Article 9 New Perspectives

NEW PERSPECTIVES IN THE LUTHERAN-REFORMED DIALOGUE

Nagygeresd, Leuenberg – Have we achieved anything, are we to expect anything?

Prof. Dr. Gaál Botond

Debrecen University of Reformed Theology

Debrecen, Hungary

The request was that I give a presentation whose subject matter deal principally with the Lutheran-Reformed Church dialogue about the question and practice of Holy Communion. Having acquiesced in the matter I must immediately recognize that in this I shall have to grapple with one of the most difficult tasks in theology. That is, the dividing line between different Christian denominations falls precisely at the point which should unite these denominations into one community, the community of the body of Christ. The point itself is the event of the Holy Communion, that at-table community which emphatically expressed and expresses a sense of unity. The deepest fissure which separates Christians from one another in our time is that caused by the interpretation and practice of Holy Communion. For this very reason the question of whether the discussions at Nagygeresd and Leuenberg brought any result is to be considered a most valid question; and if there were any results, it would be good to know what they were and whether we can expect any further developments along these lines. In response to this unsettling question posed already here at the beginning –perhaps to your wonderment–, I shall rejoin with an affirmative, that is, I shall endeavour to outline an encouraging solution to this objectionable situation.

I shall thus begin with the more difficult part of the task at hand. This means returning to the 16th century and attempting to enter into discourse with Luther, Zwingli and Calvin. Before doing that, however, let us trace the historical strands from the Reformation to the present so that we may better grasp the purpose of our analysis. In using more weighted expressions and taking the faith-heritage of our Reformational fathers seriously, together we can avow that our historical memory ought never be deficient. This is why we must ask them also whether they foresaw that their teachings concerning the Holy Communion would result in the unremitting separation of succeeding generations much the way it does today. My estimation is that they did not foresee this turn of events. In their own time they were thoroughly disquieted by the fact that there was no accord among them in the Holy Communion question. In this they had already refused the idea of transubstantia and as a consequence they had distanced themselves from the Roman Catholic Church. Yet all of them must have perceived this disaccord as a mere academic question and surely never suspected that this would so thoroughly permeate itself into the conscience of the community of believers. It is most probable that the great reformers never dreamed that the differences in these teachings would later become the well-defined dividing line among the children of the Reformation and that this disagreement would harden into the presently consolidated divisions. As the subsequent generations came and went the divide only became deeper. Many of the faithful, however, retained an inner longing for a sense of unity, nurtured by the knowledge that all of them had flourished from the same root. Almost unconsciously many of them felt what others, through their faith in Paul's words, adhered to: "..if the root is sacred, so are the branches" (Romans 11:16). The search for each other was underway.

The result of this search as it manifested itself in Germany on the 300th anniversary of the Reformation is well known. In Hungary this same search yielded the Concord of Nagygeresd in 1833 for those of the "Augustinian and Helvetian Confessions". The theological discourse of this latter occasion was not carried forward, being either not yet applicable or no longer applicable, for nothing more happened here than the mutual recognition of the existence of brotherly bonds. In the 20th century the search for the lost brother became much more vocal and the result was the launching of countless events featuring inter-denominational dialogue whose intellectual ripples have not entirely subsided even today. The verity of this is perhaps best demonstrated by how the situation evolved in Germany. It is known that members of the Confessing Church –despite their unusually difficult predicament– initiated a type of dialogue on the question of the Holy Communion. After the Second World War this dialogue broadened to such an extent that a whole series of dialogues was soon in progress. "The Theses of Arnoldshain as pertaining to the Holy Communion" in 1957, the "Clarification" of these same theses in 1962 and "The Concord of Leuenberg" in 1973 were all noteworthy outcomes of this intellectual stirring. Theologians from the Lutheran and Reformed Churches of Hungary participated in the formulation of the latter document. In tracing the evolution of this within Hungary itself, it is the decision of the National Committee of Elders of the Lutheran Church which must be mentioned first, which takes a clear stance on how the Lutherans perceive their own situation within the ecumenical movement in Hungary. This "declaration" issued in 1974 does not refer to Nagygeresd but clearly alludes to its historical significance: "The National Committee of Elders has corroborated that the Lutheran Church of Hungary has lived in true community with the Reformed Church of Hungary in terms of its pulpit and Holy Communion practices which are based on the historical tradition of many former generations and with this same openness has continuously maintained contacts with churches of the Reformed persuasion in other lands. As a consequence, the wording of the Concord of Leuenberg cannot be directly applied to the situation of the churches within Hungary. Following this, the National Committee of Elders ratifies the Concord's formulation of "the church community which includes the community of the Holy Communion and of the pulpit, the mutual recognition of ordination and the sanctioning of intercelebratio". Nonetheless, in the following paragraph, an element of caution appears, in my estimation, justly: " in the case of a community of churches of Reformed persuasion, the National Committee of Elders deems sufficient a concensus in the interpretation of the Gospel and of the sacraments, according to the wording in points 6-16 of the first section of the Concord of Leuenberg. In the interpretation of the Holy Communion and the concepts of Christology and predestination, the Committee indicates, much as points 17-34 of the second section of the Concord of Leuenberg stipulate, the need for further theological discussion so that the accords outlined in the formal articles may evolve into veritable consensus."

