UPDATE: I’m still holding firm on the indulgence granted to those who want to convert me to their version of Christianity, but let me say two things: 1) The thread is a discussion of a question, not a discussion of my errant views of whatever you believe and 2) I can’t respond to all of these posts. I simply don’t have time. If I have misrepresented any of you personally, I will apologize. If you are upset that I don’t get your view of things, we’ll all just have to learn to live with it.
Here’s a key question in my own theological evolution. I’ll lift the usual moderation rule on seeking to convert others to your point of view if you will make a substantial contribution to the discussion.
All Christians are united with Christ by the sovereign, gracious work of God himself. All the benefits of salvation come to us because of union with Christ.
So how does union with Christ relate to your understanding of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?
I won’t rehearse where the tension is for me, but if you tell me that Christ is “really present” in the eucharist at your church, I’d like you to distinguish how Christ’s person and benefits are available to you in the Eucharist in a way they are not available to me by virtue of union with Christ.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Jeff,
We are in fact in this discussion speaking to the very ROOT of the Gospel. Now that does divide men, but that hardly will anymore or any less “prevent people from getting savedâ€. In fact it might be the first time many people actually hear the Gospel, the real Gospel other than some version of “follow Jesus†which is no different than “follow Buddhaâ€. Jesus did not say, “I show you the wayâ€, He said, “I AM the way…â€. That is He is the WAY itself. Now I know you agree with that at least concerning the preached Word. But there’s always a backdoor to works. That gets to what faith actually is and do people hear in Word and Sacrament inside or outside of the church a truly alien message or basically a pagan religion with biblical terms and Jesus name attached to it.
If only semantics were the real issue, but its not. The fact that my children are baptized and not by a particular mode and a Baptist’s children are not means it is not a matter of semantics upon which we agree in the end. The same applies to the Lord’s supper.
Semantics: Take for example, “I love chickenâ€. That’s one statement and I think in modern American you and I could agree to what it ACTUALLY means. But let’s just examine the possibilities. As an indicative statement it could mean 1. “I am in love with chickens as a species†(weird but possible). 2. “I love chickens more relative to something elseâ€. 3. “I love to EAT chicken.†4. “I love the TASTE of chicken.â€, and etc. In all these we see a different meaning derived from the one statement. YET, none of them are equal in essence and each mean something ENTIRELY different. So, a word or idea has a very definite finite narrow set of terms behind it (that’s why I say ‘get behind the words’). If “I love chicken†truly means “I love to EAT chickenâ€, then we have a semantics issue between the two statements & they do mean the same thing.
So, take the term “faithâ€. Either faith is utterly devoid of works and is absolutely a passive receptive suffering trust and confidence in another REGARDLESS of what is observed by the eye, ear, hand or clean up of life (Theology of Cross). Or faith is something that ‘pulls in works’ somewhere, even under the disguise of fruit and obedience (Theology of Glory or fallen religion under any name even “Christianâ€). The first faith is the Christian faith, the later is the devil’s faith no matter what name it is given even if it is called “Christian†or “biblicalâ€. When Luther stated that many men will talk much much about faith and good works and yet know absolutely NOTHING about either one, he was making a CRUCIAL theological point and not just some passing statement. He was making a distinction between how a theologian of glory (fallen man’s natural religion under ANY name) functions Vs. how a theologian of the Cross functions and not some doctrine to be affirmed or denied. Yet, both may use the same terms, just like our “I love chicken†example in which two people use the exact same syntax but have two ENTIRELY two different meanings. As the late Dr. Forde points out the theologian of glory cannot even comprehend that “God may suffer a man to do NO good works that he may at last be savedâ€. Faith does good works without even knowing they are good works. In fact as soon as you think you are doing a “good workâ€, you are already in deep sin and in danger of loosing the faith. You must realize as Luther points out, to find one’s self obligated to be obedient is to ALREADY have fallen deeply into sin, even before you act. Why? Because the spontaneity required by the Law is such that if you “realize you are obligated to do something out of obedience or ‘out of love’â€, you’ve already violated the Law and LOVE of God or neighbor. Like a stone dropped from the bridge. It doesn’t realize, “I’m obligated to fall or be obedientâ€, it spontaneously falls. The Law IS Love and Love IS the Law, they are not two different things. This is to be UNDER the Law. It’s NOT a matter of outer ceremony Vs. heartfelt doing.
