Mortification and Vivification, Michael Horton
“Progressive sanctification has two parts: mortification and vivification, “both of which happen to us by participation in Christ,” as Calvin notes (Calvin, Institutes 3.3.2, 9 The “mortification/vivification” distinction was first formulated by Melanchthon in his Commentary on Romans (Corpus Reformatorum). These occur simultaneously and continuously throughout the Christian life, rather than in stages. Christ’s death alone is atoning, and cannot be repeated. He died for our sins, but we die to our sins. Christ took up his cross once and for all as a sacrifice for sin, but he calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross daily,” facing persecution from within and without (Lk. 9:23). Although we have died definitively to the law and to sin (Paul uses the analogy of remarriage after a death in Romans 7: 1-6; cf. Gal. 2:19), we continue to struggle inwardly with our new identity (Ro. 7:7-24). Subjectively experiencing this definitive reality signified and sealed to us in our baptism requires a daily dying and rising.” (Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, etc., page 661)
Irishanglican's Weblog 
Fr. Robert, You knew I’d love the shout out to Melanchthon! In his Loci Communes of 1521, which was developed out of his lectures on Romans (1519) and doctrine of Paul (1520), he discusses mortification and vivification in his consecutive sections on Baptism and Repentence.
As he states in the former, “So each baptism [of John and of Christ] signified the same thing, mortification and vivification.” [He, like Luther, taught infant baptism.]
And in the latter section, “The Christian life is nothing else than this very repentence, that is, the regeneration of our being. Mortification is brought about through the law. For the law terrifies and slays our conscience. Vivification takes place through the gospel or through absolution. For the gospel is is nothing else than absolution.”
Indeed the Gospel and Absolution are simply Christ!
Am reading Hermann Sasse’s “This is my body–Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar” (1958). As he makes clear, for Luther, Melancthon, and the Lutheran Confessional statements, the full, complete Christ and his entire Gospel are in and efficacious to/for/in the lives of believers through Baptism, Holy Communion, and Absolution.
I had and read Herman Sasse’s book here on Luther’s idea of Real Presence at one time, not sure if I still have it? I am closer to Luther somewhat on the idea of Christ’s so-called Real Presence. However, I am also affected by Augustine’s ideas here also, as Peter Martyr Vermigli says: ‘We say with Augustine that the sacramental symbols are visible words.’ And Calvin also gives credit to Vermigli: ‘The whole (doctrine of Eucharist) was crowned by Peter Martyr, who left nothing more to be done.’ (See Jospeh McLelland, Ph.D., book: The Visible Words Of God, A Study In The Theology Of Peter Martyr), perhaps now OP however? (My copy 1957, Oliver And Boyd, London)… though I think I have seen an American edition, Eerdmans?)
Calvin’s full teaching here on the Eucharist is theologically strong to my mind! Sadly however many Reformed Christians, don’t know it, or they just don’t follow it!
*I have moved some towards Calvin here, and less I think with Luther, at least to the Lutheran Creedal position. The so-called “efficiency” sacramentally is “In” Christ! HE must always be seen too, at the Right-Hand-of-God, on the Throne of God.. most literally, as Mediator!
Btw, do you think there is perhaps any “loss” here theologically & thus spiritually, in the High Church positions, as to the Ascension of Christ? Friendly, but certainly a theological question!
While Sasse clearly states Calvin’s ideas on the eucharist are significantly different from and incompatible with Luther’s, esp. on “the real presence”, he does write:
“No one can study Calvin seriously without feeling the deep longing of this man for the real Sacrament. There is a touching hunger and thirst for the Sacrament which expressed itself in the classical liturgies of the Reformed churches. Calvin really wanted to retain the Sacrament. Only reluctantly did he give up the desire to have the Sacrament celebrated each Sunday.” (Rev. Ed., p. 266)
Regarding the Ascension, it is fascinating that Zwingli, Bucer (and thus the 1552 BCP), Calvin and Bullinger spoke at length about the risen Christ being bodily in heaven and thus it was impossible for him to be both there and really present in the eucharist. The Black Rubric of 1662 essentially states the same: “the natural body and blood of our Savior Christ are in heaven”. Thus liturgically it must be the Holy Spirit who bridges the gap between Christ’s body in heaven and the church’s altar on earth. I like how Melanchthon and finally most Lutherans resolved the issue: they do not assume that Christ’s body can be in one place only and thus his glorified body can be in many places, wherever Christ wills it.
