Your view of the Lord's supper

[sola fide]

Which view of the Lord's supper do you hold to?

Zwinglian, Reformed, or Lutheran?

 

[II Paradox II]

Which view of the Lord's supper do you hold to?

Zwinglian, Reformed, or Lutheran?

Reformed, though I'm not generally hostile to the Lutheran view either...

ken

 

[seebs]

I don't hold to a view of it, because it's quite clear to me that any opinion I formed would be guesswork.

 

[Polycarp1]

You might consider defining Calvin's take on it -- I've read some on it but am still not sure how to explain it.

And you left off Real Presence, held by many Christians (including several groups of Protestants) who do not accept the implications of Luther's Consubstantiation hypothesis.

 

[sola fide]

You might consider defining Calvin's take on it -- I've read some on it but am still not sure how to explain it.

And you left off Real Presence, held by many Christians (including several groups of Protestants) who do not accept the implications of Luther's Consubstantiation hypothesis.

I don't think the "real presence" is typically an orthodox (especially evangelical) view, so I chose not to include it.

Calvin held to a view which was somewhat similar to Zwingli, it was a memorial, yet more than a memorial, because in Calvin's view Christ's presence is substantially with us during communion, albeit not His physical presence. Rather than Christ come down to us we ascend to Him by faith. You might say we receive a "taste of heaven". That is, it is a preview of things to come. Yet Christ's physical nature plays no role in the bread and wine.

Grace.

 

[Lotar]

I have yet to decide on the matter.

 

[Arikereba]

I would say that I believe in the Real Presence in a very undefined-to-me way. In some way, Christ is present in the bread and wine. I can't really accept the memorial view--the symbolism, for me, when I see it as something more, is just too rich. But I'm unwilling to define things any clearer than that. Some days I really like Calvin's view; some days I like the Lutheran view; I think that what I could subscribe to on most days is a belief in the Real Presence that doesn't necessarily imply consubstantiation.

 

[JVAC]

That is funny, 70 million Anglicans, 65 million Lutherans and still yet more moravians, (not sure about methodists) which are all "Protestant" and yet all hold to "Real Pressence". It would seem that it would be most orthodox.

Not only that but "Consubstantiation" is one theory of how Christ makes his "Real Presence". Your argument doesn't hold, because you included a "Real Presence" choice in the poll. You should, therefore, generalize it, or offer all theories of how the "real presence" is manifested to Christ's Church.

 

[sola fide]

That is funny, 70 million Anglicans, 65 million Lutherans and still yet more moravians, (not sure about methodists) which are all "Protestant" and yet all hold to "Real Pressence". It would seem that it would be most orthodox.

Not only that but "Consubstantiation" is one theory of how Christ makes his "Real Presence". Your argument doesn't hold, because you included a "Real Presence" choice in the poll. You should, therefore, generalize it, or offer all theories of how the "real presence" is manifested to Christ's Church.

Do you believe that transubstantiation is an evangelical view of the Lord's supper? Notice I clarified the term orthodox by saying, "especially evangelical."

Grace.

 

[JVAC]

I believe it is a viable theory, and it cannot be disproven, nor proven, so it is worthy to remain a theory. We should not infringe upon a person's right to believe, something that is not taught expressly in Scripture, i.e., how Christ manifests himself to us. Whether Christ turns himself into bread, in a complicated manner, or a very simple manner, the important thing is the ends. That "real pressence" is maintained, that is to say, the process doesn't matter as much as what we do when we participate.

When we come to eat the body and drink the blood, that is our stress, that we do that, and not at what time or by what process it becomes the body and blood.

It is indeed evangelical, in the meaning of the word, for it is good news that Christ offers himself to us, and that when we do it we announce the death of Christ until he comes again 1Cor 11:26.

