supper. According to Eph 5:30, John 6:51 and John 17:21 we are one with Christ and remain one with him outside of the Lord’s Supper. We are and remain flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. The nature of this union remains the same. The sacrament adds nothing new to the Word, and it is nothing without the Word.[116]

Krusche explains Calvin’s view of the manducatio perpetua thusly:

Die manducatio ist also keineswegs etwa etwas, was in spezifischer Weise zum Abendmahl gehört: in J 6, 53 f. ist von der perpetua manducatio (= perpetua communicatio) die Rede (denn das Abendmahl war ja noch gar nicht eingesetzt, wiewohl es dann dieses Geschehen abbildet und verbürgt). Manducatio und communio (communicatio, participatio, unio, coniunctio) cum Christo bzw. habitatio Christi in nobis sind ein und dasselbe.[117]

Or, to put it in the words of H. Grass: “der modus manducationis im Abendmahl wird dem allgemeinen modus percipiendae Christi gratiae subsumiert, wie er am Anfang von Inst. III beschrieben ist.”[118]

The key passages for Calvin’s explanation of this doctrine are found in his commentary on John. In chapter 6, verse 35 he states: “To come to Christ and to believe mean…the same thing…. I readily acknowledge that there is no other way in which we eat Christ than by believing; but the eating is the effect and fruit of faith rather than faith itself. For faith does not look at Christ only as at a distance, but embraces him, that he may become ours and may dwell in us.”[119] Of greater importance are his comments on vv 53 and following (“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man”): “The meaning therefore is: ‘Despise me as much as you please, on account of the mean and despicable appearance of my flesh, still that despicable flesh contains life; and if you are destitute of it, you will nowhere else find any thing else to quicken you.’“[120] Calvin is aware that these statements do not directly deal with the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, for Christ had not yet instituted it. But, as we shall see, there are far-reaching implications for that sacrament. He says:

The ancients fell into a gross error by supposing that little children were deprived of eternal life, if they did not dispense to them the eucharist, that is, the Lord’s Supper; for this discourse does not relate to the Lord’s Supper, but to the uninterrupted communication [emphasis added] of the flesh of Christ, which we obtain apart from the use of the Lord’s Supper.[121]

On verse 54 Calvin comments:

It is certain, then, that he [Christ] speaks of the perpetual [emphasis added] and ordinary manner of eating the flesh of Christ, which is done by faith only. And yet, at the same time I acknowledge that there is nothing said here that is not figuratively represented, and actually bestowed on believers, in the Lord’s Supper; and Christ even intended that the holy Supper should be, as it were, a seal and confirmation of this sermon.[122]

The implications of these statements are rather obvious. There is no special grace imparted to the participant in the Lord’s Supper—or baptism, for that matter—that is not imparted in the Word. “Es gibt nach Calvin keine spezifische Abendmahlsgabe. In der Tat, was das Abendmahl uns gibt, das haben wir alle Tage in der Predigt, beim Lesen der Schrift, beim Gebet.”[123] Thus, the Christ offered in the preaching of the Word is precisely the same Christ who is offered in the Sacrament. One must not draw the overhasty conclusion that the sacraments are superfluous. Quite the contrary. It should be remembered that Calvin strove to have the Lord’s Supper celebrated weekly,[124] so one cannot accuse him of in any way denigrating them. They are merely yet another sign of God’s wondrous graciousness to his people. He utilizes elements which we can clearly understand; elements which are familiar to our touch, sight, and taste. The invisible Word in the preaching has the identical content as the visible Word in the sacraments.[125]

We must still discuss the third aspect of the Lord’s Supper, namely the effect. As might well be expected, this element is inextricably bound to the previous ones. Niesel says:

Die Sache, die im Abendmahle gegenwärtig ist und uns mitgeteilt wird, ist also Christus mit seinem Tode und seiner Auferstehung. Damit ist schon gesagt, dass es im Abendmahle nicht einfach auf die Mitteilung eines Stoffes, einer himmlichen Materie, ankommt. Darauf kommt es an, dass wir den Leib und das Blut Christi erhalten, die einmal zu unserer Errettung dahingegeben worden sind.[126]

