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