"Real Presence" in the Lord's Supper

[JM]

Source

Question:

Could you explain the distinctive Presbyterian/Reformed view of the "Real Presence" in the Lord's Supper, and what it entails?

Answer:

This is an old and interesting question. The reformers Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli took somewhat different positions on this in response to the abuses that were being taught by the Catholic church. The view of the Catholic church, which may be worth stating here as a backdrop, was that when the priest said the blessing the elements of bread and wine were mysteriously transformed into the body and blood of Christ. This was called transubstantiation. They saw Christ as, if you will, overly present in the supper, to the point of being offered up over, and over, and over.

Christ's sacrifice was given "once for all," and that was on the cross (see Hebrews 9 and 10, especiallyGiven for You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper by Keith Mathison, published by P & R Publishing. It should be helpful.

Please let me know if I have helped or confused you! It is a tricky, but important question. The Lord’s Supper is a true, spiritual blessing to the people of God, and understanding the way in which Christ is really present in the Supper is important to seeing how our once-for-all sacrificed and resurrected Savior continues to give himself to his people.

Blessings in him.

 

[hedrick]

Since the link in the previous posting is missing, I'll summarize. Zwingli is actually considered Reformed, so the Reformed tradition has in some sense a diversity of views. However Reformed today almost always follow Calvin's position. It says that we truly partake of Christ's body, but that it is a spiritual partaking. It's mediated by the Holy Spirit. Christ's body remains "in heaven." It isn't locally present with us. But the Holy Spirit truly unites us with it. Hence Reformed typically claim to believe in the real presence, though obviously in a different sense than Catholics and Lutherans. Our position is often referred to as "spiritual presence."

 

[JM]

Since the link in the previous posting is missing, I'll summarize. Zwingli is actually considered Reformed, so the Reformed tradition has in some sense a diversity of views. However Reformed today almost always follow Calvin's position. It says that we truly partake of Christ's body, but that it is a spiritual partaking. It's mediated by the Holy Spirit. Christ's body remains "in heaven." It isn't locally present with us. But the Holy Spirit truly unites us with it. Hence Reformed typically claim to believe in the real presence, though obviously in a different sense than Catholics and Lutherans. Our position is often referred to as "spiritual presence."

Good summation hedrick. A few months ago I read a passage from Zwingli where he said he agree with Luther, that Christ was present, he just didn't like the formal used by Luther. I get the impression he didn't like Luther either. When they had a meeting to discuss it, according to Zwingli, Luther kept shouting, "this is my body, this is my body..." Talks broke down after that. It seems Luther wouldn't even discuss the language used to describe what takes place in the Eucharist.

If I can still find the quote where Zwingli agrees I'll post it. It was near the end of his life and he seemed to dislike the idea of Christ being locally present as well but didn't deny Christ being spiritual present. Also, let's not forget Bullinger's view. I think his view collapses into Calvin's view though, they were so very close in definition.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[hedrick]

Yes, Zwingli is known for a view denying Christ's presence, but people who study him say his view is a lot higher than he's often given credit for.

 

[JM]

I believe in the real presence but not sure what that means. Calvin makes the most sense to me right now.

The Battle for the Table

John Calvin insisted, as did the Anglicans, on the true presence of Christ, but he also insisted that the presence of Christ is through His divine nature. His human nature is no longer present with us. It is in heaven at the right hand of God. We still are able to commune with the human nature of Christ by means of our communion with the divine nature, which does indeed remain united to the human nature. But that human nature remains localized in heaven. In the debate, Calvin fought a war on two fronts. On the one hand, in dealing with the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics, he refused to use the term substance with respect to the presence of Jesus in the sacrament. But over against those disciples of Zwingli, who wanted to reduce the sacrament to a mere symbol and memorial, Calvin insisted upon the term substance. Here the term substance had two different nuances. With respect to Luther and Rome, the term substance meant “corporeal” or “physical.” With respect to the debate with Zwingli, Calvin used the term substance as a synonym for “real” or “true.”
​

This truth strikes me every time I partake of the Lord's Supper. Unfortunately the church I'm a member of celebrates the Supper only once a month and during the evening service only so I've been partaking with a conservative Anglican church more frequently.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[gord44]

This truth strikes me every time I partake of the Lord's Supper. Unfortunately the church I'm a member of celebrates the Supper only once a month and during the evening service only so I've been partaking with a conservative Anglican church more frequently.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Do you prefer the wine or grape juice? I always liked communion in churches that use wine (the Anglican and Lutheran churches I attended). If grape juice was used then it didn't seem as....holy...

