The Real Presence? Everyone respond. :)

[aggie03]

Lutherans, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Moravians all believe in the Real Pressence of Our Lord in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar.

I think referring to the belief that the fruit of the vine and the unleavened as actually being the literal and physical blood and body of Christ as the "real presence" is a misnomer, and an unfortunate one at that.

I do not believe that the unleaved bread I eat is the actualy, physical body of my Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus. Neither do I believe that the fruit of the vine which I drink is the actual, physical blood of Jesus. However, I don't think this means in any way that I don't believe that Christ is present when I come together with my brothers and sisters to worship God and partake of the Lord's supper.

The Holy Spirit makes real Christ's body and blood in this most Holy meal.

I'm just curious if you can find any Scriptures that support this statement. Can you find this claim specifically stated in the word of God?

"For His body is true meat and His blood is true drink." (John 6:55)

If you'll read through to the conclusion and keep this statement within its context, I believe that it becomes relatively clear that Christ was not being literal.

John 6:60-63 ASV

Many therefore of his disciples, when they heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? (61) But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble? (62) What then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before? (63) It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life.

Here's another thing to consider:

John 15:1 ASV

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Do you think that Jesus is really a vine? Literally? Physically?

 

[Protoevangel]

The Real Presence.

Simple hermeneutics strongly suggests that Christ's words "This is my body" "This is my blood" should be interpreted literally, because allegory is not to be used in interpreting Scripture unless the context plainly requires it.

When Jesus states repeatedly that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life. He was so firm that many followers objected and left him.

In 1 Corinthians 11:27, Paul states "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." Note they are not sinning against a symbol.

"They have abstained from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Saviour Jesus Christ." - St. Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of St. John the Evangelist, born around the year 50; died a martyr between 110 and 117)

"It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under bread and wine for us Christians to eat and to drink, established by Christ Himself." - Martin Luther

 

[bigsierra]

WoW, Great post DanHead

 

[aggie03]

Simple hermeneutics strongly suggests that Christ's words "This is my body" "This is my blood" should be interpreted literally, because allegory is not to be used in interpreting Scripture unless the context plainly requires it.

And I would claim that simple hermeneutics teaches, or strongly suggests , that Christ's words are not to be taken literally, especially when He explains what He has said in John 6:60-63.

When Jesus states repeatedly that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life. He was so firm that many followers objected and left him.

Many of them left because they didn't understand what He had said in part, and also because they understood what He has said in part. I agree that this passage, were it not explained for us toward the end, would be very confusing. But I'm not sure if this is the reason that all of those who did leave left. Many of them wanted to be continually fed with bread as they had been when Jesus fed them earlier in the chapter we're discussing. This makes a sharp contrast in the Christ is not offering them physical bread that will sustain their physical bodies, but spiritual food that will give them life.

In 1 Corinthians 11:27, Paul states "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." Note they are not sinning against a symbol.

Notice what the verse says they're eating and drinking: bread and the cup, not body and blood.

"They have abstained from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Saviour Jesus Christ." - St. Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of St. John the Evangelist, born around the year 50; died a martyr between 110 and 117)

Ignatius' writings have also been doctored. This is admitted in the Catholic Encyclopedias.

"It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under bread and wine for us Christians to eat and to drink, established by Christ Himself." - Martin Luther

Martin Luther's words, no offense intended, carry even less weight than those doctored words of Ignatius. If a position cannot be proven with the Scriptures, the word of God, then the words of men will certainly not prove it.

***EDIT***

These are the references for the Catholic Encyclopedia. Thought it wasn't fair to mention that and not put the reference

Cath. Ency. I, 637 and VII, 646-7

 

[Lotar]

Guidelines for the Celebration of Full Communion

Adopted by the Lutheran-Reformed Planning Committee
of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Reformed Church in America,
and United Church of Christ



Episcopal Church is also in full communion (a bit diiferent than above)


All these churches are real pressence churches (also LCMS & WELS)

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Reformed Church in America, and United Church of Christ believe in spiritual presence, not real presence. That is one of the reasons why we broke our communion with you when your Church entered communion with their's.

Ecumenicalism a heretic makes.

 

[Phoebe]

ELCA still teaches:

"Now what is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of the Lord Christ in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by Christ's word to eat and drink"

 

[countrymousenc]

The Real Presence.

Simple hermeneutics strongly suggests that Christ's words "This is my body" "This is my blood" should be interpreted literally, because allegory is not to be used in interpreting Scripture unless the context plainly requires it.