To use Calvin’s words: “we must carefully observe that the very powerful and almost entire force of the Sacrament lies in these words: ‘which is given for you,’ ‘which is shed for you.’ The present distribution of the body and blood of the Lord would not greatly benefit us unless they had once for all been given for our redemption and salvation.”[127] And, again, “the Sacrament sends us to the cross of Christ, where that promise [cf. John 6:55–56] was indeed performed and in all respects fulfilled. For we do not eat Christ duly and unto salvation unless he is crucified, when in living experience we grasp the efficacy of his death.”[128] The effect can rightly be described as reconciliation, justification, sanctification, and eternal life. “Diese Wohltaten nennt er den effectus oder die virtus des Abendmahles, die dritte und letzte Seite der geistlichen Wesenhit dieses Sakramentes, die sich aus den beiden anderen, der promissio und materia, ergibt.”[129] One must attempt to grasp the close interconnection of the various “moments” or aspects of both Calvin’s and Bavinck’s view of the Lord’s Supper. In the last quotation the notions of benefits, effectus (virtus), promissio, and materia, are brought into the closest possible union.[130] One can legitimately add the other areas which have been discussed, including the all-important spiritual union of the believer with Christ. It is only when one sees the unity within the theologies of Calvin and Bavinck that one is able to properly appreciate the various constructions and structures that are employed. Rogge speaks of the various interrelations of the doctrines in this manner:

Die Hineinnahme in die beneficia hat noch eine Voraussetzung: Das ist die Teilgabe an Christus selbst, die Gemeinschaft mit ihm…. Christus-gemeinschaft heisst konkret, dass Christus uns einlädt als ‘koinoonous’ altaris. Solches ist Inhalt des Abendmahlgeschehens, Teilgabe am verum corpus….[131]

In order to achieve this, or to see the proper achievement of this, one must turn one’s attention again towards the Holy Spirit, because it is only through him that this fellowship can take place:

…so ist doch die Verbindung beider Wirklichkeiten Calvins durchgehende Ansicht. Dreierlei gehört zusammen:

1. das Zusammen wachsen mit dem Christusleib,
2. die Teilhabe an seinem Wesen (seiner Substanz),
3. die Wirkung, die es in dieser Gemeinschaft an allen Wohltaten Christi gibt.[132]

This means that the effect (virtus) of the Sacrament happens pneumatologically. Earlier when we discussed the real presence, we stated that as we went along the “how” of Calvin’s doctrine of this presence would have to become manifestly clearer. I trust that with this discussion of the effect that has happened. For it goes without saying that for Calvin

Die Realpräsenz (= Spiritualpräsenz) ist somit eben Mental-Präsenz![133] Die Trennung der Wirkkraft seines Geistes von Christus selbst ist Calvin undenkbar; darum ist Spiritualpräsenz nicht Verflüchtigung oder Verdünnung, sondem die vornehmste, intensivste, sublimierteste, dynamischste Möglichkeit jeglicher Gegenwart überhaupt.[134]

Bavinck approximates the same doctrine, only places the emphasis somewhat differently. For him, the most important effect of the Lord’s Supper is the forgiveness of sins. “It cannot be denied that the believer constantly experiences this blessing in the hearing of the preached Word, but the true benefit in the Sacrament is precisely the visibility.”[135] Yet, that is not the full explication of Bavinck’s view for he adds: “Christ can only be a blessing for us when we receive him in a spiritual manner. Bodily nearness; local togetherness; eating Christ’s flesh with the bodily mouth is completely indifferent; in this sense it is absolutely true that the flesh profiteth nothing.”[136] In the same vein in the Gereformeerde dogmatiek he writes: “The Reformed teach that Christ truly and substantially [wezenlijk] is communicated to the believers, but in a spiritual manner so that he can only be received and enjoyed by the mouth of faith.”[137]

The following summary which Rogge gives of Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper provides a suitable transition to the sursum corda. Quoting A. Barclay[138] he says: “1. Calvin spricht von der Energie des Leibes Christi im Himmel, die der Seele des Gläubigen auf Erden mitgeteilt wird. 2. Der Heilige Geist hebt die Seele des Gläubigen empor zu dem glorifizierten Leib Christi im Himmel.”[139] The question with the sursum corda is: what is actually entailed in the “ascent of the believing soul to heaven”?[140] In refuting the doctrine of the ubiquity of the resurrected Christ in the Institutes, Calvin makes the following statements: “For they think they only communicate with it if it descends into bread; but they do not understand the manner of descent by which he lifts us up to himself.”[141] And:

But greatly mistaken are those who conceive no presence of flesh in the Supper unless it lies in the bread. For thus they leave nothing to the secret working of the Spirit, which unites Christ himself to us. To them Christ does not seem present unless he comes down to us. As though, if he should lift us to himself, we should not just as much enjoy his presence! The question is therefore only of the manner, for they place Christ in the bread while we do not think it unlawful for us to drag him from heaven…. away with that calumny that Christ is removed from his Supper unless he lies hidden under the covering of bread! For since this mystery is heavenly, there is no need to draw Christ to earth that he may be joined to us.[142]