 

[JM]

Wine. I believe it's more biblical but grape juice is ok I guess.

 

[LordDuncanBurneWilke]

I went to a church once that gave you a big slug of the good communion wine first thing in the morning. Made the service much more enjoyable.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

I believe in the real presence but not sure what that means. Calvin makes the most sense to me right now.

The Battle for the Table

John Calvin insisted, as did the Anglicans, on the true presence of Christ, but he also insisted that the presence of Christ is through His divine nature. His human nature is no longer present with us. It is in heaven at the right hand of God. We still are able to commune with the human nature of Christ by means of our communion with the divine nature, which does indeed remain united to the human nature. But that human nature remains localized in heaven. In the debate, Calvin fought a war on two fronts. On the one hand, in dealing with the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics, he refused to use the term substance with respect to the presence of Jesus in the sacrament. But over against those disciples of Zwingli, who wanted to reduce the sacrament to a mere symbol and memorial, Calvin insisted upon the term substance. Here the term substance had two different nuances. With respect to Luther and Rome, the term substance meant “corporeal” or “physical.” With respect to the debate with Zwingli, Calvin used the term substance as a synonym for “real” or “true.”
​

This truth strikes me every time I partake of the Lord's Supper. Unfortunately the church I'm a member of celebrates the Supper only once a month and during the evening service only so I've been partaking with a conservative Anglican church more frequently.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

I'm glad you clarified that. We first need to define what is meant by use of the term "Real Presence". If by that term the intention is "Physical Presence" then we must by virtue of scriptural consistency and Christology reject the term.

If "Spiritual Presence" is intended, then all is good.

Luther got so tied up in the Greek of the passages of the Lord's supper that he forgot that Jesus could NOT have been speaking literally (especially with respect to his blood), because he would have been advocating that the Law be broken. This would have by definition made him a false prophet. In short, Luther got so tied up by syntax that he forgot context.

This leads to a question we must have answered by our friends and neighbours who hold to the view of Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation: Is the Spiritual Presence of Christ less real than the Physical Presence of Christ?

i think not. Therefore i believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament...not necessarily in the elements.

 

[AMR]

I was once asked if I would be willing to participate in the Lutheran's celebration of the Supper.

My response:
The wonderful mysteries of the Supper are great and there have been many divergent attempts at explaining the real presence of Christ in the it. Rome, Luther, and Calvin all affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Supper, however, all of them argue for it in radically different ways. Zwingli, on the other hand, held a strict memorialist view, which makes the sacrament a bare sign of what Christ has done.

Reformed folk (in accordance with the WCF and BC) can affirm a "Real" presence, just not a local presence.

Calvin, however, argued that Christ is present instrumentally by the Spirit who works faith in Christ's people as they partake of this "visible word." By the Spirit, we are caught up into heaven where Christ's human nature is so that we may partake of his body and blood. This is a gross oversimplification, but I believe it represents what Calvin taught.

I firmly believe the human nature of Christ is not ubiquitous. If I believed this it would mean the human nature of our Lord is infused with the incommunicable divine attribute of our Lord's omnipresence.

Given that Lutherans believe Christ's body and blood are present "in, with, and under" the bread and wine communion elements, they believe in the ubiquity of the human nature of Christ. For me this confuses the divine and human natures of our Lord, which is contrary to what I believe Scripture teaches. Accordingly, I could not in good conscience take communion at a Lutheran church.

 

[JM]

This has been on shelf for a month now...

 

[AMR]

"What is in the mouth?" is a good diagnostic question.

The Reformed view, consistent with Calvin et al, is "Bread in my mouth; Christ in my heart." The Lutheran avows, "Christ in my mouth." Zwinglians, or those who hold to a simple memorial view do not understand the imparting of any spiritual gift in virtue of the meal; it is a mere commemorative occasion. For them all that is present is bread, period.