When Jesus states repeatedly that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life. He was so firm that many followers objected and left him.

In 1 Corinthians 11:27, Paul states "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." Note they are not sinning against a symbol.

"They have abstained from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Saviour Jesus Christ." - St. Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of St. John the Evangelist, born around the year 50; died a martyr between 110 and 117)

"It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under bread and wine for us Christians to eat and to drink, established by Christ Himself." - Martin Luther

Danhead, it isn't that (and someone correct me if I'm out in left field) the elements literally and physically are turned into flesh and blood, it's that in and through the elements, under the consecration of the Word, we receive the body and blood of our Paschal Lamb. It is a mystery.

 

[countrymousenc]

Afterthought: We offer the elements to God to be used to impart to us the Paschal food.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I did a study of covenant in the OT and NT. Eating a meal together when making an agreement is a covenant act.

At the last supper, what Christ was doing with the diciples was entering into a covenant with them. When we take communion, we are entering, or reaffirming our covenent relationship with Christ, the mediator of a New Covenant. It is a serious relationship.

So I don't believe in real physical presence. It is done in memory of His covenant with us, which began with the cross.

 

[BBAS 64]

I'm asking this question knowing full well that I'm not going to have a lot of time to read or post this upcoming week, but this is something that has been on my mind a lot lately. I sit on the fence between Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy, and I'm currently trying to sway myself to one way or the other (or . . . erm . . . the third other way) through prayer and questioning, so bear with me. Here is my question:

What do Protestants think about the nature of the Eucharist (real presence only, symbolic only, real presence along with the elements??) and why is what we think of the nature of the Eucharist important enough to divide believers?


Thanks in advance for your thoughtful responses. I'm going to check back later this upcoming week to see how this thread progresses. I apologize in advance for my neglect and for posting this thread at a bad time for me, but I really felt like I needed to ask someone today rather than waiting.

Good day, LP

The issue of the RP is well documented on the PRE boardif you seach for Real presence Racer opened a couple not to long ago where the disscussion was very good IMO. I think it is very important to look at this in line with the Tradition of the Sader meal for the Passover. If this is not taken into account there in likely to a flawed view of the Lord's supper.

Peace to u,

BBAS

 

[JVAC]

I think referring to the belief that the fruit of the vine and the unleavened as actually being the literal and physical blood and body of Christ as the "real presence" is a misnomer, and an unfortunate one at that.

I do not believe that the unleaved bread I eat is the actualy, physical body of my Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus. Neither do I believe that the fruit of the vine which I drink is the actual, physical blood of Jesus. However, I don't think this means in any way that I don't believe that Christ is present when I come together with my brothers and sisters to worship God and partake of the Lord's supper.

I'm just curious if you can find any Scriptures that support this statement. Can you find this claim specifically stated in the word of God?


If you'll read through to the conclusion and keep this statement within its context, I believe that it becomes relatively clear that Christ was not being literal.

John 6:60-63 ASV

Many therefore of his disciples, when they heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? (61) But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble? (62) What then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before? (63) It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life.

Here's another thing to consider:

John 15:1 ASV

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Do you think that Jesus is really a vine? Literally? Physically?

It is Church tradition that has held real pressence. This real pressence is supported by all four Evangelists and St. Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians. Here is where Church Tradition dictates how we interpret Scripture.

In Regards to John 6, Martin Luther would have agreed with you, however, I don't. The Lord Jesus, doesn't lie, and so when he says "Take and eat, this is my Body..." I eat trusting his promise, not just that it is his body but that it was broken for me. I do the same with the Blood. Ultimately denying the Real Pressence calls Christ a liar.

What is so offensive about Real Pressence? Is it because it is a mystery, and unexplainable? Or is it because it is too catholic? Scripture is firm here, if not on John 6, yet I do contend that this was St. John's refference to the Lord's Supper (since he didn't record one explicitly, here it is implicit), it is with the Evangelists and St. Paul.

 

[JVAC]

I think referring to the belief that the fruit of the vine and the unleavened as actually being the literal and physical blood and body of Christ as the "real presence" is a misnomer, and an unfortunate one at that.

I do not believe that the unleaved bread I eat is the actualy, physical body of my Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus. Neither do I believe that the fruit of the vine which I drink is the actual, physical blood of Jesus. However, I don't think this means in any way that I don't believe that Christ is present when I come together with my brothers and sisters to worship God and partake of the Lord's supper.

