The Lord's supper

[R.J.S]

What is the reformed view of the Lord's supper?

 

[Foundthelight]

From the Westminster Confession Chapter 29;

Chapter 29:
Of the Lord’s Supper
​

29:1 Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body (1Co_10:16, 1Co_10:17, 1Co_10:21; 1Co_11:23-26; 1Co_12:13).

29:2 In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or the dead (Heb_9:22, Heb_9:25, Heb_9:26, Heb_9:28); but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same (Mat_26:26, Mat_26:27; 1Co_11:24-26): so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect (Heb_7:23, Heb_7:24, Heb_7:27; Heb_10:11, Heb_10:12, Heb_10:14, Heb_10:18).

29:3 The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants (Mat_26:26-28, and Mar_14:22-24, and Luk_22:19, Luk_22:20, with 1Co_11:23-27); but to none who are not then present in the congregation (Act_20:7; 1Co_11:20).

29:4 Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest or any other alone (1Co_10:6); as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people (Mar_4:23; 1Co_11:25-29), worshipping the elements, the lifting them up or carrying them about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ (Mat_15:9).

29:5 The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained be Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ (Mat_26:26-28) albeit in substance and nature they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before (Mat_26:29; 1Co_11:26-28).

29:6 That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries (Luk_24:6, Luk_24:39; Act_3:21 with 1Co_11:24-26).

29:7 Worthy receivers outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament (1Co_11:28), do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses (1Co_10:16).

29:8 Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament: yet they receive not the thing signified thereby, but by their unworthy coming thereunto are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries (1Co_11:27-29; 2Co_6:14-16), or be admitted thereunto (Mat_7:6; 1Co_5:6, 1Co_5:7, 1Co_5:13; 2Th_3:6, 2Th_3:14, 2Th_3:15).

 

[cygnusx1]

as far as I can recall there are three positions


Transubstantiation ....... Roman Catholics

Consubstatiation ........... Martin Luther

A memorial using symbols ........ Ulrich Zwingli


I favour the last perspective , but would be interested with more posts .

 

[R.J.S]

A memorial using symbols ........ Ulrich Zwingli


I favour the last perspective , but would be interested with more posts .

I thought that Calvin held to a 'third way' between memorial and consubstantiation?

 

[Bulldog]

Most do not believe a "memorial only" view, but most take Calvin's view, that while it is a memorial, Christ is also spiritually present with us at the Lord's Supper. We deny that Christ's body is physically present in the elements and/or that the Lord's Supper is a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice on the cross (the Roman Catholic view)

 

[cygnusx1]

I thought that Calvin held to a 'third way' between memorial and consubstantiation?

I think you are probably right , so often Calvin is or appears to have such diverse views , that is why many quote him to favour Universal Atonement and others quote him to favour Definite Atonement .

Maybe , it depends on which scripture Calvin is commentating on , and maybe it is like Augustine ....... where Augustine developed a real change in his thoughts about Grace , Predestination and Election .

an interesting article .......

http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/david_bromlow/what_is_meant_by_the_spiritual_presence_of_christ_in_the_lords_supper.htm

 

[cygnusx1]

here are some book reviews that stimulate thought , also as a side issue there is the interesting debate over paedocommunion .....


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/087552186X/ref=ase_solascriptu-20/104-4552724-6368761?v=glance&s=books

 

[frumanchu]

IIRC, the Reformed view is that there is spiritual participation in the sacrifice...that it is more than a mere memorial. I'll have to brush up on my sacramentology a little to better answer.

 

[Albion]

Most do not believe a "memorial only" view, but most take Calvin's view, that while it is a memorial, Christ is also spiritually present with us at the Lord's Supper. We deny that Christ's body is physically present in the elements and/or that the Lord's Supper is a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice on the cross (the Roman Catholic view)

I ran into an extremely persuasive and erudite Calvinist awhile ago who explained it to me just as you summarized it there. He also was emphatic that Calvin believed in the "Real Presence," although that term is often used by churches which accept that there is some carnal, physical presence and in the elements themselves in a way that excludes the Calvinist view. That useage by them aside, my friend maintained that a spiritual presence, and one not localized in the elements, is still "Real Presence" as opposed to the strictly representational POV.

 

[Bulldog]

I ran into an extremely persuasive and erudite Calvinist awhile ago who explained it to me just as you summarized it there. He also was emphatic that Calvin believed in the "Real Presence," although that term is often used by churches which accept that there is some carnal, physical presence and in the elements themselves in a way that excludes the Calvinist view. That useage by them aside, my friend maintained that a spiritual presence, and one not localized in the elements, is still "Real Presence" as opposed to the strictly representational POV.

Just because we do not teach that Christ is not physically present at the Lord's Supper does not mean we do not believe in a "Real Presence." A spisirtual presence is very real.

 

[R.J.S]

here are some book reviews that stimulate thought , also as a side issue there is the interesting debate over paedocommunion .....


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/087552186X/ref=ase_solascriptu-20/104-4552724-6368761?v=glance&s=books

The Orthodox Church allow peadocommunion I believe.

Well for the record I agree with Calvin's assessment of the Lord's Supper

 

[mannysee]

I attend a Westminster Presbyterian Church and last Sunday the pastor preached on this, morning and evening. He also went on about the 'middle ground' about Christ being 'spiritually present' as some of the previous replies have mentioned, although I couldn't quite get around this idea.
I wish I could give you a tape of his talk as it was rather informative and covered a few things.

