Calvin's Doctrine of the Spiritual Presence

[JM]

The Lord's Supper has been discussed or mentioned in a few topics over the last couple of weeks so I did some reading and found the following article; Antithesis at Reformed.org

Quote:

Dabney's view of the Supper is identical to that of Hodge. He says of Calvin's view, "it is not only incomprehensible, but impossible." [29] He also maintained that the Westminster Assembly modified Calvin's view so as to remove "all that was untenable and unscriptural in it." [30]

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Sorry I'm not following you (so to speak)....what's the point or moral of the story?

Let me ask a couple pointy questions, that should be relevant to the topic...do Christians have the Spirit of God, of Christ indwelling in them or not? What do the Scriptures say about where two or three are gathered in His name?

Personally, I am not a huge R.L. Dabney fan, but he was a man who lived during unfortunate times, hence his defense of slavery.

 

[JM]

Sorry I'm not following you (so to speak)....what's the point or moral of the story?

It was a teaser...you post the best or most controveral part of the article to get people interested. The moral? Study. Know your history.

Let me ask a couple pointy questions, that should be relevant to the topic...do Christians have the Spirit of God, of Christ indwelling in them or not? What do the Scriptures say about where two or three are gathered in His name?

Sorry may man, I cannot indulge this divergence, bread and wine are not needed for these scriptures to be true.

Personally, I am not a huge R.L. Dabney fan, but he was a man who lived during unfortunate times, hence his defense of slavery.

Hodge and Dabney agreed. You don't like Hodge either?

Many of the Reformed folks including Baxter, Edwards and Whitefield agree with Dabney. Man steeling was a sin, slavery was not. Be consistent.

Did you have something to say about the article?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

It was a teaser...you post the best or most controveral part of the article to get people interested. The moral? Study. Know your history.

Study the primary sources, you know what they say about opinions....

Sorry may man, I cannot indulge this divergence, bread and wine are not needed for these scriptures to be true.

True enough, but do they have no relevance when taking communion?

Hodge and Dabney agreed. You don't like Hodge either?

I'll believe they agreed when I read it from Hodge, either way, I realize Presbyterians do not believe exactly the same on every little detail, and a disagreement with Calvin, on an issue which is not a distinctive of the Reformed faith, is of secondary or lesser importance.

Many of the Reformed folks including Baxter, Edwards and Whitefield agree with Dabney.

Except they were before Dabney....

Man steeling was a sin, slavery was not. Be consistent.

I'll pass, just wanted to you to know how I felt about Dabney, Charles Hodge on the other hand, is in my opinion one of the finest systematicians in the history of the Church, unlike Dabney, I hold Hodge in high regard.

Did you have something to say about the article?

Sure, let's see, Calvin is difficult to read...true...Calvin writings, like all extra-biblical writings are not inspired (at least not to the same extent) or inerrant and as such are prone (however scarcely) to the same human error (though perhaps to a lesser extent or degree) we all possess. The great Reformer John Calvin, for all of his consistency, may have struggled throughout the entire course of his lifetime to be one hundred percent consistent from the beginning of his (huge collection of) writings to the end in every little detail. Likewise we find other authors to also be inconsistent, it has been said of Augustine and his writings, that in a way, there are two Augustine's, a younger Augustine and an older, with different views (confessions, recanting former beliefs etc.). So, the ball is in your court, to substantiate Dabney's quoted remark, because it is not as though Dabney's writings are considered sacred.

 

[JM]

Study the primary sources, you know what they say about opinions....

Who are 'they' and is that their opinion...your opinion?

True enough, but do they have no relevance when taking communion?

No more relevance then a prayer meeting, church service, bible study, etc.

I'll believe they agreed when I read it from Hodge, either way, I realize Presbyterians do not believe exactly the same on every little detail, and a disagreement with Calvin, on an issue which is not a distinctive of the Reformed faith, is of secondary or lesser importance.

Good. The article will be of some use.

Except they were before Dabney.... I'll pass, just wanted to you to know how I felt about Dabney, Charles Hodge on the other hand, is in my opinion one of the finest systematicians in the history of the Church, unlike Dabney, I hold Hodge in high regard.

Trust me on this, Dabney was wrong and it is difficult being black and Reformed. (my wife is black, kids are yella)

Sure, let's see, Calvin is difficult to read...true...Calvin writings, like all extra-biblical writings are not inspired (at least not to the same extent) or inerrant and as such are prone (however scarcely) to the same human error (though perhaps to a lesser extent or degree) we all possess. The great Reformer John Calvin, for all of his consistency, may have struggled throughout the entire course of his lifetime to be one hundred percent consistent from the beginning of his (huge collection of) writings to the end in every little detail. Likewise we find other authors to also be inconsistent, it has been said of Augustine and his writings, that in a way, there are two Augustine's, a younger Augustine and an older, with different views (confessions, recanting former beliefs etc.). So, the ball is in your court, to substantiate Dabney's quoted remark, because it is not as though Dabney's writings are considered sacred.