“Descendere und ascendere gehören zu dem einen komplexen Geschehen, das das Heil in Christus ausmacht. Beide Begriffe gehören dazu, wenn von der Christusgemeinschaft die Rede ist; beide sind aber in jedem Falle verbunden mit der virtus, die der Geist ist bzw. mit dem Spiritus, der da wirkt!”[143] Giving an historical overview in the Gereformeerde dogmatiek, Bavinck says the following concerning Calvin’s sursum corda:

Calvin, from the very beginning, always placed the emphasis on the fact that the fellowship of the believer with Christ—also with his human nature—is spiritual, and that this fellowship is maintained not by virtue of the fact that Christ’s body descends to earth, but rather, that we lift our hearts heavenward where Jesus Christ, our Intercessor, is sitting at the right hand of his heavenly Father.[144]

III. Unio Sacramentalis

I have left this discussion until the last for it is an area wherein Bavinck made certain alterations to Calvin’s view. This doctrine has to do with the question concerning the sign and that which the sign signifies. Bavinck states that concerning the term unio sacramentalis Gomarus brought certain objections and not without justification.[145] The Catholics and the Lutherans can speak—to a certain point—about a unio between the materia externa and interna in the sacrament, because they teach that the thing signified enters into and is contained in the sign. They accept a physical, corporal, local union.[146] Bavinck wants to describe the unio—or better, forma sacramenti—in ethical terms: “it is an ethical connection, a relation completely identical with that between Christ and the gospel; between the benefits of the covenant of grace and God’s Word, which makes them known to us.”[147] “Water, bread, and wine are not, by nature, signs and seals of Christ and his benefits…. It is necessary to have a special word from God in order that the signs of baptism and the Lord’s Supper would manifest a representation of the spiritual things.”[148] “Without that word and outside of the communal usage, the water, bread, and wine are nothing other than ordinary, daily sustenance.”[149] “But the spiritual manner, with which Christ is communicated with all his benefits in the sacrament, forms the true reality [waarachtige realiteit]….”[150]

But why this alteration? Certainly the answer lies, in part, with the words Calvin employed in his correspondence with Bullinger concerning the Consensus Tigurinus. In CR 7 we find the discussion between Calvin and Bullinger on this point. Hartvelt is correct when he says: “In the simul appears a new main point in the problem of the unio sacramentalis.”[151] This difficulty is precisely this: Calvin had written to Bullinger, in the first place, that God’s grace was not bound to the sacraments.[152] But Bullinger was still perturbed about Calvin’s doctrine and wondered why, when Calvin did not bind the grace of God to the sacraments, he then said that whoever received baptism, received at the same time (simul) the forgiveness of sins.[153] Bullinger’s ratiocination was: If one receives at the same time, they are then bound.[154] Bullinger saw no essential difference between this view and the Roman view. But Calvin maintained his position by taking recourse to God’s trustworthiness and his sovereignty.[155], “And in the formulation of the unio sacramentalis two things are quite prominent: with the sign we are dealing with the thing which it signifies, and by faith that which is signified comes into the possession of the believers.”[156] Calvin explains further: “I concede that God’s grace is bound to the sacraments—not bound by time of place—but in so far as each brings the ‘grip’ of his faith with him, in order that he receive everything that is represented in the sacrament.”[157] Further, Calvin taught a distinction in the sacraments between symbol and mystery.

The symbol of the Lord’s Supper…is the external action: the breaking of the bread and the eating of same. The same is true for the cup. The internal action he calls the mystery. Symbol is not only bread and wine, but the totality of the symbolical distribution and the reception of bread and wine. The mystery is: 1. the true and salutary fellowship with the body and the blood of the Lord, and 2. the mutual fellowship.[158]

Conclusions

In the teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper, one can trace a quite clear dependence in Bavinck on Calvin. The main thoughts of the signification, the substance, and the effect of the Sacrament as taught by Calvin were assimilated into the Gereformeerde dogmatiek. Important to both theologians is the doctrine of the unio mystica which virtually permeates the whole of their teaching on the Lord’s Supper. It goes without saying that this exceedingly strong pneumatological emphasis is crucial for the understanding of the rest of what these men taught in other loci.

One of the few deviations by Bavinck from Calvin is in his choice not to employ the term unio sacramentalis but to choose the words forma sacramenti. In the light of the close adherence at other, more crucial points, this deviation must be seen as a minor one.