Now, my dear Lutheran pastors, it is exactly this which you ask: have the formulations as found in our Church's articles of theological teaching evolved to a level of true concordance? This question is all the more relevant when it refers to the Holy Communion. And in this particular case our answer would have to be that the desired level has not been reached. This shortcoming is not due to a lack of desire but to a lack of concerted effort. The intentions of the formulators of the Concord are summarized in four lengthier chapters. It is in the third chapter where the large differences in the perception of the Holy Communion and the topics of Christology and predestination are noted to have had a central role in preventing the Lutheran Church and the Reformed Church from establishing their potential church community. In my judgement mediation in this matter by the Hungarian Ecumenical Council was less than helpful, seeing that this forum is in the thrall of church politicians and thus is basically a quiescent body. Your National Committee of Elders had requested a "theological discussion" but this was realized in very feeble fashion if at all there was any in the three aforementioned questions. (The Reformed Church of Hungary [RCH] has an academic forum, the College of Doctors. As head of the Systematic Theology Section I would like to offer that we examine these questions together and try to ascertain how our positions can begin to move closer to one another's and in this way help the Concord of Leuenberg's goal become a reality.)

Let us now pose three questions: What was the reason for the inablitity to agree in the question of the Holy Communion? How do we perceive our situation today? Which direction should we pursue in seeking a resolution? It is necessary to pose all three questions in order to eventually be able to make a declaration which will touch upon not only our identity but also on having found one another within the context of a brotherly community. Everything and all that can be forthrightly said concerning these questions at present is a direct result of the international discussion which was sparked by the Concord of Leuenberg. Unfortunately, very little of this discussion ever entered the lifestream of Hungarian theology. It was clearly the desire to reach mutual understanding which led to assuring and promising developments at an international level, or more precisely, within the flows of international, academic theological reflection. We would do well to not leave this unnoticed.

The legacy of the past

A major discrepancy in the interpretation of the Holy Communion had already reared its head at the very beginning. To grasp this it is basically sufficient to reflect upon the disagreements among Luther, Zwingli and Calvin in this matter. Calvin, who was a generation younger than the former two, joined the fray of an already existing dispute. Harsh judgements to the extent of accusations were flung at one another –even by their progeny years later– and it is these waves which we still feel today. In trying to move forward in this, let us not be swayed by inadvertent winds which may fill our sails but, to some extent, let us make an effort to be independent thinkers, much as the apostle Paul was.

