OCTOBER 31st 1517: LESSONS FROM REFORMATION HISTORY Pt.16

Martin Luther reformation has its downsides which most historians do not really stress yet there are numerous lessons to learn from it. We teach church history not as story tellers but as men who do not want a repeat of negative history because history is cyclical.

The bible says, *"Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.*"( 1 Corinthians 10:11).

As bad as the reformers painted Roman Catholicism, there are so many good things we can learn and emulate from them. That is why we must approach history with an open mind not with our biases and denominational lenses.

The reformation produced three streams of denomination that did not agree on certain doctrines. The three streams are: Lutheranism, Reformed/ Calvinist tradition and Anabaptists. These are the three main protestant denominations that were formed at the onset of reformation.

i.*LUTHERANISM*

The founder is Martin Luther. He was the founder of what is known as Lutheran Church and they still exist today in Europe, America and even in Africa.

They believe the church should be separated from the state. That is, the church should handle spiritual matters while the state should handle civil matters through the instrumentality of the law. The Reformed Tradition/ Calvinists believe otherwise.

They believe in two sacraments: baptism&Eucharist( Lord Supper). However, on the issue of Lord supper they differ  with Roman Catholics& Calvinists. In fact, Zwingli and Martin Luther parted ways on the issue of communion.

Roman Catholicism believes that when the priest sanctify the communion elements(bread&wine), it is transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus. That is known as "Transubstantiation". Zwingli, a reformer believes the bread and wine is symbolic while Calvinism believes the spiritual presence of God is present with the elements of communion.

Lutheranism believes in "Consubstantiation", that is, Christ's body and blood are physically present with the element of communion not necessarily a change of element into his actual body. All these views were sharply debated among reformers till Zwingli&Luther parted ways.

Different streams that emerged from the reformation hold divergent views and everyone is entitled to their opinion on this issue. Personally, I do not agree with transubstantiation and consubstantiation.

What Jesus gave his disciples was not his actual flesh&blood,rather, he only used the elements of bread&wine to symbolize his body that will be broken on the cross and the blood that he will shed. He couldn't have cut his own flesh&blood for them. That will be a tacit support for cannibalism.

1 Corinthians 11:24 says, *"and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me*".

So, what happens when we come to the communion table? We are taking a physical bread&wine ( which could be represented by anything edible) as a symbolic act of His death.

*What the elements represents is more important than the element itself*.

At that moment, the spiritual presence of Christ is with those elements because His death&resurrection ushered us into a new dimension of power.

*Communion should make the believer come into a fuller consciousness of the finished work of Christ and the availability of the resurrection power that can cause a change to happen*.

That unseen spiritual presence of Christ with the communion element is one of the reasons the resurrection power manifest as healing, deliverance&miracles during&after communion services. There is power in taking the communion.

When next you approach the communion table, do it with reverence for Christ's body that was broken, His finished work on the cross and with an expectation to experience a surge of the resurrection power.