 

[Radagast]

The Belgic Confession:

We believe and confess
that our Savior Jesus Christ
has ordained and instituted the sacrament of the Holy Supper
to nourish and sustain those
who are already regenerated and ingrafted
into his family,
which is his church.

Now those who are born again have two lives in them.
The one is physical and temporal—

they have it from the moment of their first birth,
and it is common to all.

The other is spiritual and heavenly,

and is given them in their second birth—
it comes through the Word of the gospel
in the communion of the body of Christ;
and this life is common to God’s elect only.

Thus, to support the physical and earthly life
God has prescribed for us
an appropriate earthly and material bread,
which is as common to all people
as life itself.
But to maintain the spiritual and heavenly life
that belongs to believers,
God has sent a living bread
that came down from heaven:
namely Jesus Christ,

who nourishes and maintains
the spiritual life of believers
when eaten—
that is, when appropriated
and received spiritually
by faith.

To represent to us
this spiritual and heavenly bread
Christ has instituted
an earthly and visible bread as the sacrament of his body
and wine as the sacrament of his blood.
He did this to testify to us that
just as truly as we take and hold the sacrament in our hands
and eat and drink it with our mouths,
by which our life is then sustained,
so truly we receive into our souls,
for our spiritual life,
the true body and true blood of Christ,
our only Savior.

We receive these by faith,
which is the hand and mouth of our souls.

Now it is certain
that Jesus Christ did not prescribe
his sacraments for us in vain,
since he works in us all he represents
by these holy signs,

although the manner in which he does it
goes beyond our understanding
and is incomprehensible to us,

just as the operation of God’s Spirit
is hidden and incomprehensible.

Yet we do not go wrong when we say
that what is eaten is Christ’s own natural body
and what is drunk is his own blood—
but the manner in which we eat it
is not by the mouth, but by the Spirit
through faith.

In that way Jesus Christ remains always seated
at the right hand of God the Father
in heaven—
but he never refrains on that account
to communicate himself to us
through faith.

This banquet is a spiritual table
at which Christ communicates himself to us
with all his benefits.
At that table he makes us enjoy himself
as much as the merits of his suffering and death,
as he nourishes, strengthens, and comforts
our poor, desolate souls
by the eating of his flesh,
and relieves and renews them
by the drinking of his blood.

Moreover,
though the sacraments and what they signify are joined together,
not all receive both of them.
The wicked certainly take the sacrament,
to their condemnation,
but do not receive the truth of the sacrament,

just as Judas and Simon the Sorcerer both indeed
received the sacrament,
but not Christ,
who was signified by it.
He is communicated only to believers.

Finally,
with humility and reverence
we receive the holy sacrament
in the gathering of God’s people,

as we engage together,
with thanksgiving,
in a holy remembrance
of the death of Christ our Savior,
and as we thus confess
our faith and Christian religion.

Therefore none should come to this table
without examining themselves carefully,

lest by eating this bread
and drinking this cup
they “eat and drink judgment against themselves.”

In short,
by the use of this holy sacrament
we are moved to a fervent love
of God and our neighbors.

Therefore we reject
as desecrations of the sacraments
all the muddled ideas and condemnable inventions
that people have added and mixed in with them.
And we say that we should be content with the procedure
that Christ and the apostles have taught us
and speak of these things
as they have spoken of them.

 

[JM]

The Belgic Confession:

Yet we do not go wrong when we say
that what is eaten is Christ’s own natural body
and what is drunk is his own blood—
but the manner in which we eat it
is not by the mouth, but by the Spirit
through faith.

In that way Jesus Christ remains always seated
at the right hand of God the Father
in heaven—
but he never refrains on that account
to communicate himself to us
through faith.

A 'visible sign of the thing signified" kind of deal.

ALMIGHTY and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee that thou dost graciously feed us, in these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ; assuring us thereby of thy favour and goodness towards us; and that we are living members of his mystical body, which is the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs through hope of thy everlasting kingdom.

And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee. And although we are unworthy, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service, not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences; through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom, with thee and the Holy Ghost, be all honour and glory, world without end. Amen.

Book of Common Prayer