The Recreation

In his gospel John says, "In the beginning was the Word, ... "  We often use this text, in its context, as proof for the deity of the Word, that is, the deity of Christ.  This is all true, and John is certainly pointing out the deity of the Word -- without which his subsequent argument makes no sense.

But, the fact that the Word "was," and the fact that the Word made every single thing that was made, and without him not one thing was made that was made, needs to be applied according to John's evident intention in the passage:  The Word, who is the one who created the world in Genesis 1-2, is the very one who takes on our nature at the Incarnation, for the exact purpose of recreating what he had originally made, which was fallen.

Surely, surely the one who created the cosmos and all the angels and mankind, "in the beginning," is competent to perform the recreation of all things by his self-abnegation in Incarnation and death on the Cross!  The one who was the Light said "Let there be Light" in the primeval darkness, and there was Light.  So, in the darkness of Jewish and Gentile apostasy and unbelief, this same Word by his words speaks into existence the New Creation.  As the Light of the World, he comes into the darkness, where even those of his own reject him, and yet by his mighty power and glory causes new sons of God to be spiritually born through faith in himself -- sons not born of human will, but of God's Will, not of the flesh, but of the Spirit.  We are his New Creation, having our birth through the Spirit from above -- from God.

We must glory in this.  How can the tribulations of this life, and the shortness of it threaten our Recreator's work in us?  Surely, we shall be perfected in glory!

The good Name and Power of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are at stake in this, and by this Name and Power it will be done!

Covenant of Works Runs Amok!

I'm studying Herman Bavinck, preparing to teach a little class about the Covenant of Grace.  In process of writing his chapter on the Covenant of Grace, Bavinck(*) begins to wax eloquent about the significance of the Covenant of Works.  Before it's all over he falls into a common Reformed trap of making works, obedience, demands, laws and justice the primary theme of salvation history, rather than making the grace of the Triune God be that theme.  He doesn't mean to be "legalistic," and I do heartily recommend Bavinck's work, but we must always be careful.  In particular, we cannot do without Calvin.  I will quote from them both.  [my highlights and underlines; funny symbols in parentheses are "footnotes"]

Calvin(#) :

Christ [is] Rightly and properly Said to Have Merited God's Grace and Salvation for Us

By way of addition this question also should be explained.  There are certain perversely subtle men who -- even though they confess that we receive salvation through Christ -- cannot bear to hear the word "merit," for they think that it obscures God's grace.  Hence, they would have Christ as a mere instrument or minister, not as the Author or leader and prince of life, as Peter calls him [Acts 3:15].  Indeed, I admit, if anyone would simply set Christ by himself over against God's judgment, there will be no place for merit.  For no worthiness will be found in man to deserve God's favor.  Indeed, as Augustine very truly writes: "The clearest light of predestination and grace is the Man Christ Jesus, the Savior, who brought this to pass by the human nature that was in him, through no preceding merits of works or of faith.  Answer me, I beg of you, whence did that man deserve to be the only-begotten Son of God, and to be assumed into unity of person by the Word co-eternal with the Father?  We must therefore recognize our Head as the very foundation of grace -- a grace that is diffused from him through all his members according to the measure of each.  Everyone is made a Christian from the beginning of his faith by the same grace whereby that Man from his beginning became the Christ."  Likewise, in another passage: "There is no more illustrious example of predestination than the Mediator himself.  For he who made righteous this man of the seed of David, never to be unrighteous, without any merit of his will preceding, of unrighteous makes righteous those who are members of that Head," etc.

In this passage Calvin clearly teaches (in his and Augustine's opinion) that Christ was instantaneously perfect from the instant of the Incarnation.  There is nothing here about his having to obey a Covenant of Works in order to achieve active righteousness, so that he would be able to give the same to his saints.  Is Christ tempted and tested?  Of course.  Does he need to persevere in his human nature?  Absolutely.  Does he learn obedience through suffering?  Yes, yes.  But, is he "acquiring" active obedience which he otherwise did not have from the moment of the Incarnation?  Absolutely not.  The grace of the Incarnation, the grace inherent in the God-man, and which he gives to us, was perfect from the first instant of the existence of his human nature.  It is by this grace, and being crammed full of this grace, that he blots out our transgressions by his obedience (not by "acquiring merit" through his obedience, to put to our account).