I'm just curious if you can find any Scriptures that support this statement. Can you find this claim specifically stated in the word of God?


If you'll read through to the conclusion and keep this statement within its context, I believe that it becomes relatively clear that Christ was not being literal.

John 6:60-63 ASV

Many therefore of his disciples, when they heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? (61) But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble? (62) What then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before? (63) It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life.

Here's another thing to consider:

John 15:1 ASV

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Do you think that Jesus is really a vine? Literally? Physically?

After re-reading the posts, I noticed that this opening to a debate came out of no where. So am I withdrawing myself from another one of these, because it was not the intent of the thread. I put down my two cents and that is good enough I guess. I'll let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

 

[Bulldog]

I belive in Spiritual Prescence but not Physical Prescence.

 

[Protoevangel]

And I would claim that simple hermeneutics teaches, or strongly suggests , that Christ's words are not to be taken literally, especially when He explains what He has said in John 6:60-63.

Jesus said "this is my body"; "this is my blood". He said that His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink. There is no indication of these being parables, nor did Jesus back down when his followers began to leave. He does explain that the flesh profits nothing; it is the spirit that gives life. It is true, the flesh profits nothing without the spirit, just as without the soul, the flesh of man is dead. It is not physical nourishment we partake of in the Eucharist, is is spiritual nourishment. It is the Spirit - The spiritual meaning of Jesus' words, by which God gives life. What Jesus explains in John 6:60-63 does not diminish the Real Presence, it magnifies it.

Many of them left because they didn't understand what He had said in part, and also because they understood what He has said in part. I agree that this passage, were it not explained for us toward the end, would be very confusing. But I'm not sure if this is the reason that all of those who did leave left. Many of them wanted to be continually fed with bread as they had been when Jesus fed them earlier in the chapter we're discussing. This makes a sharp contrast in the Christ is not offering them physical bread that will sustain their physical bodies, but spiritual food that will give them life.

The context of the chapter plainly shows that the people left primarily over Jesus' teaching. Why any others may have left is not topical.

Notice what the verse says they're eating and drinking: bread and the cup, not body and blood.

1 Corinthians 11:27-29
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

"without recognizing the body of the Lord" ...

Ignatius' writings have also been doctored. This is admitted in the Catholic Encyclopedias.

There are 15 letters apparently written by Ignatius, of these, there are eight of dubious origin. The other seven are regarded by scholars as genuine, these are: Polycarp, Ephesians, Magnesians, Philadelphians, Romans, Smyrnaeans, Trallians. The quote I quoted was from the letter to the Smyrnaeans, one of the genuine letters. BUT, I did not include the quote as proof texts, but as "exoteric support".

Martin Luther's words, no offense intended, carry even less weight than those doctored words of Ignatius. If a position cannot be proven with the Scriptures, the word of God, then the words of men will certainly not prove it.

Agreed, the only proof needed is Scripture.

You seem to assume I was trying to debate or prove a point with my quotes, that is untrue. I was answering the question LuxPerpetua presented. There was no debate until you attacked my post. I do not know you, but I believe you truly have a heart for God, and desire to understand His will, regardless of the implications; as do I. I am trying to most fully explain my understanding of the Eucharist, not to tear apart your understanding. It is clear from your dissection of my and JVAC's posts of what your position is; but just out of curiosity, do you think you would be able to make your position as clear without attacking your brothers? I will answer your questions and elucidate my position, but I have no desire to turn this into a debate.

 

[Eusebios]

Real Presnce, but I suppose that goes w/o saying since I'm Orthodox.
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.

 

[prodromos]

However, I have heard it preached that if Christ is "really present" in the eucharist, then he is sacrificed over and over again, contradicting the notion that his one sacrifice was sufficient.

The word that is often misunderstood is that translated as "remembrance" in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. The Greek word is "anamnisin" which would be better translated as "make present". The eucharist is not a repeating of the sacrifice, but making present the one sacrifice made once for all eternity.

In the NT, I think there are at least three different words that are translated as "remembrance" in English.

John.

 

[Abba]

rthodox people do the "adoration thing"

 

[Eusebios]

rthodox people do the "adoration thing"

What are you talking about?
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.

 

[puriteen18]

Lutherans, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Moravians all believe in the Real Pressence of Our Lord in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. The Holy Spirit makes real Christ's body and blood in this most Holy meal. When you come to commune, you must expect to recieve Christ's body and blood. "For His body is true meat and His blood is true drink." (John 6:55)

Do Moravians still believe this?