Notes

1. In particular, I shall be dealing with volume four of the Gereformeerde dogmatiek (6th ed.; Kampen: Kok, 1976), hereafter GD; the booklet De offerande des lofs (16th ed.; Kampen: Kok, 1948); the speech De Algemene Genade (Kampen: Zalsman, 1894), hereafter AG; and Roeping en wedergeboorte (Kampen: Zalsman, 1903), hereafter RW. At times I shall rely on the following dissertations written in the Dutch language: R. H. Bremmer, Herman Bavinck als dogmaticus (Kampen: Kok, 1961); S. Meijers, Objectiviteit en existentialiteit (Kampen: Kok, 1979), hereafter OE; J. Veenhof, Revelatie en inspiratie (Amsterdam: Buijten & Schepperheijn, 1968), hereafter RI.
2. I have chosen to place the Latin text in the footnotes except in instances where both the text is short and the meaning of the Latin is obvious. When quoting the 1536 edition of the Institutes, I shall be referring to Institution of the Christian Religion (transl. F. L. Battles; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975), hereafter Inst. 1536. For the 1559 ed., Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. J. T. McNeill; transl. F. L. Battles; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967), hereafter Inst.
3. Joannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia (Corpus Reformatorum 29–87; 59 vols.; ed. W. Baum et al.; Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke, 1863–1900). CR 29 = CR 1. These quotations will have the appropriate CR number and the page number.
4. Joannis Calvini opera selecta (5 vols.; ed. P. Barth and G. Niesel; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1931), hereafter OS.
5. J. Calvin, Commentaries (22 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), hereafter Comm. plus volume and page number.
6. H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek (4 vols.; 6th ed.; Kampen: Kok, 1976).
7. H. Bavinck, “Calvijns leer over het Avondmaal,” in the church paper De Vrije Kerk 13 (1887).
8. H. Bavinck, Kennis en leven. Opstellen en artikelen uit vroegere jaren (Kampen: Kok, 1922), hereafter KL.
9. H. Bavinck, De Katholiciteit van Christendom en Kerk (Kampen: Kok, 1968), hereafter Kath. This book is a reprint of a speech delivered by Bavinck on 18 December 1888 and was originally published by Zalsman of Kampen. The pagination will follow the 1968 edition.
10. R. H. Bremmer, Herman Bavinck en zijn tijdgenoten (Kampen: Kok, 1966), esp. pp. 46-76; O. J. de Jong, Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1978), esp. pp. 344-74; E. Smilde, Een eeuw van strijd over verbond en doop (Kampen: Kok, 1946), esp. pp. 152-70.
11. The first edition of the GD was published in Kampen by Bos Publishers and the four volumes appeared in the years 1895, 1897, 1898, and 1901, respectively.
12. The only changes which I have been able to locate deal with the addition of footnoting in the later editions, whereas in the first ed. the literature was simply placed between parentheses. Occasionally, a word has been changed, but certainly not with the effect that the nuancing has thereby also changed.
13. Inst. 1536, 118; cf. Inst. 4.14.4.
14. Inst. 1536, 119.
15. Inst. 1536, 124.
16. W. Krusche, “Die Theologie Calvins,” in Johannes Calvin. Eine Gabe zu seinem 400. Todestag (ed. J. Rogge; Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1963) 27.
17. Cf., for example, F. L. Battles, An Analysis of the Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin (Pittsburgh: The Univ. Press, 1972); J. Köstlin, Calvins Institutio nach Form und Inhalt in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (TSK 1868); W. Niesel, Die Theologie Calvins (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1938).
18. W. H. Neuser (hrsg.), “Theologie des Wortes-Schrift, Verheissung und Evangelium bei Calvin,” in Calvinus Theologus (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976) 21.
19. “De cognitione Dei redemptoris in Christo, quae Patribus sub Lege primum, diende et nobis in Evangelio patefacta est” (OS 3.228).
20. Inst. 2.5.8. “Quod autem promittit Deus, ut Augustinus ait, non facimus ipsi per arbitrium vel naturam: sed facit opse per gratiam” (OS 3.306).
21. Inst. 2.10.1–23 and 2.11.1, 14.