I myself am a mathematician, physicist and theologian and I endeavour to use my acquired knowledge to gain a better and more profound interpretation of God's Word. I view as instruments all that which I have as a gift received, much as the leaders of the Reformation avowed the same. And our difficulty begins here in that at the time of the Reformation, much like at any time, there existed a certain culture, a certain mode of intellectualization and a certain body of knowledge. The leaders of the Reformation were all very well educated, they possessed a great amount of knowledge and were among the outstanding thinkers of their time. When we look at any of Luther, Zwingli or Calvin, we cannot help but see imbued in them and driving each of them the common motivation to point to and give witness of the sacrifice of the veritable self-giving Jesus Christ. The recognition of this caused them to be humble before both God their fellow man. On one hand they recognized the infinite wealth of God's Word, while on the other hand it was obvious to them that their theology inevitably bore the imprints of the human understanding of faith and the shortcomings of human obedience through faith. It was for this reason that they recommended to man living in any age to measure all teaching by the standard of the Scriptures. This tenet they later imbedded within the Reformational principle of Sola Scriptura which for them signified a Scriptura valde prima perception, that is, the Scriptures above all else. And we have now come to the point where we can ask them why the end result of their reflections on the teachings of Jesus Christ became the end result that it did.

In ancient Greece the knowledge available at the time grappled with a trying difficulty. Interpreting space, time and the veritable material world in which man physically existed proved to be problematic. Plato had elevated space to a position of importance, wanting to designate it as the dimension bridging the natural world to the world of ideas but he finally abandoned this tack and settled for classifying it as something of a "transitional" nature. It does not move, it is a vessel without motion. Aristotle said that space was something which encompassed bodies, it was of measurable quantity and it exerted an influence on any given body. It is a vessel but it is not without motion. The Stoics perceived space as something which a body brings into existence for its own existential needs. The body expands and thus sets the cosmos in motion, otherwise it would be at rest. On the basis of this the Greeks all arrive to the idea of a god. God for them is either the concept of Good or the foremost motivator who is at rest [ie. without motion] or the force which is present in all things . This was the world into which Christianity stepped and it was amidst these conditions that it had to define the incarnation of Christ. On the basis of the teaching of creation arising from nothingness it was entirely clear that God Himself could not be envisioned according to the Greek model, that is, God could not be perceived as an entity existing relative in space and in time to the universe. Resorting to classical Greek concepts, the following can be said: nothing subsumes God but much more so it is God who subsumes everything. This subsumption is not of a physical nature but occurs through His strength and His power (Col. 3:3). For the theologians of Nicea –and it suffices here to think of Athanasius– the concept of space as the Greeks had postulated it was of little use because God became incarnate in Jesus Christ by stepping into our human space, that is, He became man without having vacated His "place" as God, which is to say that He remained what He had always been: infinite, omnipotent and eternal, a being who ultimately cannot be enclosed within the framework of finite existence. He is a Creative power who is above all space and all time while man in his own station of creature is in thrall to both time and space. From this it becomes clear that the Greek concept of the vessel cannot be applied to the secret of God's incarnation.

Here is where the paths diverge. There was no place accorded to Aristotlian tenets in Nicean theology, yet we see that after a given time they surface and with the appearance of Thomas Aquinas the concepts of substancia and akcidencia are integrated into the Holy Communion. Because these two concepts had to be separated from one another, the issue of realis praesentia posed an immediate difficulty. As we know, Thomas resolved this by distinguishing and according a special presence to Christ whereby Christ is physically present in both the bread and the wine. But because this state is neither a metric nor quantitive presence, it could only be interpreted as something without extension, exactly like a mathematical point. This perception of things was quite common at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries and surely Martin Luther must have been familiar with this. He, however, decidedly opposed the teaching of the principle of transubstantiation. Luther was not enamored by Aristotle's foremost-motivator-at-rest idea either and in this way he had come to a crossroads. The question of how the integral unity of Christ's human nature and Christ's godly nature could be reconciled must have taxed his mind. This must have been when he decided that the guarantee of this unity can be found in the "Man-Christ" concept, that is, in the baby of Bethlehem. As he moved towards his final conclusion he realized that, despite being opposed to the concept of transubstantiation, he also feared Zwingli's radical symbolism, so he continued to cling to the formulation whereby Christ is physically present in the Holy Communion: "To this we cling, and we also believe and teach that in the Holy Communion we eat and take unto ourselves Christ's body in a veritable and physical way." We know that the explanation he supplied for this was the omnipresence of Christ.