The main point I'm making here, however, is not to argue principally about the covenant of works.  It is to argue that Bavinck, compared to Calvin, legalizes the grace of God in some of his concepts and language, in a way shared by many Reformed of his era.

Calvin goes on:

Hence it is absurd to set Christ's merit against God's mercy.  For it is a common rule that a thing subordinate to another is not in conflict with it($).  For this reason nothing hinders us from asserting that men are freely justified by God's mercy alone, and at the same time that Christ's merit, subordinate to God's mercy, also intervenes on our behalf.  Both God's free favor and Christ's obedience, each in its degree, are fitly opposed to our works.  Apart from God's good pleasure Christ could not merit anything; but did so because he had been appointed to appease God's wrath with his sacrifice, and to blot out our transgressions with his obedience.  To sum up: inasmuch as Christ's merit depends upon God's grace alone, which has ordained this manner of salvation for us, it is just as properly opposed to all human righteousness as God's grace is.

As a consequence, one sees that Calvin places God's grace "on top."  And, since there is a need for the sacrifice to meet the terms of justice, that is provided, too, but subordinately.  There is nothing here to interfere in any sense with the preeminence of grace.  Even the justice of God, which is met by the Mediatorial death on the Cross, is subordinate to the divine intention to display grace from all conceptual angles.

Bavinck:

...  The doctrine of the covenant of grace first emerged for the purpose of maintaining the essential unity of the Old and the New Testaments.  In keeping with this, also the relation between God and humans before the fall was portrayed as a covenant, specifically a covenant of works.  Reflection on the similarity and difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace then led to the insight that the covenant of grace, insofar as it was made with Christ, was a covenant of works. ... 

What Bavinck is saying here is that justice is "on top" in the picture of God's saving operations, not mercy.  Mercy is a secondary benefit for us.  Whereas Calvin brought in justice and the sacrifice of Christ as subordinate to God's mercy, Bavinck has described this saving transaction as entirely a matter of justice, with mercy as a side-effect (for us).  The fact that grace comes to us through Christ then becomes strange, in view of the fact that all the internal "mechanism" of salvation is presented in the covenant of works as a matter of obedience, works, law and justice.  But, if the legal side, and not the merciful side, is the preeminent thought, then in spite of all the assertions that there is mercy for us, things are going to ultimately turn around and become legal for us, too.  Bavinck does not personally intend this, but it still happens.

There is a lot more of this in Bavinck than I can quote here.  But, this doesn't mean that Bavinck is an ungracious person.  The rationalistic and justicial passion has just captured him in this connection and he is running "amok" with it, along with most of his fellow 19th century Reformed theologians, I suppose. 

 Bavinck:

...  In Scripture there are only two covenants, two ways to heaven for human beings, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace.  The covenant of works is the way to heaven for the unfallen, the covenant of grace that for the fallen humans.  The covenant of works was made with humankind in Adam, the covenant of grace was made with humankind in Christ.  He, and he alone, is the substitutionary and representative head of humankind.  ...  Just as the Father had ordained the kingdom for him, so he ordains it for those who have been given to him.  He distributes the benefits he has acquired(@) as an inheritance. ... In both cases [the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace] it is the mystical Christ, Christ as the second Adam, who acts as the negotiating party (%). ... And, since (as is evident from 1 Cor 15:45ff) Adam was a type of Christ even before the fall, so the covenant of grace was prepared, not first by Noah and Abraham nor first by the covenant of grace with Adam, but already in and by the covenant of works.  God, who knows and determines all things and included also the breach of the covenant of works in his counsel when creating Adam and instituting the covenant of works, already counted on the Christ and his covenant of grace(&).