I agree but what was that 'they' say about opinions?

jm

 

[hedrick]

I just reviewed that section of the Institutes. I don't see anything unscriptural or impossible. First, Calvin takes a broad view of what it means for Christ to be the bread of life. John uses the term, and does not seem to be limiting it to communion. Remember that for Calvin to key to being a Christian is the "mystical union," Paul's being "in Christ." Christ is the bread of life because through him we live, on a day to day basis. (John 6) It is Christ's body, because Christ is not just an abstract idea. He is an actual human, who was present in a body. It is this Christ incarnate, a bodily, truly human incarnation of God that continually nourishes us.

As I read that section of the Institutes, Christ's presence in communion is just a more visible form of his presence with us all the time. He uses the normal Augustinian concept that the bread and wine are visible symbols of something real but invisible. The invisible reality is the human, embodied Christ, who is our bread of life. That reality is truly offered to us in the sacrament through the symbols of bread and wine.

He asks, how can we be united with the embodied Christ, whose body is (like any human body) present only in one place? That is the role of the Holy Spirit.

I don't find anything impossible about this.

The Westminster version of this seems to me to lose the larger context, of what it means for Christ to be the bread of life for our whole life, and our life in him through the Spirit.

I know little of Calvinism after Calvin. I've not found it very interesting. But the Brian Nicholson article pointed to by the OP seems right to me.

 

[JM]

Thanks Hedrick for your post. I wonder what Hodge and Dabney were talking about.

Here is a short treatise on the subject by Calvin.

John Calvin

1. REASON WHY MANY WEAK CONSCIENCES REMAIN IN SUSPENSE
AS TO THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPPER.​

As the holy sacrament of the Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ has long been the subject of several important errors, and in these past years been anew enveloped in diverse opinions and contentious disputes, it is no wonder if many weak consciences cannot fairly resolve what view they ought to take of it, but remain in doubt and perplexity, waiting till all contention being laid aside, the servants of God come to some agreement upon it. However, as it is a very perilous thing to have no certainty on an ordinance, the understanding of which is so requisite for our salvation, I have thought it might be a very useful labour to treat briefly and, nevertheless, clearly deduce a summary of what is necessary to be known of it. I may add that I have been requested to do so by some worthy persons, whom I could not refuse without neglecting my duty. In order to rid ourselves of all difficulty, it is expedient to attend to the order which I have determined to follow.

2. THE ORDER TO BE OBSERVED IN THIS TREATISE.​

First, then, we will explain to what end and for what reason our Lord instituted this holy sacrament.
Secondly , What fruit and utility we receive from it, when it will likewise be shown how the body of Jesus Christ is given to us.
Thirdly , What is the legitimate use of it.
Fourthly , We will detail the errors and superstitions with which it has been contaminated, when it will be shown how the servants of God ought to differ from the Papists.
Lastly , We will mention what has been the source of the discussion which has been so keenly carried on, even among those who have, in our time, brought back the light of the gospel, and employed themselves in rightly edifying the Church in sound doctrine.

3. AT BAPTISM GOD RECEIVES US INTO HIS CHURCH
AS MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY.​

In regard to the first article—Since it has pleased our good God to receive us by baptism into his Church, which is his house, which he desires to maintain and govern, and since he has received us to keep us not merely as domestics, but as his own children, it remains that, in order to do the office of a good father, he nourish and provide us with every thing necessary for our life. In regard to corporal nourishment, as it is common to all, and the bad share in it as well as the good, it is not peculiar to his family. It is very true that we have an evidence of his paternal goodness in maintaining our bodies, seeing that we partake in all the good things which he gives us with his blessing. But as the life into which he has begotten us again is spiritual, so must the food, in order to preserve and strengthen us, be spiritual also. For we should understand, that not only has he called us one day to possess his heavenly inheritance, but that by hope he has already in some measure installed us in possession; that not only has he promised us life, but already transported us into it, delivering us from death, when by adopting us as his children, he begot us again by immortal seed, namely, his word imprinted on our hearts by the Holy Spirit.

4. THE VIRTUE AND OFFICE OF THE WORD OF GOD
IN REGARD TO OUR SOULS.​

To maintain us in this spiritual life, the thing requisite is not to feed our bodies with fading and corruptible food, but to nourish our souls on the best and most precious diet. Now all Scripture tells us, that the spiritual food by which our souls are maintained is that same word by which the Lord has regenerated us; but it frequently adds the reason, viz., that in it Jesus Christ, our only life, is given and administered to us. For we must not imagine that there is life any where than in God. But just as God has placed all fulness of life in Jesus, in order to communicate it to us by his means, so he ordained his word as the instrument by which Jesus Christ, with all his graces, is dispensed to us. Still it always remains true, that our souls have no other pasture than Jesus Christ. Our heavenly Father, therefore, in his care to nourish us, gives us no other, but rather recommends us to take our fill there, as a refreshment amply sufficient, with which we cannot dispense, and beyond which no other can be found.