22. H. H. Wolf, Die Einheit des Bundes. Das Verhältnis von Altem und Neuem Testament bei Calvin (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1958). This book is the 10th volume in the series, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche.
23. Inst. 2.10.2. “Patrum omnium foedus adeo substantia et re ipsa nihil a nostro differt, ut unum prorsus atque idem sit: administratio tamen variat” (OS 3.404).
24. Cf. Inst. 2.10.7–14.
25. Inst. 2.10.23. “Iam in duobus reliquis probandis, Patres scilicet Christum in foederis sui pignus habuisse, atque in ipso omnem benedictionis fiduciam reposuisse” (OS 3.42 1; cf. Inst. 4.14.20).
26. Inst. 2.11.4. “Alterum Veteris et Novi testamenti discrimen statuitur in figuris, quod illud absente veritate, imaginem tantum et pro corpore umbram ostentabat: hoc praesentem veritatem et corpus solidum exhibet” (OS 3.426).
27. Inst. 1536, 126. Inst. 4.14.20. “Quum enim iam ante docuerimus, esse quaedam sigilla quibus promissiones Dei obsignantur: sit autem certissimum, nullam unquam Dei promissionem hominibus oblatam nisi in Christo (2.Cor.1.d.20): ut de aliqua Dei promissione nos doceant, Christum ostendant necesse est” (OS 5.278).
28. Neuser, “Theologie,” 24; Niesel, Theologie, 100.
29. Wolf, Einheit, 72 n. 54.
30. Cf., for example, O. Bayer, Promissio. Geschichte der reformatorischen Wende in Luthers Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), and E. Bizer, Theologie der Verheissung. Studien zur theologischen Entwicklung des jungen Melanchthon 1519–1524 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964).
31. Neuser, “Theologie,” 26.
32. J. Veenhof, “De verhouding van het Oude Testament en het Nieuwe Testament volgens Herman Bavinck,” in In rapport met de tijd 100 jaar tkeologie aan de Vrije Universiteit, 1880–1980 (Kampen: Kok, 1980) 198–235, hereafter Rapport.
33. Cf. H. Bavinck, Christelijke wereldbeschouwing (Kampen: Kok, 1913), esp. pp. 50ff; cf. also, GD 1.348ff; 384ff; GD 3.174ff. See, further, Veenhof, RI, 250-69, esp. pp. 264ff and p. 262 n. 78; Bremmer, Bavinck als dogmaticus, 384ff; A. A. Hoekema, “Herman Bavinck’s Doctrine of the Covenant” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1953) 110ff. My thanks to Dr. Hoekema, who graciously photocopied this dissertation and mailed it to me at his expense.
34. Cf. F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, 2/1 (NY: Image Books, 1962) 73ff.
35. GD 4.431–35.
36. Cf. H. Bavinck, “Openbaring en Christendom,” in Wijsbegeerte der openbaring (Kampen: Kok, 1908) 144–70, hereafter WO.
37. GD 3.196; H. Bavinck, Magnalia Dei (2nd ed.; Kampen: Kok, 193 1) 258ff, hereafter MD.
38. Rapport, 210ff.
39. Cf. Inst. 2.10 and 11.
40. Rapport, 20lff; cf. Hoekema, “Bavinck’s Doctrine,” 172ff.
41. AG, 14; cf. also R. N. Gleason, “H. Bavinck’s ‘Earlier’ Theology,” in Fides quadrat intellectum (Kampen: Zalsman, 1981) 155ff.
42. WO, 170; GD 4.439.
43. Inst. 1536, 118; Inst. 4.14.3; 4.14.11; 4.17.39; GD 4.457.
44. GD 4.424.
45. G. C. Berkouwer, De sacramenten (Kampen: Kok, 1954) 49–65.
46. GD 4.426.
47. GD 4.456–57.
48. GD 4.457.
49. KL, 165-67; cf. further, E. Bizer, Studien zur Geschichte des Abendmahlsstreits im 16. Jahrhundert, (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1940), esp. pp. 12-24 and 146–223; cf. also Handbuch der Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte Bd 2, “Die Lehrentwicklung im Rahmen der Konfessionalität” (hrsg. C. Andresen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), esp. pp. 46-63; 177–96; 212–18; 233–34; 272–84; A. von Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (Freiburg I.B.: J. C. B. Mohr, 1890) 3.721ff, 746ff; F. Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte (2nd ed.; Hane a. S.: Max Niemeyer, 1890) 350ff; Das Marburger Religionsgespräch 1529 (Texte zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte 13; hrsg. G. May; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1970); R. Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte 4 (4th ed.; Leipzig: Scholl, 1933), esp. pp. 158-72 and 377–406.
50. KL, 165-66; GD 4.532.
51. KL, 165; GD 4.532–33.
52. KL, 165.
53. KL, 167.
54. KL, 168; GD 4.533.
55. Ibid.
56. G. P. Hartvelt, Verum Corpus. Een studie over een centraal hoofdstuk uit de avondmaalsleer van Calvijn (Delft: Meinema, 1960) 78ff, hereafter VC.