The exhortation I leave you with is to begin to see and perceive whether squeezing soteriology through the mold of the Law, while making grace subordinate, truly comports with the tenor of the teaching of Scripture, or Reformation theology.  Isn't it rather the case that mercy and grace triumph, and that justice must be satisfied so that mercy and grace may triumph?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

The "giving" of the Son (for the satisfaction of justice) was motivated by love for the world, which is the preeminent motive in the mind of God.  As a consequence we are delivered from legalism in our Christian lives.


(*) Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, v 3, ch 5, p 227-8 and elsewhere, Baker Edition.
(#) John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 2, ch 17, McNeil Edition.
($) Calvin is reconciling mercy and grace by subordinating one to the other instead of leaving them parallel with one another, which causes the conflict he describes.
(@) He didn't have them by nature, because he had to earn them by obedience to the covenant of works.  Compare with Calvin and Augustine discussed previously.  There is both an anthropological and Christological distinction between these two views, and therefore the distinction between Calvin and Bavinck is likely not a minor matter, but may have ramifications as yet unsounded.
(%) I.e., negotiating with God the Father.  Are "negotiations" required?
(&) He means the "covenant of grace" towards us, but as far as Christ himself was concerned it was all covenant of works.

God

I suspect that most of us are greatly troubled by wrong ideas about God, and therefore are inadvertently plagued by a form of atheism.

We ought to remember that the idea of "God" is not limited to Christianity or the true spiritual life, but is in fact an idea well-known to all, including the philosophers (witness the arguments for God's existence that have been produced by them).

In view, then, of the fact that every thinking member of the human race is left with an idea of God (against which we rebel by nature), we need to compare and contrast this common idea of God with the God of revelation who is known to us in his Son.

This is obvious to us when we think about it conceptually and abstractly.  We know that the God known to all men apart from Christ is not trusted or worshiped in the way that we trust and worship Him as we know him in Christ.  The trouble we have, I suspect, stems from our retaining in our minds the knowledge of God, as it is known vaguely and philosophically, and then mistaking this philosophical knowledge of God for the revealed knowledge of Him in Christ.  Confusing ourselves in this way, we retain abstract concepts of God which are out of accord with the true knowledge of Him, and thus our religion and spiritual life are weakened and corrupted.  After all, the "common" knowledge of "God" is not the knowledge of a God in which people trust!

The place to begin is with Jesus Christ himself, where he says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father."  Jesus Christ is the very image of God the Father.  Look to Jesus in order to see what God the Father is like.  The title "Father" is not something abstract, but it has a meaning!  We should adopt this meaning, in all its glory and grace, for the well-being of our souls!

The Glorious Man, Our Savior

I have reproduced the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews below.  As you read it, notice how the author mixes references to the divine and human natures of the Son of God as the author recites his argument for the superiority of the Son to the angels.  I have marked some minor alterations in the first verse or so, to help bring out the contrast being made between the prophets and the Son.  Suggested or certain references to the manhood of the Son are underlined.

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us "by Son," whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who, being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"?  But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him."  And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire." 

But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.  You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."  And: "You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.  They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail." 

But to which of the angels has He ever said: "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool"?  Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?   (Epistle to the Hebrews, Chapter 1, alt.)

The fully and completely divine and the fully and completely human attributes and natures of the Person of the Son are interleaved and mixed in this record  of his career in such a manner that the natures are not distinguished in order that each nature might receive its own appropriate glorification.  Rather, all the glory of the God-man is holistically applied to his whole being -- including the manhood!

Therefore, as the Westminster Larger Catechism states:

WLC 39  Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man? A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer and make intercession for us in our nature, have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities; that we might receive the adoption of sons, and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.

WLC 53  How was Christ exalted in his ascension? A. Christ was exalted in his ascension, in that having after his resurrection often appeared unto and conversed with his apostles, speaking to them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, and giving them commission to preach the gospel to all nations, forty days after his resurrection, he, in our nature, and as our head, triumphing over enemies, visibly went up into the highest heavens, there to receive gifts for men, to raise up our affections thither, and to prepare a place for us, where himself is, and shall continue till his second coming at the end of the world.