"In respect to the sacrament of holy communion, the Moravian Church does not try to define the mystery of Christ's presence in the communion elements, but recognizes that the believer participates in a unique act of covenant with Christ as Savior and with other believers in Christ."

This is on their website: moravian.org

 

[puriteen18]

If you wouldn't mind reading all this, here is the debate I already had with someone on this subject earlier. I think it will explain the Reformed view pretty clearly. It might be good to note that in his day, Calvin was accused of both denying the true presence (by the Lutherans) and of holding the "old Roman" view (by the Anabaptists). I must warn that the Reformed view is a bit confusing.
_________________________________________


The veiw held by us Calvinists is a bit of a confusing one, but basically we believe the elements (bread and wine) remain what they are. However, Christ's presence is fully there spiritually. If we take part in faith we do receive every grace and beneifit. If we take unworthily we drink down condemnation.

Here is some quotes from Calvin's A Short Treatise on the LORD's Supper:

"...Now, if it be asked nevertheless whether the bread is the body of Christ, and the wine His blood, we should reply that the bread and the wine are the visible signs, which represent to us the body and the blood; but that the name and title of body and blood is attributed to them, because they are as instruments by which our LORD Jesus Christ distributes them to us ....

It is a spiritual mystery, which cannot be seen by the eye, nor comprehended by the human understanding. It is therefore symbolized by visible signs, as our infirmity requires, but in such a way that it is not a bare figure, but joined to its reality and substance. It is therefore with good reason that the bread is called body, since not only does it represent it to us, but also presents it to us....

Thus, as a brief definition of this benefit of the supper, we may say that Jesus Christ is there offered to us that we may possess Him, and in Him all the fullness of His gifts which we can desire; and that in this we have great assistance in confirming our conscience in faith which we ought to have in Him."

It is taught in Reformed Churches that the Supper is needed for sanctification and that it is the most intimate we can be with Jesus while on earth. It may also be noted that we refer to the elements as the Body and Blood during the Communion and that we use the word sacrament to describe it.
________________________________________

Here's a quick question:

I have in my hand a photo of myself. I hold it up for you guys to see and say, "This is me."

Now, is the picture of me-me? Or is it a representation of me?

Okay, here's another question:
What if you said that if we looked at the picture we would commune (have fellowship) with you?


1 Corinthians 10 (KJV)
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1 Corinthians 10 (Young's Literal Translation)
16 The cup of the blessing that we bless -- is it not the fellowship of the blood of the Christ? the bread that we break -- is it not the fellowship of the body of the Christ?
___________________________________

Did Christ say that? I don't think so.

Is not all of the Bible the Word of God? If so, then it is also the Word of Christ.

In the verses you quote:

Paul is speaking to church members. How about we look past verse 16:

1Cr 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1Cr 10:17 For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

Paul is saying that when we partake of "communion" we are communing with each other, fellowshipping with each other.

A couple more interesting notes on this passage. Paul doesn't say that the "cup of blessing" is Christ's blood, but that it is the "communion of the blood of Christ." Nor does He say the bread is Christ's "body." He says it's the "communion" of Christ's body. He then goes on to say that by coming together and communing, we become the "one bread, and one body" because we partake of that one BREAD.

I wasn't saying that the elements were the literal Body and Blood of Christ, but that in Communion we partake (commune) of the Body and Blood. For the faithful, Christ is present in the sacrament with all benefits and graces. For the unworthy Christ is still there and they practically blaspheme Him by not concerning His Body and therefore, drink condemnation to themselves. Which seems to me to be pretty clearly taught in the Scripture.

It is a mystery that can never be fully comprehended, but that is the best way I can explain it.

I kind of agree with you (although probably not suffiently enough) in the fact that we commune also with each other, in that we all are made one in Christ and in His Holy Supper. The Church is, after all, the Body of Christ.

Another question for you:
Why would it be called the communion of the Body and Blood if we weren't communing with the Body and Blood?
_______________________________________________

Puriteen,

I don’t disagree with what you’ve said above—at least I think I don’t. The words “partake” and “commune” are not synonymous. I don’t understand why your explanation rules out symbolism.

If we are communing with His Body and Blood we are partaking of it.

I’m still not sure why your understanding rules out symbolism.