In arriving at his theological position, he declined borrowing the explanatory concept of the absolute point of rest as purported by the Scholasitics but offered an interpretation from the perspective of God's absolute power and of God's capacity to act. This was in harmony with the interpretation of the ascended Christ, something which Luther understood to be a state of perfect fellowship, where there is neither time nor space and where Christ Himself, while standing before God in physical form, is no longer subject to the constrictions of either time or space.

The Roman Catholic, the Lutheran and the Reformed Churches unilaterally emphasize complete union with Christ in the sacrament of the Holy Communion. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, Christ's appearance is invoked by consecration, the Lutheran Church avows the concept of omnipresence and the Reformed Church consistently vows from the time of Calvin that complete union with Christ in the Holy Communion is guaranteed by the presence of the Holy Ghost. This latter will require an interpretation from us as it is the teachings of the Holy Communion from the Lutheran and Reformed Church perspectives that is at issue here. If we revert to the Concord of Leuenberg which mentions the problems associated with the Holy Communion, and the questions of Christology and predestination, we must conclude that, beyond their own merits, all three are Christological questions also. This is especially true of the first two because they are closely related. It can thus be said that the essential questions concerning the differences in Calvinist and Lutheran theology can be condensed into the following three expressions: the so-called extra-Calvinisticum tenet, Christ's "place" in heaven and the problematics of eucharistic parousia. These three are all related to the aforementioned issue of the Holy Communion, the dispute in this latter issue providing the backdrop. Calvin's reflections on this took a different direction. Using Biblical logic, he organized his theological cogitations into a system. Of the Lutheran formulation he was of the opinion that, in the incarnation and in the Holy Communion, it presented a Christ who was limited in space and restricted to place. In using terms used in philosophy, we might describe this as an imagined vessel. Calvin viewed this differently, establishing that God Himself was incarnated in Christ, who was veritable God and veritable man, but, in respect to His own God-ness, never left His heavenly throne. It was in this that the term extra-Calvinisticum took its root. This was due to the fear of the representatives of the Lutheran standpoint that in this formulation the unity of Christ's human and god-like character was threatened. Yet, according to Calvin, Christ cannot be physically hidden in the bread of the Holy Communion because He is physically in heaven. At this point the supporters of the Lutheran position began to see a Christ "locked into heaven" and out of this evolved the problematics of the famous "localis inclusio". Calvin and his later followers interpreted the incarnation as the Son of God having entered the dimensions of time and space without having lost God's transcendance over time and space. Similarly did the ascension translate into the Son's transcendancy over time and space without Him having lost his participation in time and space in His incarnated form. In the Holy Communion it is Christ Himself who thus lifts us to Himself by means of the Holy Ghost and this is how he is veritably present amidst His own children. The Holy Communion also means that Christ will return on the final day exactly as the Scriptural liturgical text states. Calvin endeavours in his arguments to be strictly Biblical.

Before us then are two different approaches to the same tenet of faith, a tenet which an earlier generation at Chalcedon had already formulated. The reason for pursuing this path and mode in examining the issue is that this is what the discussions at Leuenberg singled out: the question of Jesus' nature (God-like and man-like) and the unity of His person. It can be seen that the Concord is on the right track when it designates as its goal a newer realization of the intention of the fathers of the Reformation. This end can only be attained if we invest more energy in trying to understand each other's theological stances and consequently discovering those common traits whose substantiation was the mutual goal of the Reformational fathers.