Thus to say, “We are baptized out of obedience and love for Godâ€, is to really say that one is baptized without faith at all. No, we are baptized out of the extension of the Incarnate Word to come not half way, not two thirds the way, not all the way but a millimeter, but the ENTIRE length of the Incarnation DOWN into the grave of fallen man. Faith is that utterly passive-receptive-suffering ‘means’ that comes INTO being by the Word of Gospel, faith is wrapped up IN the Gospel itself, both the naked Word and the Word in the Sacrament that says, “Forgiven for Christ’s sakeâ€. The Gospel in Word or baptism finds absolutely no faith in, with or under the dead sinner – just like in the beginning out of nothing God calls into being. Faith arises up out of the tomb like Lazarus and comes into being as the reflexive or echo to the Word of Gospel wet or dry. Its first birth cry is, “So THAT is what God is like.†That’s why faith CAN comprehend that “God may suffer a man to do NO good works that he may at last be savedâ€, because faith fixes on Christ and never looks other wise. This faith NATURALLY does good works because CHRIST SAYS IT DOES not because it (faith) tries to do them (false faith). It is a new tree because God called it into being by saying, “You are IN FACT forgiven for Christ’s sakeâ€, that is “not under the Lawâ€, you are free to LOVE because you don’t have to LOVE – it does not become a new tree because it tries to be obedient (fallen religion) not even by the works of the Law (=Love). Faith generates, naturally and spontaneously, good works and all that it does great or imperceptible is a good work because it is a GLOWING bride that exudes from the love of its Husband given it freely.
This is why the issue of the sacraments are different at an essential level and we do not mean the same thing at all. When Luther identified that the Word is removed from the baptismal waters artificially by the Anabaptist and Rome simultaneously, he was identifying not mere semantics but a deep deep deep theological reality about faith, the Gospel, the Cross and God.
Blessings,
Larry
LikeLike
Larry,
I don’t think we are as far apart as you may think. It sounds to me that some of this comes down to semantics(maybe not the right word but I couldn’t think of a better one). Bear with me for a minute. I would agree that someone who despises baptism is likely not saved/regenerated (pick your term) on the basis that they are being willfully disobedient to God. The only reason I leave the term at likely in that statement is because I am unable to judge the intentions of the heart.
All of our life in Christ is about obedience to Him. But it isn’t about a slavish obedience to form or regulation. Do you remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew 9 and 12? He is talking about obeying the intent of God’s Law (mercy) instead of simply complying with the letter of God’s Law (sacrifice). If you look at Paul’s criticism of the Corinthians and their abuse of the Lord’s Supper, you see a picture of a bunch of hungry folks scarfing up the meal and leaving people out. I think it applies to this conversation. It is totally possible to get so caught up in making sure we say and do all the right things about the Lord’s Supper or baptism and miss the real point, which is God Himself.
I am not trying to point fingers or accuse, but it seems as though there is a human tendency to build up a system of honoring and worshipping God that eventually overtakes the simplicity of knowing Him. The Pharisees did it and looked good doing so. I may not be the best or the brightest, but I keep learning. And one thing I am less willing to do now than I ever was is to sit in judgement over the condition of someone’s relationship with Abba. I will explain what the Bible says about the Lord’s Supper to the best of my understanding, but when it comes time to take part I am not willing to exclude a person who says they wish to participate as a believer because I they might not be right about it. God is their Judge.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that we need an “alien” Gospel. It is my fear that the farther along we go in disputing these things that only serve to divide us; the more we will lose our opportunities to seek and save the lost and dying world at our doorsteps.
Thank you brother for your words and may God continue to richly bless you.
Jeff M
LikeLike
Dude, 121 comments?!
I was listening to some GodJourney archives this weekend. The two with Bob Stamps are about communion, basically, and are really good listening. I thought about you ;]
LikeLike
Jeff,
Sure, no problem, good questions. Is a person who is never baptized saved?
First, yes Abraham will absolutely be in heaven with us. In fact Jesus already confirms this for us.