57. Cf. the books cited in note 49 above.
58. Bizer, A bendmahlsstreits, 243-74.
59. KL, 172; GD 4.534.
60. Cf. note 19.
61. J. T. Bakker, “In Christus: verzoening als levensvorm,” in De knechtsgestalte van Christus. Studies door collega’s en oud-leerlingen aangeboden aan prof. dr. H. N. Ridderbos (Kampen: Kok, 1978) 37. This article is also included in J. T. Bakker, Geloven—vragenderwijs (Kampen: Kok, 1981) 153–67. The pagination given in this citation will follow that of Ridderbos’ book.
62. Inst. 3.1.1, “Ac primo habendum est, quandiu extra nos est Christus, et ab eo sumus separati, quicquid in salutem humani generis passus est ac fecit, nobis esse inutile nulliusque momenti…nostrum fieri et in nobis habitare oportet…quia nihil ad nos (ut dixi) quaecunque possidet, donec cum ipso in unum coalescimus” (OS 4.1; cf. GD 4.543).
63. “Nunc iusta fidei definitio nobis constabit si dicamus esse divinae erga nos benevolentiae firmam certamque cognitionem, quae gratuitae in Christo promissionis veritate fundata, per Spiritum sanctum et revelatur mentibus nostris et cordibus obsignatur” (OS 4.16).
64. Inst. 4.17.11, “Dico igitur, (quod et semper in Ecclesia receptum fuit, et hodie docent quicunque recte sentiunt) duabus rebus constare sacrum Coenae mysterium: corporeis signis, quae ob oculos proposita, res invisibiles secundum imbecillitatis nostrae captum nobis repraesentant: et spirituali veritate, quae per symbola ipsa figuratur simul et exhibetur” (OS 5.352–54).
65. Inst. 4.17.11, “Significatio in prgmissionibus est sita, quae quodammodo sunt signo implicitae. Materiam aut substantiam voco Christum cum sua morte et resurrectione. Per effectum autem, redemptionem, iustitiam, sanctificationem, vitamque aeternam, et quaecunque alia nobis beneficia affert Christus, intelligo” (OS 5.354).
66. R. S. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament, (London and Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1953) 133ff, 159ff; GD 4.455.
67. W. Niesel, Calvins Lehre vom Abendmahl (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1935) 41, hereafter CLA; cf. also Niesel, Theologie, 202, quoting CR 9.21.
68. CLA, 42-43.
69. By this I mean that both of these theologians work in closest relationship with what God has revealed to his people in the Bible.
70. W. Krusche, Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes nach Calvin (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957) 208; cf. also GD 1.36–71, esp. pp. 69ff.
71. Inst. 1536, 119; Inst. 4.14.6. “Hac ratione Augustinus sacramentum verbum visibile nuncupat (In Iohan. homil 80; Lib 19 contra Faustum): quod Dei promissiones velut in tabula depictas repraesentet, et sub aspectum graphice atque εἰκονικῶ“ expresses statuat” (OS 5.263; GD 4.461).
72. Inst. 1536, 119; Inst. 4.14.6, “Et quando Dominus promissiones suas foedera nuncupat (Gene. 6. d. 18, et 9. d. 9, et 17. a. 2): sacramenta, symbola foederum: ab ipsis hominum foederibus simile adduci potest” OS 5.263; GD 3.183; Hoekema, “Bavinck’s Doctrine,” 135ff.
73. Ibid. “Aut si dicamus specula in quibus gratiae Dei divitias, quas nobis elargitur, comtemplari liceat; illic enim sese nobis (ut iam dictum est) manifestat quantum nostrae hebetudini agnoscere datum est, suamque erga nos benevolentiam et amorem expressius quam verbo testatur.”
74. Inst. 4.17.11.
75. Ibid. “Dico igitur, in Coenae mysterio per symbola panis et vini, Christum vere nobis exhiberi, adeoque corpus et sanguinem eius, in quibus omnem obedientiam pro comparanda nobis iustitia adimplevit: quo scilicet primum in unum corpus cum ipso coalescamus: deinde participes substantiae eius facti, in bonorum omnium communicatione virtutem quoque sentiamus” (OS 5.354).
76. Cf. the excellent monograph: E. D. Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-Called Extra Calvinisticum in Calvin’s Theology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966), esp. pp. 8-60. Cf. also, H. Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum (28th ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1952) 70; Mysterium Salutis. Grundriss Heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik 3/1 (hrsg. J. Feiner et al.; Einsiedeln: Benziger Verlag, 1970) 424–68; KL 178-79 (Inst. 2.14; 2.16.14–16; 4.17.24–31).