My understanding doesn't rule out symbolism, but it adds to it. The Sacrament of the LORD's Table is not just empty symbols. Christ is there, not in the carnal sense, but in a spiritual one, endowing the faithful with all the benefits of His Person.

Well . . . because as Paul explained (and so have you) we (the church) are the Body and Blood of Christ. Soooo . . . when we (the Body and Blood of Christ) gather to remember Him, that would be His Body and Blood communing—thus, Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ.

I don't think you see my understanding. We in Communion take of the Body and Blood (the Person of our LORD) and through Communion we are made one in Christ with our brethren. Therefore we are one body, His body, the Church.

The purpose of the Sacrament is to feed us of the Bread of Life, and to pour out for us drink of the Fount that quniches all thirst. Through common celebration of the Sacrament, we (the church) are united as one, in Christ. But the most blessed part of the Supper is not fellowship with each other, but the intimate fellowship with the Person of our Saviour through the eating of His Body and the drinking of His Blood.
__________________________________________

And who says that a "symbol" must be empty or insignificant. Look back at the commentary I gave from Guzik:

d. The focus remembering Jesus; the invitation is to a meal of fellowship, which commemorates His death and the creation of a New Covenant

i. Notice that Paul speaks of taking the bread, not the body; it has not been transubstantiated into the flesh of Christ




ii. The elements are best seen as symbols, but not empty symbols--they are the harbingers of the very presence of God

iii. A statue of Hercules is an empty symbol; but the Holy Spirit's coming as a dove is not ​

​

By empty I meant that it is just like eatin gany other bread, which it is not. Jesus, our LORD, is there.

Christ is everywhere spirtually.

Yes, but His Body and Blood, His sacrifice is somehow present spritually in the Sacrament. The elements do not become the Body and Blood (trans). Nor are the literally present with the elements (cons). But, in some great mystery, the faithful do partake of the Person of Christ, who is spiritually present there.

I'm sure I don't.

It's quite okay. The Calvinist view is confusing. It took me a while to understand this much and I still probably don't explainit the best way.

Now I'm confused. Above you say it's His spiritual presence. Now, you're saying the person (Body and Blood).

The fullnes of His Person is sprirtually present in the faithful partaking of the elements.

On this we tend to agree. We just don't agree on what exactly Christ meant when He said "eat and drink." I think it's a Spiritual enlightenment or nourishment that we gain from believing in Him, which is symbolized by eating and drinking the bread and wine in remembrance of Him.

We gain all of His benefits and graces if we partake as faithful converted children of God.

The Sacraments are are signs and seals of the Covenant. In the Sacraments there are 1. visible objects and actions and 2.inward realities and spiritual benefits.
___________________________________

Do you think God meant for it to be so confusing or difficult?

Do you think that His Holy Religion was meant to be easily understood by us. We are humans, He is God. I would have to say that a good majority of the Christian faith is mysteries and paradoxes.

We "gain all of His benefits and graces" by "coming to Him and believing in Him."

No, we do not recieve grace unto salvation by coming to Him. We are not the seeker, God is. His Holy Spirit seeks us out and separates us from the heathen, not because we are better but because of His own mercy and pleasure.

This effectual calling brings conversion, but conversion is only the begining of salvation. Coversion is followed by baptism (atleast for us Bapts), the Supper of our LORD, never-ending daily graces, and so on throughout eternity.

So Jesus placed significant importance on "visible object and actions?"

"Teaching to observe all things I have commanded you;..." Matt 28:20a

Let me post some quotes from the Baptist Catechism (1677&1689), I'm sure that Mr. Benjamin Keach could put it better than I have.

Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.

(Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; I Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42)


Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?

A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

(I Peter 3:21; I Cor. 3:6,7; I Cor. 12:13)

Q. 99. Wherein do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God?

A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs.

(Matt. 28:19; Acts 22:16; Matt. 26:26-28; Rom. 6:4)

(Which I might add is why we call them sacraments)


Q. 107. What is the Lord's Supper?

A. The Lord's Supper is a holy ordinance, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ's appointment, His death is showed forth, and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporeal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of His body and blood, with all His benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.

(I Cor. 11:23-26; 10:16)

Q. 108. What is required to the worthy receiving of the
Lord's Supper?

A. It is required of them that would worthily (that is, suitably) partake of the Lord's Supper, that they examine themselves, of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body; of their faith to feed upon Him; of their repentance, love, and new obedience: lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves.

(I Cor. 11:27-31; I Cor. 5:8; II Cor. 13:5)

Hope that helps.