We can see that historically, certainly Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, etc. surely were responding to the Roman Catholic errors as to the Eucharist! So it is important to see where many of the Reformers were coming from in their desire to understand and renew the Church, both biblically and theologically. Myself, I think the strength of the Reformers and Reformation theology, is that the Holy Spirit must be the centre of any understanding of the Eucharist. Since the Ascension of “Christ Jesus” is simply such an important reality and certain theological and spiritual truth! (See, John 7: 39 / Acts 2: 32-33 / Eph. 1: 20-23). This most important spiritual and theological reality appears to be lacking in much of the so-called High Church theology. For most certainly Christ alone is the One & Only real Mediator! (1 Tim. 2: 5, etc.)
And just a note, I still sense great mystery at the LORD’s Holy Eucharist, both giving and receiving! But, I am no longer one for any idea of “transubstantiation”. But, I do like some sense of ‘in, above and around’! Again for me, is great “spirit and truth”!
As regards “transubstantiation”, I doubt there is anyone in the world who fully and honestly believes this Aristotalian-derived definition in a world of quantuum physics! Not even the pope? It is too bad that the RCC needlessly tied itself officially and formally to such primitive ideas. Same goes for all the speculation during the Reformation.
But then I agree with the East that the eucharist is a great mystery that is beyond our limited human comprehension; there is no need to speculate or philosophize on the issue. Just accept the promises of God and the word of Christ, the eternal Logos. Here I think Melanchthon’s ideas on the eucharist, which Sasse claims “lack clarity”, push things to the absolute limit of necessary or acceptable speculation (which is well before the range pushed by Rome in its physical terms or Zwingli, Bucer, and Calvin in its figurative or spiritual terms). On the whole, I think Luther’s eucharistic theology is quite sound (certainly not heretical), though he pushes things a bit with ideas on ubiquity and his absolutist views on the words of institution.
Finally, “transubstantiation” sadly simply STILL is, and also has been (even for the history of some of the EO), central in Roman Catholicism and Anglo-Catholicism! So it is hardly not believed today by some of these groups! One thinks of the Ordinariate’s here! Sadly, in my opinion, many of these people are just over-blown with Rome and the Papacy! The cart is well before the horse theologically, and certainly biblically! My question will always be a “Biblicist” one, as I feel were the Reformers!
When I say belief in “transubstantiation” I mean people fully understanding what it meant when promulgated. In the 13th century and as what it meant then. It uses the “scientific” and metaphysical concepts of Aristotle, pre-Christian. No modern person thinks in these terms when it comes to matter today. We are familiar with particle physics: atoms, electrons, protons, muons, sub-atomic particles, etc. Who thinks in terms of elements and accidents? Substances and essences? When it comes to bread and wine. But these were some of the only ways the ancients could conceive of things. This back at a time when there were but 4 elements: earth, wind, water, and fire.
So yes, RCs and Anglo-Cs might use the word “transubstantiation” but in their heart of hearts they know it is based on a completely different way of understanding the physical universe and has no relation to the actual real physicality of matter on earth, as science knows it today.
So I don’t believe there is a single living person on this planet with any concept of science and matter who honestly and fully believes “transubstantiation” is any way to discuss what is purportedly taking place in the eucharist. Which is way all attempts to explain the “how” of the real presence are ignorant, unwise, and doomed to fail.
@Michael: You might be surprised how many Roman Catholic “Traditionalists” still use and believe in this whole Roman Scholastic statement at least! And most certainly Aristotle was the formation and backdrop of Aquinas, as to logic! But yes, this is simply NOT the biblical Pauline, or Johannine mind-set and theology! Sadly however, it is hardly “doomed” in Roman Catholic and much Anglo-Catholic use & theology! And btw, I have even met some EO’s that use the concept somewhat, i.e. the whole “substances” and “essences” language is still around!
But I agree that the biblical & theological attempt is our only path to any real understanding! And yet people are always drawn to Rome, both in philosophy and just authority (supposed).
PS…Note our friend “Ioannes” and “Mourad”, and several on the blog of Fr. Smuts! I am sure many of them would argue the issue! 😉
As regarding the partisans over on other blogs–wink, wink, nudge, nudge, no what I mean–too funny. 😉
I think they’d blow fuses, gaskets, and circuits if they had to attempt to explain the relationship of “transubstantiation” with particle physics. What is the physical relationship of elements & accidents in a four elemental physical universe with string theory, uncertainty principles, atoms, electrons, neutrons, protons, etc.? They’d quickly revert to mystery and state they are really discussing the issue entirely on the metaphysical level. And if it is really just all metaphysics, then are we even talking about real matter as we know it in our physical universe?