WLC 55  How doth Christ make intercession ? A. Christ maketh intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth, declaring his will to have it applied to all believers; answering all accusations against them, and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings, access with boldness to the throne of grace, and acceptance of their persons and services.

What Adam lost, Jesus Christ has more than regained.  Our Head, our Husband, our Savior, our Prophet, our Priest, and our King is in every case the selfsame single God Incarnate, Man Divine, the God-Man, a man of our flesh, full of knowledge, wise and sympathetic, compassionate, forgiving all manner of iniquity and sin, a High Priest ever on our case to save us, the answerer of all our prayers, the giver of all good, the Helper of the weak, the Savior and deliverer of sinners, filling us with the triumph of his power and glory, for His Name's sake.

Will he not help you?

Real Word and Sacrament

We are accustomed to think that Word and Sacrament convey information, primarily, and that the information conveyed serves to strengthen our faith and to strengthen our union with Christ.  So, when we hear the gospel preached, we think of ourselves receiving the information in the spirit of faith, and therefore we are edified by it.  Likewise for the sacraments.  The Lord's Supper conveys information, by words, by sight, and by taste.  This information is received in a spirit of faith, and therefore, we are edified by the Spirit through faith.  This is true, as far as it goes.  But, consider the raising of Lazarus:

Lazarus, though dead, heard the words, "Lazarus, come forth."  And, hearing the words, he was raised from the dead.  This certainly involves the communication of information, but the primary power is the power of the Word of God to create reality.  So it is in the church.

Men who hear the gospel are raised from spiritual death and come to spiritual life in Christ, and not simply by the conveyance of information!  Being dead, they nevertheless receive Christ "by ear."  And, having received Christ, they continue to receive him afresh by the ministry of Word and Sacrament in the Gospel.  Our receiving is not merely the receiving of information.  It is also the receiving of Christ himself.

When we hear the word to our spiritual edification, we are receiving Christ by ear -- by actual participation.  When we are baptized, we are also receiving Christ by water -- by actual participation.  When we receive the Supper to our spiritual edification, we are also receiving Christ by mouth -- by actual participation.  (This has nothing to do with "consubstantiation.")

One writer from the 19th century gives an example:  A blind person who receives the gospel by applying his lips to the feel of the letters on the paper, receives Christ "by mouth," because it was by mouth that he understood it. 

So it is when we receive the Supper.

Righteousness Higher than the Law

It has been maintained that the holiness, righteousness and glory of God is far higher than anything revealed even in his Holy Law.   

It has been maintained that, before the Lord, even the holiness of the unfallen angels is inadequate.

This divine "extra" is certainly associated with the essential separateness of the divine essence of the Triune God from all his creation, but this is not all that is meant by this divine "extra."

We know that Christ overcame death -- a death mandated by the Law.  But, in overcoming death, the text of The Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 7:4-6 is clear that we, though now living, still remain "dead to the Law."  We are not simply delivered from its curse, but are also delivered into a new resurrection life -- a new way of life before God, married to Christ and producing his fruit by his whole Word and Spirit -- not just a renewed life under the Law.

We have a higher life than the Law could ever have delivered to even the unfallen Adam in the original creation.  We are in the New Creation.  We have been delivered into this creation by the divine power of the God-Man, Jesus Christ, in his death, burial, resurrection and session at the right hand of God.  And, we are in this New Creation only because we are in him, the God-Man.

By our union with Christ we receive entrance into a righteousness that is higher than the Law, and have a level of fellowship with God which is higher than any revealed in the First Creation -- a level of fellowship unknown to the angels, and which they must learn about by watching and caring for us!

Resurrection

Resurrection is not simply the reversal of death, though it's a right thing to say.  Death is certainly vanquished.  The curse is reversed and changed into blessing.

It is important to remember that there is only one Resurrection in the history of the cosmos.  This is the Resurrection of Christ.  We who are resurrected are only resurrected because we are in him.  We are not resurrected at the same time, since Christ is the firstfruits, but we, the full harvest, are resurrected only because we are in him.

In the first place resurrection only occurs after real death under the curse of the Law.  This real death, in our case, apart from Christ, would be an eternal death.  The wrath of God would abide (rest, dwell) upon us, forever and ever.