What Bror said is the answer. Or one might say as I’ve heard it said, “It’s not the LACK of baptism that damns but the DESPISING of it?†It is in fact despising grace. It’s good to bring up Abraham and circumcision because the promise of God is linked intimately with that sacramental act. So much so that in the OT they are often spoken of interchangeably. What is notable about that is when Ishmael laughs at Isaiah for trusting in the promise of God (also captured in circumcision) even though Ishmael himself was circumcised Paul explicitly and directly calls that persecution. That laughter at those holding to the promise of God (His Word) and at that that Word that comes to the person in the Sacrament(s) is a scoffing of the that to which the believer (naked passive truster in Christ alone – passive received righteousness) and the root of all persecution hence Paul’s Ishmael’s laughter, in fact singles it out above all, as persecution. Just like for example in the third Psalm, “…O Lord how are my foes increased, against me many rise, how many say in vain for help he on his God relies…â€. The enemies of Christ and Christ’s people primarily attack here, the war of words. This should give some pause when some cause those baptized as infants to think it is “invalidâ€. What they are really saying is that God’s Word is invalid to you, His promise is false. But you will only see that from the sacramental side of the issue, because I know they don’t mean to communicate that!
The reason you are having difficulty with this is that you are pulling it back to your category. If you realize that Baptism is the wet Word as they say, or God’s Word in the water, then you should realize what the answer already is. But that’s the very thing you don’t believe, trust or have confidence in. I’m not accusing but trying to show WHY you don’t “see it†per se, because you openly reject it. As long as you do that, then, you will of course follow through that way. That goes ALL the way back to WHY some don’t have what others have in the sacraments. Not because Christ is not there objectively, but He’s denied there. Does that make sense?
Look at your questions this way, there are two ways to ask them:
Is a person who is never baptized (because he/she despises it) saved?
Is a person who is never baptized (or just didn’t get to incidentally or similarly, that is non-despising of it) saved?
Now we can look at them from the sacramental direction, I know you don’t believe that but suspend THAT for a moment and just take a pure observer position. Even if you don’t believe it, you can at least objectively see it. So, remove the “water†and look at your question again:
Is a person who is never Gospelized (because he/she despises it) saved? That’s what your asking from the sacramental end. And to THAT, Gospel in naked Word or Gospel in water, then no. But that was not Abraham.
But let me take Abraham a step further. He was in fact baptized, we just don’t see it right away. Christ’s crucifixion was THE circumcision to which all other circumcision was linked, a circumcision from life on the Cross, that’s what the Cross was. And Christ calls His crucifixion explicitly a baptism, the nexus of circumcision and baptism is at the Cross. As we are circumcised so was Abraham baptized both IN CHRIST.
I think THIS might help, it did me: One must realize that the Bible does not disparage of baptism nearly as much as many do today. Why? Luther rightly grasped that the Anabaptist baptism was valid (due to the objective Word in the water). However, because they did not believe (trust), hold or teach that God’s Word was IN the water they were showing open contempt for the Word ITSELF. Then RE-ATTRIBUTING to the water (to baptism) something else that was not the Word but a special thing (a mode, faith, profession/confession of faith, fruit), therefore they re-baptized others and hence the real blaspheme. This is why it was not at all different from Rome’s ex opere operato. Hence, the common link between Rome and the Anabaptist on this sacrament (On the other sacrament, the sacrifice of the Mass not the how is He present issue was also the same thing and hence the commonality of the Roman Mass to the non-presence of Christ, Zwingli). Both of these rebaptism and ex opere operato are a recrucifixion of Christ BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY REMOVE, THE WORD OF GOD, AND WHAT THEY RE-ASSERT INTO THE REAL SACRAMENT. And, PLEASE, I’m speaking as to doctrine here NOT person to person or personal accusations. This is a doctrinal examination not “me†being right and “you†being wrong which would just be more law and me working MY way to heaven. We all have our pet anti-christic doctrines and ideas, our personal idols, hence the reason we so desperately need an alien Gospel. I thought that needed to be said lest that slip in to the discussion.
Blessings and have a good restful night, yours,
Larry
LikeLike
Jeff,
Abrahm never rejected circumcision either. You can be saved with out baptism, but if you reject baptism, you reject God’s grace, and no then you can’t be saved. So the mormon I have going through my adult information class is saved as far as I know having displayed his faith. If he got hit on the way home I’d give him a Christian Funeral. But if at the end of the class he turns down the offer to be baptized he shows thereby that he has no faith, and is not saved. Faith never refuses God’s grace.
