A Spiritual Banquet: John Calvin on the Lord’s Supper

[Iosias]

Article is found here.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I appreciate this post. It's satisfying to see a Calvinist with an affinity for the Sacrament of the Altar and to see Calvin's admonition for weekly Eucharistic practice.
As worship is centered around covenant, and our covenant is a memorial to remember that God recreated the world on a Sunday morning (much as the Jews have a bread and wine feast on Friday dusk Sabbath to remember they are in covenant with the God who created the work), it rarely makes sense to me to have Sunday morning worship without the covenant symbol- regardless of what one believes about the real presence.

 

[a_ntv]

Article is found here.

Positive article, that anyway starts from 'limited' understanding of Mr Calvin about the Eucharist.

I say 'limited' not because it is wrong, but because it includes only a part of what actually the Eucharist is.

In fact the Eucharist is by far more that a simple banquet where we can feed of Christ.

It is not a simple banquet: by first the Eucharist is the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross: the altar is the tomb of Christ from where He risen.
The sanctified wine is His bood spread for us on the Cross to make the new covenant: it is not simply something to drink, or a psicological feeling.

Also the idea of the verb 'to feed' is a limitation: actually, the Eucharist makes possible for us to be part of Him (to be one in Him).
The idea of feeding (that, I repeat, is correct even if limited) cames from a late middle-age understanding of the Eucharist only as a help for christians: the Eucharist is more: it shall be our onthological way of being! It is the sacrament of the sacraments.

The most positive part of the article is the re-discovery that the Eucharist is the essence of the Church: the Church can be the mystical Body of Christ because of the Body of Christ on the altar.

This article leaves the hope that some protestants will go on in discovering parts of the Eucharist that they usually do not consider, notwithstanding Mr Calvin.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

This article leaves the hope that some protestants will go on in discovering parts of the Eucharist that they usually do not consider, notwithstanding Mr Calvin.

What I think is sad is how far Protestants have fallen from their founders. Clearly Presbyterians and the Reformed hold to no form of real presence, even the minimal understanding Calvin held. And I find it appaling that some Lutheran churches don't hold weekly Eucharst. What would Luther say?

Can anyone think of a Methodist who would affirm the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary Theotokos? Because John Wesley did.

 

[DeaconDean]

Calvin certainly did support the idea of the Lord's Supper at every meeting. That was one of the differnces between him and Zwingly. Not to mention the differences between them and what it is. (Transubstanciation, Consubstanciation, and Symbolic) But from an Evangelical position, by having the Lord's Supper at every meeting, how long would it take before the whole meaning of it would lose it's significance? It's like getting up in the morning day-after-day and tying your shoes. You do it so much, you forget the real reason you do it is so that your shoes stay on your feet. It becomes a routine. The same thing with the Lord's Supper being done every time the doors are open. How long does it take before it simply becomes a routine and nothing else?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Iosias]

Calvin certainly did support the idea of the Lord's Supper at every meeting. That was one of the differnces between him and Zwingly. Not to mention the differences between them and what it is. (Transubstanciation, Consubstanciation, and Symbolic) But from an Evangelical position, by having the Lord's Supper at every meeting, how long would it take before the whole meaning of it would lose it's significance? It's like getting up in the morning day-after-day and tying your shoes. You do it so much, you forget the real reason you do it is so that your shoes stay on your feet. It becomes a routine. The same thing with the Lord's Supper being done every time the doors are open. How long does it take before it simply becomes a routine and nothing else?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Speaking as someone who has celebrated the Lord's Supper weekly since 2004 I can say it has not become routine and I pray it never will.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Calvin certainly did support the idea of the Lord's Supper at every meeting. That was one of the differnces between him and Zwingly. Not to mention the differences between them and what it is. (Transubstanciation, Consubstanciation, and Symbolic) But from an Evangelical position, by having the Lord's Supper at every meeting, how long would it take before the whole meaning of it would lose it's significance? It's like getting up in the morning day-after-day and tying your shoes. You do it so much, you forget the real reason you do it is so that your shoes stay on your feet. It becomes a routine. The same thing with the Lord's Supper being done every time the doors are open. How long does it take before it simply becomes a routine and nothing else?

God Bless

Till all are one.

The same objection could be made to the weekly preaching of the Word, or even the weekly gathering of the Church, or of daily prayer, or anything we ought to routinely keep up with.

 

[DeaconDean]

Speaking as someone who has celebrated the Lord's Supper weekly since 2004 I can say it has not become routine and I pray it never will.