77. Inst. 4.17.12. “Siquidem ut finitum esse, pro perpetua corporis humani ratione, minime ambigimus, caelogue contineri, quo semel receptum est, donec ad iudicium redeat: ita sub haec corruptibilia elementa retrahere ipsum, aut ubique praesens imaginari, prorsus ducimus nefas esse. Neque id sane opus per Spiritum suum nobis Dominus largitur, ut unum corpore, spiritu et anima secum fiamus. Vinculum ergo istius coniunctionis est Spiritus Christi, cuius nexu copulamur: et quidam veluti canalis, per quem quicquid Christus pose et est et habet, ad nos derivatur” (OS 5.356; KL, 178, 181, 182; GD 4.544).
78. KL, 181.
79. Cf. Berkouwer, De sacramenten 210-52.
80. Bakker, “In Christus,” 43.
81. Berkouwer, De sacramenten.
82. GD 4.468.
83. KL, 181.
84. CLA, 44; F. W. Dankbaar, De sacramentsleer van Calvijn (Amsterdam: H. J. Paris, 1941) 158.
85. CLA, 45.
86. Inst. 4.17.10, 12, 19; cf. Dankbaar, De sacramentsleer, 151-59; Hartvelt, VC, 113ff.
87. VC, 85ff; Dankbaar, De sacramentsleer, 180ff; KL, 179; Inst. 4.17.4.
88. “Etsi autem incredibile videtur in tanto locorum distantia penetrare ad nos Christi carnem ut nobis sit in cibum, meminerimus quantum supra sensus omnes nostros emineat arcana Spiritus sancti virtus, et quam stultum sit eius immensitatem modo nostro velle metiri. Quod ergo mens nostra non comprehendit, concipoat fides, Spiritum vere unire quae locis disiuncta sunt” (OS 5.351).
89. CLA, 47.
90. Johannes Calvins Lebenswerk in seinen Briefen (trans. R. Schwarz; Neukirchener Verlag, 1962) 2.422.
91. Dankbaar, De sacramentsleer, 51.
92. Inst. 4.17.8, 9; cf. also Calvin’s Genevan Catechism, in E. F. K. Müller, Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche (Leipzig: Georg Böhme, 1903) 150; and in the same book, The Heidelberg Catechism, Sunday 28.
93. Inst. 3.1.1. “Ac primo habendem est, quandiu extra nos est Christus, et ab eo sumus separati, quicquid in salutem humani generis passus est ac fecit, nobis esse inutile nulliusque momenti…. nos etiam vicissim dicimur in ipsum inderi (Rom. 11. 6. 17), et eum induere (Galat. 3. d. 27); quia nihil ad nos (ut dixi) quaecunque possidet, donec cum ipso in unum coalescimus…Huc summa redit, Spiritum sanctum vinculum esse, quo nos sibi efficaciter devincit Christus” OS 4.1–2; cf. KL, 178, 181.
94. GD 4.542.
95. Ibid.; KL, 174, 179.
96. KL, 175.
97. KL, 176.
98. Ibid.; cf. also J. Rogge, Virtus und Res. Um die Abendmahlswirklichkeit bei Calvin (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1965) 60ff.
99. KL, 178; cf. Inst. 4.17.24–31.
100. KL, 181; cf. Inst. 4.17.12.
101. KL, 174; cf. Inst. 3.11.10.
102. OB, 35-45.
103. GD 2.1.
104. Inst. 4.17.4–7; 4.17.25; KL, 174.
105. Inst. 3.11.10. “Coniunctio igitur illa capitis et membrorum, habitatio Christi in cordibus nostris, mystica denique unio a nobis in summo gradu statuitur: ut Christus noster factus, donorum quibus praeditus est nos faciat consortes” (OS 4.191; cf. 4.17.20; 4.17.33).
106. Cf. P. Althaus, Die Theologie Martin Luthers (2nd ed.; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1963) 16lff; J. T. Bakker, Coram Deo. Bijdrage tot het onderzoek naar de structuur van Luthers theologie (Kampen: Kok, 1956) esp. pp. 112-59; G. Ebeling, Evangelische Evangelienauslegung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1962) 241–47; H. J. Iwand, Nachgelassene Werke (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1974) 5.105-31; M. Lienhard, Martin Luthers christologisches Zeugnis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979) 115–45, esp. pp. 129ff; D. E. Seeberg, Luthers Theologie in ihren Grundzügen (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1950) 81–83; E. Vogelsang, Die Anfänge von Luthers Christologie (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1929) 62–87.
107. KL, 177; GD 4.543.
108. KL, 173; GD 4.543.
109. KL, 173; GD 4.534.
110. KL, 175.
111. Inst. 3.2.7.
112. Krusche, Wirken, 265.
113. Ibid., 264.
114. Ibid., 266; GD 4.533.
115. Ibid., cf. Inst. 3.2.16; 3.2.24; 3.2.39.
116. KL, 170.
117. Krusche, Wirken, 270-71.
118. H. Grass, Die Abendmahlslehre bei Luther und Calvin (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1940) 225.
119. Comm. 17.250.
120. Ibid., 265.