 

[Albion]

I attend a Westminster Presbyterian Church and last Sunday the pastor preached on this, morning and evening. He also went on about the 'middle ground' about Christ being 'spiritually present' as some of the previous replies have mentioned, although I couldn't quite get around this idea.
I wish I could give you a tape of his talk as it was rather informative and covered a few things.

It's just a personal opinion, but I consider the Real Presence in a spiritual sense to be not only the most consistent with scripture and the understanding of the early church, but really, it's the most plausible. That is to say, the idea of there being a physical body of Jesus, the one he had on Earth that we know to be on the right hand of God now, and disguised as bread and wine defies everything that we know. It has to be accepted on sheer faith, suspending all else we know to be true. Meanwhile, the purely symbolic understanding, while easily grasped, doesn't jibe with what Scripture is saying and what early commentators said about there being some kind of change from simple bread. However, for Christ to be specially present with us in some spiritual, but real, way is no more difficult than believing that God is always with us, hears our prayers, and so on. All that is neither physical nor, at the other extreme, only a symbol.

 

[mannysee]

yes that is what i was thinking about, how Christ could be at that time spiritually present in some way, apart from how Christ is present with us anyway

 

[Albion]

yes that is what i was thinking about, how Christ could be at that time spiritually present in some way, apart from how Christ is present with us anyway

I see. It's not the spiritual presence, but how it can be a different or special presence.

To me, it's entirely possible for Christ to be with us in a special way at a very sacred moment (Communion). That would be to say that he is always with us--and God is everywhere--but he is blessing and comforting us at a particularly intimate time during the Lord's Supper, much as a friend who is always a friend is "there for you" at your bedside when you are sick and needing him more than normally you do. This, the Lord's Supper, is a moment that re-enacts the special connection Christ had with his Apostles at the Last Supper in anticipation of his crucifixion.

We also remember that he said that whenever they (and now we) repeated this meal, it would keep him with them in a unique way. Obviously, the meal brings to our minds and hearts something more intimate than, say, looking at a cross or hearing a hymn, as meaningful as those can be in another sense.

 

[cygnusx1]

I see. It's not the spiritual presence, but how it can be a different or special presence.

To me, it's entirely possible for Christ to be with us in a special way at a very sacred moment (Communion). That would be to say that he is always with us--and God is everywhere--but he is blessing and comforting us at a particularly intimate time during the Lord's Supper, much as a friend who is always a friend is "there for you" at your bedside when you are sick and needing him more than normally you do. This, the Lord's Supper, is a moment that re-enacts the special connection Christ had with his Apostles at the Last Supper in anticipation of his crucifixion.

We also remember that he said that whenever they (and now we) repeated this meal, it would keep him with them in a unique way. Obviously, the meal brings to our minds and hearts something more intimate than, say, looking at a cross or hearing a hymn, as meaningful as those can be in another sense.

interesting post Brother , I particularly enjoyed the last paragraph

 

[~Heavens_Bride~]

I personally believe it is more then just a mere symbol. In fact, to me that almost 'lessens' the sacrament. Then again, some do not believe it to be a sacrament at all...which of course, would only add up to symbolism (same as baptism).

Whereas I believe that the Lords supper is symbolic in a way of remeberance, I also believe Christ is spiritually present in the bread and wine. He is with us as we eat and drink of the elements at the Lords Table.

 

[Imblessed]

I see. It's not the spiritual presence, but how it can be a different or special presence.

To me, it's entirely possible for Christ to be with us in a special way at a very sacred moment (Communion). That would be to say that he is always with us--and God is everywhere--but he is blessing and comforting us at a particularly intimate time during the Lord's Supper, much as a friend who is always a friend is "there for you" at your bedside when you are sick and needing him more than normally you do. This, the Lord's Supper, is a moment that re-enacts the special connection Christ had with his Apostles at the Last Supper in anticipation of his crucifixion.

We also remember that he said that whenever they (and now we) repeated this meal, it would keep him with them in a unique way. Obviously, the meal brings to our minds and hearts something more intimate than, say, looking at a cross or hearing a hymn, as meaningful as those can be in another sense.

I think I agree with this statement. That Christ is present in a more intimate way during communion then at other times. I don't believe that the bread and wine are "changed", but I do think that there is some sort of special "thereness"(if that makes sense).
I come from a Quaker background, and Quakers don't practice communion at all, believing it to be a simply symbolic gesture and therefore not necessary, but since I've changed churches, I can tell you that I experience something more during communion then I do at other times. It's a closeness that just doesn't happen at other times. I assume that it is because I'm really reflecting on His work on the cross, and really checking my soul, searching to make sure I am worthy. Our church really places importance on making sure we don't have bad feelings, or un-repentant sins, or un-resolved issues going on before we participate. It's not that we have to have everything "hunky-dory",because then no one would be able to participate, but that we need to acknowledge the issues and make steps to fix them--even if it is just acknowledgement and repentence. Does that make sense? And in doing that, I think that Christ is particularly close during this time of communion.

 

[Albion]

I think I agree with this statement. That Christ is present in a more intimate way during communion then at other times. I don't believe that the bread and wine are "changed", but I do think that there is some sort of special "thereness"(if that makes sense).

Exactly what I was trying to express.

"Thereness" seems a good way of putting it.

 

[orthedoxy]

How do you come up with these teachings is it from John 6? John 6 doesn't say anything about Jesus being spiritually present in the communion.
Or is it from 1cor 11? Where it says offer this my memorial sacrifice?
Please show me from scripture how did you guys come up with the conclusion that it's the spiritual presence in the communion.