Friend, did I ever say that you or anybody else would think of it as routine? When I was in seminary I studied "The History of Christianity." And my teacher and I were the only ones in that particular class, so we spent a lot of time studying the reformation era. That is why I said what I did concerning Zwingly. And for the most part, most Baptist churches either have communion once per month or once per quarter. I like this set up, and line of thinking. Communion is a solemn and very serious service. One I do not happen to take lightly. I was just speaking from the line of thought of new converts and such. If you and your church want to have it every time the doors open, fine, God Bless you sir. But if after "X" amount of years of doing it day after day, it could loose it's significance. That is all I was saying. I did not imply anything towards you or anybody else. And in fact my friend, if you read what Calvin said on the Lord's Supper, he never sets a time or how frequently one should do it, Just that it should be done frequently.

29. TIMES OF USING THE SUPPER.—PROPRIETY OF
FREQUENT COMMUNION.​

As to the time of using it, no certain rule can be prescribed for all. For there are sometimes special circumstances which excuse a man for abstaining; and, moreover, we have no express command to constrain all Christians to use a specified day. However, if we duly consider the end which our Lord has in view, we shall perceive that the use should be more frequent than many make it: for the more infirmity presses, the more necessary is it frequently to have recourse to what may and will serve to confirm our faith, and advance us in purity of life; and, therefore, the practice of all well ordered churches should be to celebrate the Supper frequently, so far as the capacity of the people will admit. And each individual in his own place should prepare himself to receive whenever it is administered in the holy assembly, provided there is not some great impediment which constrains him to abstain. Although we have no express commandment specifying the time and the day, it should suffice us to know the intention of our Lord to be, that we should use it often, if we would fully experience the benefit which accrues from it. [emphasis mine]

"A Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper" By: John Calvin

However, if one reads Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, he does say this:

"… no meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper, and almsgiving" (Institutes IV, xvii, p. 44).

And if you really want to get technical about it, did not Paul teach us that Jesus said:

"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."-1 Cor. 11:26

He never says when or how often to do it, just that whenever you do it do it "in remembrance of me."

Speaking as someone who has celebrated the Lord's Supper weekly since 2004 I can say it has not become routine and I pray it never will.

And with all due respect to those of the Catholic faith, when I say this I mean no disrespect towards your faith or doctrines, you have yours and I respect that. I will not disrepect yours. Now, having said that, Martin Luther and the groundwork he laid in the reformation, gave us Protestants a chance to break from the Catholic church. It happened because of several factors which I shall not get into out of respect for the Catholics. But the point I'm getting to here is that as I understand, the Lord's Supper (eucharist) is offered at every service. Being a Baptist, we chose not to follow their tradition because of our need to break totally from Catholic routine and tradition. I'm sure that because of the reformation, what happened left a bad taste in both sides mouth. And from a traditional Baptist POV, we wish to totally separate ourselves from anything which even remotely seems from the Catholic tradition. That is why most Baptist churches where I live do not offer the Lord's Supper at every service. And like I said before, if it is your churches practice to do it at every service, fine, I sincerly hope God blesses you and your church.

Baptists and the Lord's Supper

"Baptists practice the Lord's Supper in conformity with the Zwinglian view of its essence. John Gill states very simply that it is "to Shew forth the death of Christ till he come again; to commemorate his sufferings and sacrifice, to represent his body broken, and his blood shed for the sins of his people." Any who desires to take it should examine himself to discern if he "has true faith in Christ, and is capable of discerning the Lord's body." The emphasis on commemoration and representation reflect Zwingli's interpretation of Scripture and his understanding of the distinctive idioms of human nature in conformity with the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the undivided person of the two-natured Christ. In his Exposition of the Faith sent to King Francis of France, Zwingli argued that "in the Lord's Supper the natural and essential body of Christ in which he suffered and is now seated in heaven at the right hand of God is not eaten naturally and literally but only spiritually." The Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation he contended was not only "presumptuous and foolish" but, more importantly, "impious and blasphemous."



Though this view has been described as "bare symbolism," for Zwingli it was no more bare than powerful spiritual meditation on the truths of the gospel. "To eat the body of Christ spiritually," he explained, "is equivalent to trusting with heart and soul upon the mercy and goodness of God." This meditation may become a spiritual feast and a means of renewed assurance and sanctification. Zwingli sought to make this clear to the Roman Catholic King Francis:

So then, when you come to the Lord's Supper to feed spiritually upon Christ, and when you thank the Lord for his great favour, for the redemption whereby you are delivered from despair, and for the pledge whereby you are assured of eternal salvation, when you join with your brethren in partaking of the bread and wine which are the tokens of the body of Christ, then in the true sense of the word you eat him sacramentally. You do inwardly that which you represent outwardly, your soul being strengthened by the faith which you attest in the tokens."​

http://www.reformedreader.org/bao.htm

But I tell you what, since it seems that I offend with my Baptist opinions, I'll just bow out of this discussion and pray that the Lord God blesses you richly. To my Catholic brethren, if I misrepresented you, your tradition, or beliefs, I sincerly apologize, it was not my intention to do so. I ask for forgivness and ask that you overlook my shortcomings.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[a_ntv]