121. Ibid.; GD 4.557.
122. Comm. 17.266; GD 4.554.
123. Krusche, Wirken, 272; GD 4.457.
124. Inst, 4.17.43.
125. GD 4.457; Niesel, Theologie, 216; KL, 174.
126. CLA, 48.
127. Inst. 4.17.3. “Ac diligenter quidem observandum est, potissiman et pene totam sacramenti energiam in his verbis sitam esse, Quod pro nobis effunditur; alioqui non magnopere nobis conduceret, corpus et sanguinem Domini nunc distribui, nisi in redemptionem ac salutem nostram exposita semel fuissent” (OS 5.344).
128. Inst. 4.17.4. “illam (inquam) promissionem obsignare et confirmare: et quo id efficiat, ad Christi crucem mittere, ubi ea promissio vere praestita et numeris omnibus impleta fuit. Neque enim Christo rite et salutariter vescimus nisi crucifixo, dum efficaciam mortis eius vivo sensu apprehendimus” (OS 5.345).
129. CLA, 52-53.
130. Rogge, Virtus, 65: “Die Dreiteilung dieser geistlichen Wahrheit hat nun folgende Gestalt: significatio, materia, virtus oder effectus. Dass die virtus das Telos des ganzen ausmacht, geht schon daraus hervor, dass Calvin sie als die Konsequenz aus significatio und materia wertet. Significatio wiederum hängt von der materia ab” (cf. Dankbaar, De sacramentsleer, 68-87).
131. Ibid., 61.
132. Ibid., 63.
133. Ibid., 64.
134. Ibid.
135. GD 4.556.
136. KL, 182.
137. GD 4.544; Inst. 4.17.32–33.
138. A. Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper: A Study in the Eucharistic Teaching of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin (Glasgow: Jackson, Wylie, 1927) 265.
139. Rogge, Virtus, 66.
140. Ibid.
141. Inst. 4.17.16. “…quia se cum eo cummunicare aliter non putant, quam si in panem descendat: modum vero descensus, quo nos ad se sursum evehit, non comprehendunt” (OS 5.362).
142. Inst. 4.17.31. “Longe autem falluntur qui nullam carnis Christi praesentiam in Coena concipiunt nisi in pane sistatur. Ita enim arcanae Spiritus operationi, quae nobis Christum ipsum unit, nihil reliquum faciunt. Christus praesens illis non videtur nisi ad nos descendat. Quasi vero, si ad se nos evehat, non aeque potiamur eius praesentia. Ergo tantum de modo quaestio est; quia Christum ipsi in pane licant, nobis autem non ducimus fas esse eum e caelo detrahere. Utrum rectius sit iudicent lectores. Tantum facessat calumnia illa, auferri Christum a sua Coena nisi sub panis integumento lateat. Nam quum mysterium hoc caeleste sit, necesse non est, Christum elicere in terras ut nobis sit coniunctus” (OS 5.389).
143. Rogge, Virtus, 66; cf. Inst. 3.2.34: “Therefore, as we cannot come to Christ unless we be drawn by the Spirit of God, so when we are drawn we are lifted up in mind and heart above our understanding”; cf. further, W. Kolfhaus, Christusgemeinschaft bei Johannes Calvin (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1939) 108–24.
144. GD 4.553; cf. Inst. 4.17.31.
145. GD 4.458.
146. Ibid.
147. GD 4.459.
148. Ibid.
149. GD 4.460.
150. GD 4.461.
151. VC, 79.
152. CR 7.693: “Sacramentis Dei gratiam non alligamus.”
153. VC, 79.
154. Ibid.
155. VC, 80-81.
156. Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine, 167ff, where Wallace speaks of the “unparalleled mystery” between the mystery of the sacramental union which is paralleled by the mystery of the incarnation. Calvin takes his starting point in Chalcedonian Christology and the extra Calvinisticum. Wallace says, “Calvin condemns…confusion of heaven and earth and insists on asserting a union such that, in spite of the real unity achieved, each nature retains its own properties distinct and entire, without change, there being no fusion or blending of the one nature in the other. This is what Calvin means by ‘personal union.’“ And, “Enough has…been said on this matter to show that though the union established between the grace of God and the human action in the sacraments cannot be called a ‘personal’ union in the same sense of the word, and is but transitory, it nevertheless reflects characteristics of the deeper mystery, and for Calvin the one relation illuminated the other” (p. 168).
157. CR 7.701: “Coniunctam quidem Dei gratiam sacramentis esse fateor, non tempore, non loco, sed quatenus vas fidei quisque affert, ut quod illic figuratur, obtineat” (quoted in VC, 79).
158. VC, 82 (quoting CR 9.685).