Christ did not escape this curse.  He did take the death we deserved, and we in him.  Except for his eternal power and Godhead we would both have remained in the state of death!  And, as far as the Law is concerned, we are still in that state.  Before the Law we are dead!  It has destroyed us for our depravity (Christ bearing our sins for us), and this destruction is eternal.  Our connection to the realm and age of the Law, as conveyed to us and to which we were bound in the original creation, is over.  There is no life for us, or for Christ, in that age any more.  The only exit from this terminal state is the Resurrection of Christ.

Christ has died!  Christ is risen!  Christ will come again!

Even now Christ himself, in his human nature, lives a new life in resurrection, and we live it with him, in him.  We live in a new way, not under Law, not lawlessly, but under Grace.  Spiritually, we are already in heaven, seated with Christ in the heavenly places.  When the birth-pangs of the New Creation are finished, we shall be like him, soul and body, for we shall see him as he is.

Until that day we only live by resurrection life that comes from him.  This is not just a life that doesn't face death any more, but it is a life in glory, moved by the grace of God in the New Creation, which longs for the day when Heaven and Earth will be one, wrapped in the majesty and glory of God forever and ever.

What is Plan A?

The material which is presented cryptically in this table is discussed at length here.

If Plan A was the original creation, then:

Plan A	Plan B	Result
Creation	Redemption	Restores plan A
Low (but definite) revelation of the trinity.	Trinity fully revealed only in redemption.	Full revelation of the Trinity was originally unnecessary for divine religion. Was, and is, the religion of “God.”
No Incarnation.	Incarnation, only to repair the problem of sin, and to restore the original creation.	Christology was originally unnecessary for divine religion.
Establish social and political order of the First Creation.	Restoration of the order of the First Creation.	The  order of the First Creation can now be implemented in the present aeon. No “deification” (2 Pet 1:4).
First Creation based on Law, not Gospel.	Restoration of the First Creation through the Gospel restores the effectiveness of the Law.	The Current (and Final) Kingdom is based on the restored Law.
The Old Testament is the Canon of Creation. No Messiah in the original creation.	The New Testament restores the Covenant and Canon of the original Creation through contingent Messiah.	The New Testament is not the normative revealer of God’s purposes.
		Not Redemptive-Historical

If the original intent of creation is actually redemption, then:

Plan Zero	Plan A	Result
Creation.	Redemption.	Implements plan A  (redemption).
Low (but definite) revelation of the trinity.	Trinity fully revealed only in redemption.	Full revelation of the Trinity is necessary for divine religion. Is the religion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
No Incarnation.	Incarnation, to save mankind and elevate them to a higher level than the original creation.	Christology is truly necessary for divine religion. “Deification” possible (2 Pet 1:4).
Social and political order of the First Creation.	Elevation of the mankind to a new level in the New Creation.	The New Creation is fully inherited only in resurrection.
First Creation based on Law, not Gospel.	Redemption and Elevation of the First Creation through the Gospel, not the Law.	The Kingdom is based on the Gospel, not the Law.
The Old Testament promises the New, in the Person of Messiah.	The New Testament fulfills the Old, in the Person of Messiah.	The New Testament is the supreme revealer of the prophet, priest and king, in the Person of Messiah.
		Redemptive-Historical

The "extra Calvinisticum" and "real presence"

I've been reading some Reformed theological papers and books recently which speak of the extra Calvinisticum.  This descriptive tag is not ancient, but the doctrinal material connected with it is.  Recently, during the Reformation, that doctrinal material was discussed again in polemics between the Reformed and the Lutherans over the nature of the "real presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper.

I first learned the meaning of all this from reading Lutheran theology, in its polemic against the Reformed -- a polemic, by the way, that every serious Reformed theologue should read.  The Lutherans were the ones to invent the "new" term extra Calvinisticum.  They use this term to find fault with the Reformed doctrine of the Incarnation.  The claim is that the Second Person of the Trinity is incarnate in the human nature that was born and walked among us, died, and was buried, raised, ascended and now sits on the throne of heaven, BUT that (physically) outside that humanity, the Second Person of the Trinity is not incarnate, but pure God.  This "outside the incarnate human nature" of the deity of the Second Person is called by the confessional Lutherans the 'extra Calvinisticum.'  It's worth further study and contemplation, to assess the validity of this claim.