The situation at present

It is worthwhile to take a few minutes to examine this possibility from two perspectives: first of all, in the light of congregational life and, secondly, in the light of theological ties or purpose. In casting a glance at congregational life, many positive and worthy things can be said of the links between Lutheran and Reformed Church congregations. These ties may have been stronger in the past, notably at the youth organizations level, and Holy Communion was celebrated jointly on different occasions. It is somewhat rare to hear of such things nowadays. In the sixties and seventies my father often assisted the small Lutheran Church community in Mátészalka by leading Bible studies for them, filling in for their pastor who could not always be present. In Debrecen the two denominations together celebrate World Women's Prayer Day in the context of which Holy Communion was jointly celebrated a few times but it seems that no new noteworthy rapprochement in the spirit of the Leuenberg Concord has occurred. In fact, the members of our congregations know very little about this. And we each lead our lives, side by side, in a quiet and peaceful fashion. To summarize the situation briefly: I am dissatisfied. If we examine the rapprochement at a theological level and ask whether we have achieved anything, then we could respond with both a "yes" and a "no". On this level our ties are friendly, in fact, brotherly. Stepping into the Lutheran University of Faith Studies, I have never felt as if I were entering an institution belonging to a denomination other than my own. Nonetheless, I myself am aware that there is a definite lack of dialogue within our circle, dialogue which could facilitate a rapprochement between the two denominations.

If we analyze the situation today as it is, further questions are likely to be raised by both the Lutheran and Reformed sides. There is a kind of mutual wariness in regards to the idea of community in Holy Communion which is surely due to some negative reflex or subconscious reason. "They are different", think many people, so we cannot participate in "their" celebration of the Lord's Supper. In my assessment, the principal reason for declining to participate is that our church members are not entirely clear about the essence of Holy Communion. What, for instance, do the different declarations of the institutional Scriptures actually mean: the Lord Jesus gave thanks, this is my body, broken for you, this is my blood, spilled for you, this cup is the new testament, in remembrance of me, proclaim the Lord's death until He comes? If there is the possibility of ushering change into the life of the congregation, then, before anything else, it is these tenets of the Lord's Supper which must be taught and entrenched jointly in members of both denominations. I emphasize this because as long as it is from the separate parts by which we approach the whole and then wish to couple or paste together the Lutheran and Reformed denominations in some way, the best we can hope for is the formation of a civil association. Were we instead to make our point of departure the thought that the fathers of the Reformation had all originally wanted one thing: that the human soul of the believer establish direct channels to the Lord and thus not require other mediators beyond Jesus Christ, through whom we have been declared before God to be just. In this light we ought not to then allow our differences to dominate the foreground and thus view these differences as dividing walls between us. Theological differences of opinion cannot be allowed to stand as a watershed in the relations between our two denominations. Nonetheless, in viewing the relations of the two denominations at a distance in a detached and concrete manner, the conclusion that I draw is that the picture, in terms of practical congregational life, is decidedly complicated and complex. The source of this complicatedness is most likely and most pointedly a result of the interpretation of the Holy Communion. Of this the simple believer perceives nothing more than that difficulties do exist but these he hardly understands, much less grasps. This is the ill which needs to be remedied, the situation which needs to be simplified. The solution in any matter cannot be established dogmatically and over the heads of our members, informing them that they have no choice but that it be accepted. Taking this tack is nothing less than the cloistering of our denominations' believers within the walls of intellectual immaturity.

Outlook for the future

In which direction is the solution to be found? With this question our attention is directed towards the future. The last third of the 20th century witnessed much in the way of dialogue and ecumenical bonding. Even the theologians were finally given their say. All of this was most productive because many facts, perceptions and other things surfaced which may help resolve, or at least give a positive push, to the future. It is here that I would like to denote three essential things which would in fact be my answer to the questions posed in the title of this article: have we achieved anything, are we to expect anything?