But the point I'm getting to here is that as I understand, the Lord's Supper (eucharist) is offered at every service. Being a Baptist, we chose not to follow their tradition because of our need to break totally from Catholic routine and tradition. I'm sure that because of the reformation, what happened left a bad taste in both sides mouth. And from a traditional Baptist POV, we wish to totally separate ourselves from anything which even remotely seems from the Catholic tradition. That is why most Baptist churches where I live do not offer the Lord's Supper at every service. And like I said before, if it is your churches practice to do it at every service, fine, I sincerly hope God blesses you and your church.

I personally consider that to consider something correct because it is the contrary of the Catholic Church use is actually a quite un-correct epistemology method: for sure it is a man-based method.

 

[Iosias]

We know that it is God's will that we celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly from:

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.


And this was when the NT Church was almost newborn!
Attending church every Sunday could become just routine and yet we must never stop attending it. We all must fight against formalism. That formalism is a danger is no reason for stopping something.

 

[ArcticFox]

I have always been disappointed by the practices of the churches I have attended in administering Communion on the first Sunday of the month; it just doesn't 'feel right.' Of course, I don't get dogmatic about it, since there is no time limit given, but it would certainly be great to have that time every week.

And may I complain about how the Lord's Supper went from a time when people eat til they are satiated with real food, to a time when people nibble on a crumb and sip a tiny bit of juice?

We need the 'real' Lord's Supper back, with all the food and wonderful time spent together as a body.

 

[plmarquette]

paul speaks of partaking the lords supper unworthily ... how do you partake unworthily of a memorial service or a ritual ?

Luther said , it is written , hoc est corpus meam ... this is a point of contact , an anoited vessel , an impartation has taken place

as often as you do this remember , honor , and meditate upon the significance of the event

except you partake of my flesh and blood you cannot enter the kingdom ... James chapter 2 , pick up cross , do some thing , live the live in the work and market place , become a vessel for my presence ...

koinea ... communion , lords supper , community , brethren , commune , eucharist , communicate ...

 

[Fortuna]

Deacon Dean--Calvin certainly did support the idea of the Lord's Supper at every meeting. That was one of the differnces between him and Zwingly. Not to mention the differences between them and what it is. (Transubstanciation, Consubstanciation, and Symbolic) But from an Evangelical position, by having the Lord's Supper at every meeting, how long would it take before the whole meaning of it would lose it's significance? It's like getting up in the morning day-after-day and tying your shoes. You do it so much, you forget the real reason you do it is so that your shoes stay on your feet. It becomes a routine. The same thing with the Lord's Supper being done every time the doors are open. How long does it take before it simply becomes a routine and nothing else?

If one were to follow your logic, then this must apply to prayer and everything else that one does routinely. If a believer is so complacent and jaded, then I think they do not understand the doctrine of faith or the sacraments.
Take for instance, my recent baptism. I think that any time there is a special occasion such as this, it is a reminder for those already baptized to reaffirm their faith. In fact this reaffirmation is read outloud from the Book of Common Prayer.
If things become rote and we are just paying lip service to Christ, then we need to check ourselves and pay more attention to our relationship with God. Would one consider walking with God each day routine?
And, I certainly take my faith more seriously that tying my shoes. To neglect either, however, would surely cause me to trip and fall !!
IMHO, anyone who practices and sees religion as a routine is seriously missing the boat and does not understand the purpose of the church and faith. They may as well stay home and practice a religion unto themselves. Perhaps in doing as they please they will not fall into routine, but simply fall.

God Bless

Till all are one.

In fellowship through Christ, His Word and His church we are one.
Blessings, Fortuna [/quote]

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

paul speaks of partaking the lords supper unworthily ... how do you partake unworthily of a memorial service or a ritual ?

Luther said , it is written , hoc est corpus meam ... this is a point of contact , an anoited vessel , an impartation has taken place

as often as you do this remember , honor , and meditate upon the significance of the event

except you partake of my flesh and blood you cannot enter the kingdom ... James chapter 2 , pick up cross , do some thing , live the live in the work and market place , become a vessel for my presence ...

koinea ... communion , lords supper , community , brethren , commune , eucharist , communicate ...

Interesting. Non-denom, Luther, and the Real Presence.

Any chance of infant baptism? Forgiveness of sins? Okay, I ask too much.

Peace and Joy,
Cosmic

 

[Tonks]

Interesting article; thanks for posting.