 

[Polycarp1]

Real Presence != Transubstantiation. The latter is Thomas Aquinas's theory, based on pseudo-Aristotelian Scholastic forms and categories, of how the Real Presence occurs. The former is a belief in Christ's actual presence in the bread and wine, which many choose not to try to define beyond accepting it as a divine mystery. And for you to say that it's not an orthodox doctrine, when it is the Orthodox doctrine, is less than candid. As JVAC notes, it's shared by Anglicans and Lutherans, and IIRC is the "official" doctrine of Methodism, though not "played up" in their theology.

 

[sola fide]

Again, to clarify my point- this is the P/R/E room, correct? I consider the P/R/E faith to be quite orthodox, i.e. correct. The most common P/R/E views of the Lord's supper are the views that I noted. Enough said.

Grace.

 

[JVAC]

No, I don't think you grasp it, "real pressence" is the most common P/R/E thought, says, 70 million Anglicans,65 Million Lutherans, Moravians, Methodists, there is only about 300 million P/R/E christians, the majority are Anglicans/Lutherans/Moravians/Methodists, that hold to "Real Presence".

Consubstantiation is one view, but "Real Presence" is not just consubstantiation. That is what we must note.

Real Presence is the most orthodox.



_________
added

simple math puts 135/300 agree to real presence not counting moravians and methodists

 

[sola fide]

Ok I'll give you the protestant part. But not the Reformed/Evangelical part .
Oh how the simplest of polls can spark debate .

Grace.

 

[Lotar]

Ummm, you can't get more evangelical than Lutheran. It was the Evangelical church until the Evangelical/Reformed split.

 

[HiredGoon]

Was raised with Zwingli's view, but have been thinking more about it lately, and think Calvin may have been on to something. Guess you can call me undecided.

 

[Lotar]

I think Zwingli's view makes the most sense, but then I know that they simplest view isn't always the correct one. The Trinity doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but that doesn't mean it's wrong and the unitarians are correct. I'm convinced that it is definately more than a symbol, but I'm not sure I subscribe to the real presence.

 

[Phoebe]

I hold to the Lutheran view, not necessarily consubstantiation.

Christ is present in the Eucharist.

 

[Col]

I take what I believe is the biblical view. I beleive that Christ, as he did a lot, was using metaphor. Here he was at the last supper before his crucifixion sharing a meal with his disciples. Using bread and wine (two stapels at the time for survival) as a metaphor for His teaching, being that Jesus the Christ is the Good News and that to "survive" we must "live on his word". So as we gather we share bread and wine and remember to live by His word and are also reminded of the sacrifice of body and blood on the cross for our sins. Jesus wasn't saying that he was going to magically appear when we had communion because he doesn't have to, Jesus is with us always not just in a church building or at a ceremony. You don't have to pass a test, do a course or go to a specific location to meet Jesus. Jesus is here to meet you where you are.
I can't help but think that Jesus must worry that we have missed the point as we have, over the years, turned something simple and special into a huge production of which we appear to endlessly argue over semantics. I don't understand what is gained from complicating Christ's teaching. From what I understand of Jesus in the bible, I can't help but think that he would be more at home breaking bread and sharing wine at a humble gathering in a small Church or simple ceremony at someones home rather that at a huge church with all the pomp and ceremony that man has developed over the centuries.
I think it is disappointing that we seem to place more emphasis on "how" communion is cebrated, than "why", and therefore miss the message.

Bless Ya
Col <><

 

[Jason1646]

I think it is disappointing that we seem to place more emphasis on "how" communion is cebrated, than "why", and therefore miss the message.

Bless Ya
Col <><

Hey Col,

If Jesus is really present in the Lord's Supper, that does have serious implications as to 'why' we celebrate it, namely, to enjoy communion with our Lord!

That being said, we simply need to read 1 Corinthians 11 to get an idea as to why the manner in which we celebrate it becomes important. When the Corinthians approached it without the proper sobriety, they were guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. After all, 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 10:16).

My $.02,

~Jason