LikeLike
Larry,
Let me begin at the end of your questioning by asking a question in return. You asked about removing the Word from the water in baptism, let me ask you plainly. Is a person who is never baptized saved? Before you answer, let me ask a clarifying question. Is Abraham going to be with us in heaven in the family of God? I believe he will be based on Scripture. Look at what Christ said in John 8:56 – Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” Now add what Paul said about Abraham in Romans 4:23-25 – The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Abraham was not baptized and he never partook of the Lord’s Supper. And Paul also points out that he hadn’t even been circumcised at this point. The God we see in the Bible doesn’t change. He is consistent especially in His plan of Salvation. The question of a choice between Christ alone or Christ + faith for salvation is a non-issue. Without Christ, salvation is impossible, but if we refuse to believe in Him He will not forcibly save us. What do you think John 3:18 means when it says, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”?
How do you receive a gift? Do you work for it? Would you consider unwrapping the gift work? Is baptism a work at all? Or is it a command from God that we must obey(1 John 2:3-6) because we love Him.
To answer your first question about the devil’s attacks on my security and standing in Christ, I DO nothing. I rest in my Savior who is able to keep me from falling. My faith in Him and His promise quenches the attack before it can gain hold.
Thanks again for your thoughts and questions. I had been pondering them for the last few hours when I had to get out of bed and come post this. May God richly bless you this week,
Jeff M
LikeLike
And at length you will discover that the “sacramentalism’ of Rome is no different than the none sacramentalism or ordinance driven concept behind the baptist (this is why Luther saw the anabaptist as same as Rome and called both rebaptizers even though Rome didn’t actually rebaptize).
I’m sorry but this is polemical baloney. Luther had many differences with the Catholic Church, but to suggest that he considered the Catholic understanding of sacrament on par with the anabaptists and Zwinglians) is nonsense. This is proven by his mild criticism of transubstantiation, which he deemed Aristotelian nonsense, as compared to his violent rejection of the views of Zwingli. Luther well knew that on the Real Presence, he and the Catholics stood together over against the sacramentarians. And he would have repudiated the eucharistic views of Calvin for much the same reasons that he repudiated the views of Zwingli, despite the fact that Calvin advanced a much higher understanding of the eucharistic presence (see Phillip Cary).
And as far as Holy Baptism, this sacrament has never been a point of serious confessional conflict between Lutherans and Catholics. Both consider Baptism to be a work of God. What is perhaps “new” with Luther is the way he construes sacrament as embodied word of promise addressed to faith, but even here he is still working within the inherited sacramental tradition, even as he radicalizes it (see David Yeago, “The Catholic Luther.”
LikeLike
No problem Jeff. Understanding real suffering will help bring this about with pondering what faith really is.
One thing you may want to discern, and this one was confusing to me for a long time, not all sacramental views are SACRAMENTAL. I say that because if you are like me, coming from the outside in, you simply assume they are or very close. But very close scrutiny of them will reveal that not all are alike. The Lutherans, Reformed and Roman Catholics for example say they are “sacramental” but not all really are, OR they redefine what “sacramental” means so that they can now say “we” are sacramental. So, the advice I’d give there is to “get pass the term sacramental for now” (just like what does ‘reformed’ mean) and study the essence or principle of each. You will find no matter what the principle is termed, sacramental or otherwise, that each actually speak differently. And at length you will discover that the “sacramentalism’ of Rome is no different than the none sacramentalism or ordinance driven concept behind the baptist (this is why Luther saw the anabaptist as same as Rome and called both rebaptizers even though Rome didn’t actually rebaptize). The hardest hair to split will be the reformed with the lutheran, especially Calvin Vs. Luther, it is very close in the way the two speak. BUT again look at the principle and how it affects faith. You HAVE to ‘get behind the words’ and to the principles otherwise one will never see it. We can fight over the term “who is really sacramental†but what we cannot fight over unless we just admit rank stupidity is the principle and essential difference of the various ones. And I rope in here non-sacramental views as you will see THAT principle actually line up with other so called sacramental views when all the fat and monickers are boiled away.