The ecumenical dialogue during the last third of the 20th century in the question of the Holy Communion has steered the attention of the larger church communities towards an encouraging direction. The first observation was that on the path leading to rapprochement there are inordinately many obstacles rooted in stances which are unbending. Yet even this yielded a positive result in that a great number of questions had to be scrutinized in their own right in theological depth and this motivated the theologians to delve deeper into the theology of their denomination while, at the same time, gaining familiarity with the stance of the other denomination. A direct consequence of this, on one hand was the shedding of light on many questions which are, in final analysis, commonly avowed articles of faith in the matter of the Holy Communion but which had not been aptly recognized in each other's theological doctrines. On the other hand, the new light helped define much more plastically the differences between the denominations. Once the final result was tallied, the conclusion drawn was that the points in common are far more dominant than the differences. This spurred the formulation of a new perception which –when positively weighted with the dominance of common traits– would review everything and re-evaluate the relationship between the two denominations. The relative value of the differences was not to be diminished but simply accorded lower priority than those points which assure a common base. In my perception this is just and encouraging. Why? It would seem to me to be natural that the evaluation of less dominant items be effected in the light of knowing that there exist decidedly more determining items.
All of the above was instrumental in ushering in a new perception, atmosphere and spirit to ecumenical meetings, relationships and dialogue. Yet, however we view this, it still does not seem to be convincing enough with respect to achieving results in the future. This progress has unmistakebly resulted in "ecumenical peace" but this is not yet sufficient for the establishment of a church community of consequence. We are very much aware of this because this type of "ecumenical peace" has already existed between us since the decisions of Nagygeresd, that is, one hundred forty years before the Concord of Leuenberg formulated it. Beyond this, however, from the dialogue itself there resulted a more encouraging development which became perceptible only later, which was inherently present in hidden form during the dialogue. This development is the decided detemination to legitimize the Biblical perspective in the process of the dialogue. Formulated otherwise, it appears that there is a tendency now gaining momentum which, beyond wading through the speculative and theoretical interpretations, is now seeking to return to the original source, to the Scriptures and is asking: what is it that is veritably transpiring within the Holy Communion? In adhering to this process light was shed on the large amounts of extraneous baggage carried by the Holy Communion and the way it was practiced and theoretically interpreted, this baggage having been accummulated through peripheral, non-relevant, inessential and even distorting elements of interpretation. The different traditions of different groups, the passing on of inexact teaching and the assimilation of the local community's characteristics all attributed a meaning to the Holy Communion which it had never had. Such a situation is not tenable and therefore it is fitting if, operating on the priniciple of consensus, we seek direction within the Scriptures. It is worthwhile to note that it was not only the churches issuing from the Reformation which defined these same criteria but also the pre-Reformation and counter-Reformation churches. We can thus note that the exclusive "ordering principle" in this unusually complicated question can be none other than the teachings of the Scriptures. In our particular case this is somewhat encouraging because, in the final analysis, both Luther and Calvin would have liked to have found an underpinning theological explanation, but, both being men of their particular age, it was precisely their cultural and intellectual differences which caused them to lock their intellectual and spiritual antlers. Given this, it has been four hundred fifty years now that no satisfactory solution has been found.
The third encouraging item I am denoting is the question of scholarly justification. It is rather disconcerting, perhaps even vexing, that, despite the open and free thinking of the fathers of the Reformation, a somewhat rigid set of doctrines was formulated. The introduction to the Second Helvetian Confession of Faith says that "in expresing our thanks we are prepared to obey and align ourselves in the Lord to those who teach us from God's Word that which is better." I bring this question before my pastor brothers because each of you took the humble step of pursing theological studies for years and in this way you have become the responsible, practical, intellectual and spiritual sentry of your congregation. The question at hand has an aspect which, because of its very nature, we cannot delegate to the members of the congregations. Its responsibility rests foremostly on our shoulders: there exist certain theological questions which demand to be examined and analysed theologically. My decided opinion is that the churches which today stand on the foundations of either Luther's or Calvin's teachings have strayed from the veritable spirit of Martin Luther and John Calvin, which has led to our present divisions and unyielding positions. Our Reformational fathers moved forward while we always wanted to go back to them for answers. To greatly simplify the matter: it is not to them that we need to go back but we also must move forward, like them! We see that in both denominations there exists a seemingly static, unmoving theological order or tradition to which belongs perhaps the most obvious example: the interpretation of the Holy Communion. Both denominations' order in this question appears to be unmoveable, its intellectualization having stiffened into dogmas on which is built our separation. Were I to formulate my opinion more harshly, I would say that both orders of doctrines have "stiffened into ideologies" and this is the foremost obstacle to the rapprochement of the two denominations. But then let us think this through also. Every intellectual order has basic tenets on which it rests. With respect to their function, these basic premises serve the same purpose as axioms in science. Using the example of mathematics, it can be shown –especially as demonstrated by János Bolyai– that closed systems can be opened up to allow truly worthy developments to ensue. Generally speaking, if a field of knowledge possesses a system of axioms, involing this system is most helpful in completing or even enlarging that particular field. Euclidean geometry, which is taught in secondary schools, is a case in point. At the same time it is known that acquired knowledge built on certain systems of axioms can result in a closed field, that is, the system allows its user to acquire only a certain amount of knowledge. Stepping beyond this, that is, to a higher level of knowledge, can only be achieved if the closed field is opened. Effecting the opening is only possible if the tenet which "prescribes" the closedness is identified. The genius of János Bolyai lay in his ability of being able to find the point of Euclidean geometry which limited it to a closed field and to a state which did not allow its user to step out of this system. He deduced that it was the axion governing parallelism which needed to be changed. He effected this without eliminating the axiom yet at the same time allowing him to take a step higher in knowledge. It was after this that he wrote to his father, exactly on 3 November 1823, that, "from nothing I have created a different new world!" We can also apply this as an analogy. Our veritable ecumenical –may I say most worthy– task would be to jointly seek out those points of our denominations' theological order which destine them to be closed systems of thought. Then, with a new perspective based on the Scriptures, we should begin to replace or modify the axioms identified as the ones preventing us from "stepping higher" so that the theological order of both denominations is able to be released to the infinite freedom which we have won in Jesus Christ. Should I wish to assess the present situation from a perspective of modern academic knowledge, I would say, that yes, the possibility for this exists and this is what the fathers of the Reformation themselves had from the beginning desired.