I’m so glad the East didn’t delve too deeply into this great mystery. And no, we haven’t dogmatized one way or other, including on Rome’s preferred term. Not sure there are any modern EO bishops and theologians who use “transubstantiation” at all or at least as is officially meant in RC dogmatics. For us, words like mystery and change seem to work and have for about 1900 years. 🙂
Btw, let me recommend B.A. Gerrish’s book: Grace And Gratitude, The Eucharistic Theology Of John Calvin, (1993, Augsburg Fortress / also WIPF and Stock Pub. 2002). Here he seeks to draw on Calvin’s full theology… from the back of the book:
“The systematic character of Calvin’s theology rests in part on his consistent understanding of God as father and fountain of good and his conception of the gospel as the message of free adoption.”
Here in my opinion, is one of the best modern studies on Calvin’s doctrine and theology of the Eucharist! (As just Sacraments) Perhaps the Church can finally begin to take this great Reformers theology here, and also his theology of the Gospel of Christ, more fully!
Indeed newer and fresh statemants!
Will admit I’ve been so impressed with various Lutheran and Anglican commentators on the history of the liturgy and the eucharist that I haven’t much studied either Reformed or Methodist histories of same.
I usually start by looking at the Confessional statements (e.g. Reformed), then work back to the founders (e.g., Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, Knox, Bullinger, & Beza) and then work forward to where they are today. It is interesting to read what say the Scots Confession (1560) and 2nd Helvetic Confession (1562) say about the eucharist and real presence. Bullinger’s work in the latter is one of the more detailed for these issues. But then compare to the somewhat “lower” theology expressed in the Heidelberg Catechism (1562, e.g., Q. & A. #78).
Sadly, over the centuries the actual liturgical and eucharistic practices within the Reformed Communion deteriorated badly from Calvin and the 2nd Helvetic!
But as Sasse pointed out in the 1950s, if you wanted to experience “crypto-Calvinistic” eucharistic theology and practice, pretty much the entire worldwide Lutheran Communion had succumbed to such thinking. To many Lutherans, Zwingli, Bucer, & Calvin ended up winning the eucharistic theological war in worldwide Protestantism, including Lutheranism.
@Michael: Yes, I am one too that has for the most part, read more deeply with Anglicanism, and their Reformed, but I have read Reformed Theology generally also for many years. I have read my share of the more classic Puritans also. I am not really all that liturgical anymore, but I do use the Book of Common Prayer, mostly the 1662. Note too, as I have said, I have read more of just Luther also, rather than Lutheranism or their Creeds. (Though I have read much of Luther’s SA!) Of course I did my D.Phil. on Luther’s Ontology of the Cross, but even there I used mostly Luther’s theological corpus. But this was years ago now. And my eclecticism of course is real! It is rather nice not to fit too tightly into any one theological system! Though of course “my” Augustinian Calvinism generally fits over top of my Evangelicalism, with certainly an again general Reformational place. But as I keep saying my so-called “mystical” place would be what I would call an Evangelical Calvin-Calvinist place, somewhat “biblicist”, but I have many Calvin books, some of his sermons, as too some of his Creedal works, too. I have read most all of the Reformed Creeds, as you note the Scots Confession, (see btw, Craig’s Catechism, 1581, the first Scottish Catechism to come into widespread use in the Kirk. Craig was a Dominican theologian who was converted to the Reformed Faith through reading Calvin’s Institutes). And yes, I have read often the Westminster, (see btw Robert Letham’s nice book: The Westminster Assembly, Reading Its Theology In Historical Context, P&R, 2009). But I see Calvin as one of the foremost biblical exegetes, and one always really pastoral. And I like the simple question/answer of Calvin’s Geneva Cathechism, 1541.
Btw, have you read Regin Prenter’s book: Spiritus Creator? (Danish 1944, but into English in 1953, Augsburg Fortress) Here is Luther’s theology seen coming from the centre of Luther’s idea of the Spirit. And too, if you have not read it, Bernard Lohse’s classic late 20th century book on Luther: Martin Luther’s Theology, Its Historical and Systematic Development. This book is one of a kind on Luther, and Lohse was a German too.
*My hands just fell upon my older hardback with dustjacket copy of ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of The Word And Sacrament’, by Ronald Wallance, (1953). Still a major and classic Calvin study on the subject!