5. JESUS CHRIST THE ONLY SPIRITUAL NOURISHMENT OF OUR SOULS.​

We have already seen that Jesus Christ is the only food by which our souls are nourished; but as it is distributed to us by the word of the Lord, which he has appointed an instrument for that purpose, that word is also called bread and water. Now what is said of the word applies as well to the sacrament of the Supper, by means of which the Lord leads us to communion with Jesus Christ. For seeing we are so weak that we cannot receive him with true heartfelt trust, when he is presented to us by simple doctrine and preaching, the Father of mercy, disdaining not to condescend in this matter to our infirmity, has been pleased to add to his word a visible sign, by which he might represent the substance of his promises, to confirm and fortify us by delivering us from all doubt and uncertainty. Since, then, there is something so mysterious and incomprehensible in saying that we have communion with the body and the blood of Jesus Christ, and we on our part are so rude and gross that we cannot understand the least things of God, it was of importance that we should be given to understand it as far as our capacity could admit.

6. THE CAUSE WHY OUR LORD INSTITUTED THE SUPPER.​

Our Lord, therefore, instituted the Supper, first, in order to sign and seal in our consciences the promises contained in his gospel concerning our being made partakers of his body and blood, and to give us certainty and assurance that therein lies our trio spiritual nourishment, and that having such an earnest, we may entertain a right reliance on salvation. Secondly, in order to exercise us in recognising his great goodness toward us, and thus lead us to laud and magnify him more fully. Thirdly, in order to exhort us to all holiness and innocence, inasmuch as we are members of Jesus Christ; and specially to exhort us to union and brotherly charity, as we are expressly commanded. When we shall have well considered these three reasons, to which the Lord had respect in ordaining his Supper, we shall be able to understand, both what benefit accrues to us from it, and what is our duty in order to use it, properly.

7. THE MEANS OF KNOWING THE GREAT BENEFIT OF THE SUPPER.​

It is now time to come to the second point, viz., to show how the Lord’s Supper is profitable to us, provided we use it profitably. Now we shall know its utility by reflecting on the indigence which it is meant to succour. We must necessarily be under great trouble and torment of conscience, when we consider who we are, and examine what iS in us. For not one of us can find one particle of righteousness in himself, but on the contrary we are all full of sins and iniquities, so much so that no other party is required to accuse us than our own conscience, no other judge to condemn us. It follows that the wrath of God is kindled against us, and that none can escape eternal death. If we are not asleep and stupified, this horrible thought must be a kind of perpetual hell to vex and torment us. For the judgment of God cannot come into our remembrance without letting us see that our condemnation follows as a consequence.

8. THE MISERY OF MAN.​

We are then already in the gulf, if God does not in mercy draw us out of it. Moreover, what hope of resurrection can we have while considering our flesh, which is only rottenness and corruption? Thus in regard to the soul, as well as the body, we are more than miserable if we remain within ourselves, and this misery cannot but produce great sadness and anguish of soul. Now our heavenly Father, to succour us in this, gives us the Supper as a mirror, in which we may contemplate our Lord Jesus Christ, crucified to take away our faults and offences, and raised again to deliver us from corruption and death, restoring us to a celestial immortality.

9. THE SUPPER INVITES US TO THE PROMISES OF SALVATION.​

Here, then, is the singular consolation which we derive from the Supper. It directs and leads us to the cross of Jesus Christ and to his resurrection, to certify us that whatever iniquity there may be in us, the Lord nevertheless recognises and accepts us as righteous—whatever materials of death may be in us, he nevertheless gives us life— whatever misery, may be in us, he nevertheless fills us with all felicity. Or to explain the matter more simply—as in ourselves we are devoid of all good, and have not one particle of what might help to procure salvation, the Supper is an attestation that, having been made partakers of the death and passion of Jesus Christ, we have every thing that is useful and salutary to us.

read the rest here: Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper by John Calvin

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Calvin is right.

 

[Tomyris]

OP:
So....What do you propose replacing it with?

 

[JM]

OP:
So....What do you propose replacing it with?

Tomi, what in the OP suggested I would 'replace' Calvin's doctrine?

Symbolic parallelism if you are asking what I believe about the Lord's Supper.

 

[Tomyris]

Tomi, what in the OP suggested I would 'replace' Calvin's doctrine?

Symbolic parallelism if you are asking what I believe about the Lord's Supper.

Perhaps that should have been in the third person: what does HE propose it be replaced with? I inferred you were in agreement, possibly as a result of a lack of familiarity with your position.