Presentation given at Révfülöp, Hungary on 9 November 2005 at the Lutheran Pastors' National Conference.

The exact title is: The Concord of Nagygeresd in the year 1833, between those adhering to the Augustinian Confession and those adhering to the Helvetian Confession, both in West-of-the-Danube Church Districts. It appeared in Protestáns Egyházi és Iskolai Lap, in the issues of January 10, 24 and 31, 1864 in three installments. It had similarly appeared in three installments in the P.E.I.L. in 1846.

Cf. Eckhard Lessing: Abendmahl. Bensheimer Ökumenische Studienhefte 1., Göttöngen, Vandenhoeck, 1993. 19-41. In: Michael Welker: What Happens in Holy Communion? Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI., 2000. 22.

A Leuenbergi Konkordia elfogadása (Ratification of the Concord of Leuenberg), Theologiai Szemle, XVII. évf. 1975. 5-6. sz. 180

This quesstion is discussed in detail by Thomas F. Torrance in Space, Time and Incarnation. Oxford, U.P. 1969. 1-21.

In Euclid's famous book entitled Elements we read the following about the point: "The point has no parts." We do not know whether this was known in Martin Luther's time or if this observation about the point was borrowed from elsewhere.

Cf. Thomas F. Torrance: Space, Time and Incarnation. Oxford, U.P. 1969. 22-51. It was Torrance who discovered and presented the thoughts pertaining to the space demarcated by this vessel and this was generally accepted in academic circles.

M. Eugene Osterhaven: Az egyház hite (The Faith of the Church). Kálvin Kiadó, Budapest, 1995. 162. Quotation: LW, XXXVII. 29

Cf. Botta István: Méliusz Péter ifjúsága (Péter Méliusz's Youth) , Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1978. 142-149.

Cf. Calvin: Institutio, IV. 17.

Cf. Thomas F. Torrance: Space, Time and Incarnation. Oxford, U.P. 1969. 31-32.

Cf. Michael Welker: What Happens in Holy Communion? op.cit. 22-25.

Michael Welker: What Happens in Holy Communion? op.cit. 23.

Cf. Michael Welker: What Happens in Holy Communion? op.cit. 21.

Homepage of Professor Botond Gaál