But, the Reformed have taken up the term extra Calvinisticum in many cases, and use it for their own purposes.  Generally speaking, the few Reformed references that I've read which explicitly refer to this term use the extra, which they believe in in their own way, to mean that the Second Person of the Trinity is not limited in his deity in any way to the 5 foot form of the man Jesus Christ who is sitting on the throne of heaven.

Of course, these two approaches reveal a different definition of the extra.  The Lutherans claim that the (bad) extra limits the incarnation to the physical body of Christ (including his invisible parts: soul), such that the omnipresent Person of the Son isn't a man.  The Reformed claim that the (good) extra doesn't limit the deity to that 5 feet.  Note that these comments made by the few Reformed that I've inventoried for this are making a false claim about Lutheranism, since Lutheranism does not limit the deity of the Son to the human body of Christ.  Just the opposite: They do not limit the humanity of the Second Person to that 5 foot figure on the throne of heaven.

All this bears further study, and goes back to the controversy between the Cyrillian (Alexandrian) Christology and the Antiochian Christology.

Before getting into this too deeply, it's worth pointing out that the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) proposed to describe the coming together of the human and divine natures in such a way that they each remained true to themselves, and yet worked together absolutely harmoniously.  So, it was right to say that there were two natures.  The Incarnate Christ was God.  The Incarnate Christ was a man.  However, it was wrong to say that the Person of the God-Man was a double person.  The right thing to say was that he was a single Person -- in fact, the same Person that he always was eternally -- but that he "took on" human nature, including not only the body of a man but his soul, too, and all other invisible attributes.  In result, the Second Person of the Trinity remained fully God and simultaneously became fully a Man, and yet remained a single Person.

Now back to the subject.

The Antiochian Christology has the desire to preserve the full manhood, as well as the full deity of Christ -- a worthy and serious goal of the ancient church, and one for which we can give thanks to God, that by this our religion has remained Christian.  However, this can be taken to an extreme, so that the two natures in Christ (human and divine) barely touch.  There is even a heretical version of this, called Nestorianism, in which the union of the human and divine natures in Christ is the union of the Second Person of the Trinity and one Mr. Jesus, to graphically explain it.  This violates the unity of the Person.

In the other direction from the Antiochian Christology is the Alexandrian (Cyrillian) Christology.  The emphasis of this approach is on the thoroughness of the coming-together of the natures in the single Person -- the Second Person of the Trinity -- God the Son.  The emphasis here is intended to prevent the God-Man from being considered as being in any sense two persons which don't entirely think the same way.  There is also a heretical extreme for this.  So-called "Eutychianism" sees the unity of the Person devour the distinction between the natures, so that the humanity effectively goes away, and some composite nature appears in its place.

Therefore, we can see that one side is concerned to keep the natures distinct, not mixed, but not separated from each other either, whereas the other side is concerned that the Second Person of the Trinity be seen as truly the Person of the God-Man in all times and places.  It is this ancient controversy, which has caused fights between orthodox churches for up to 1500 years, which in some similar sense, rears its head again in the controversy between the Lutheran and the Reformed over "real presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper.  For the Lutherans, Christ in his sacrificed body and blood is spiritually ("real"-ly) received during the physical practice of the Sacrament, because the God-Man, being everywhere a man, can make himself spiritually received by faith, in both natures, even at the Table.  For the Reformed, Christ in his sacrificed human nature is not received literally at the Table, but spiritually by faith only.  The activities at the Table are symbolic of what transpires in the spiritual realm.

In my opinion, the ecclesiastical difficulty with this is that our Lutheran and Reformed Confessions force us to take sides on some things not yet well understood in the "catholic" theology.  We each presume ourselves "hyper-catholic" on this issue, and as a consequence introduce schism.

Perhaps more later, as thought develops.