You don’t have to answer me but just ponder these simple questions:
When the devil comes and tempts you that you ‘may not be saved’ how does he tempt you? Does activate you to do something, especially religious in nature, especially something in the Bible, even prayer itself? Thomas Hooker, a puritan had a great test for this to warn his folks of falling away from the REAL faith. The next time you are tempted due to something, sin or otherwise, when the devil comes in and activates the flesh into motion what do you do? Beware especially of good things otherwise that are religious by their very nature. Do you run to prayer? Do you DO something else religious? Hooker says then next time DON’T DO what you would normally do, he specifically points out some otherwise good things we do as Christians like prayer. THEN note well how your heart reacts to that! Does it itch as it were to do it and cannot rest until it does? Then you may note very well what it is you are really trusting in and it is NOT Christ crucified alone. That’s very different than saying, “No devil I am baptizedâ€, which IS to say “Christ alone†point blank to him, because there is His name.
Are you saved by Christ alone or Christ + faith?
Is baptism a work of God or a work of man? Not secondary things, but baptism itself.
If you remove the Word from the water in baptism what do you have?
Have a great week,
Larry
LikeLike
Larry,
Thanks for taking the time to clarify. I guess I don’t see the connection here to baptism. There is nothing in the mention of the armor of God regarding baptism. In fact, the one thing that is mentioned most often by Paul there is the neccessity of prayer. It sounds to me as though you are equating baptism with salvation, which I don’t quite agree with. Are you saying that because the second man doesn’t view baptism as sacramental, that it therefore has no effectiveness for him or leaves him deficient for spiritual warfare/living? I find that hard to believe as it runs counter to my own personal experience and the experience of many others I know. Which is more important to trust in this situation, a sacramental view of baptism or a solid belief in God’s Word as truth?
You might see this as a false dichotomy, but I don’t. I have spent several years studying the sacramental views of theology and trying to square them against the Scriptures. I enjoy learning and will continue to study and question so that I can show myself approved someday before Our Father.
Thanks again for your patience and time.
Jeff
LikeLike
Jeff,
Not at all, no offense here. Baptism is the Word of God (Gospel). That is what makes it not just ordinary water? The very Word of God IN it. Just as Christ, the incarnate Word of God, was put into the baptismal waters of the Jordan. Doest that help?
Sword/shield: Here was my intended use, sorry for short cutting it too much. Yes, faith is the sheild against the darts, but the Sword of the Spirit is the offensive counter attack. I was using baptism as the Word in dual way. The attack was coming AT faith, baptism gives Christ and the Gospel TO THE MAN, the Promise of eternal life. THAT baptism ON YOU and that is God’s promise TO YOU, gives that shield of faith its being as it were. The Sword of the Spirit is simply the same Word of Gospel counter attacking. All the armor in the Eph 6 passage is based on the Word of God, the Gospel, the Gospel TO you and FOR you, and baptism PUTS it there TO you and ON YOU objectively.
So that when Satan attacks, and he attacks our trusting nakedly and passively in Christ alone, Psalm 3 for example, “…how many say in vain for help he on his God relies…but You are my shield and glory Lord…you lifted up my head…”, he is attacking Christ FOR us, the Gospel, so we will not trust or have confidence in Him…that He some how has abandoned us. The objective Word in the baptismal water, what makes it more than mere water, gives that shield its shieldness and that same Word is an offensive blow back to Satan, “No Satan I am baptized” or the longer version, “No Satan, Jesus said I baptize you in the name of…, Jesus cannot lie (implied the accusing devil’s attack is in fact the lie), ergo I am baptized”. Is the offensive counter attack of God’s Word wielded through us against the devil’s word. What we have is what we’ve had from the beginning and throughout the whole of Scripture, a war of words, the devil’s and God’s, and all God’s Word are summed up in the incarnate Word.
Hope that helps. Thanks for asking brother.
Blessings,
Larry
LikeLike
Larry,
I am missing what you are saying I think. The Sword of the Spirit as referenced in Scripture is the Word of God itself. It isn’t given to us in baptism or through baptism at all. It is available for use as the Sword of the Spirit for any believer.
And I promise I am not trying to be obtuse, but the best way of dealing with Satan’s darts isn’t by wielding our sword; it is by using our shield of faith (Eph. 6:16 – In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.)
Also, I want to apologize if I offended some earlier with the suggestion that the Lord’s Supper isn’t a central doctrine. What I was trying to communicate is that the only doctrine I consider central (of total necessity) is the doctrine of Salvation itself. Are there some here who believe that it is impossible to be saved (have eternal life) without the correct view(whichever one that is) of the Lord’s Supper?
Jeff M
LikeLike
If you tell me that Christ is “really present†in the eucharist at your church, I’d like you to distinguish how Christ’s person and benefits are available to you in the Eucharist in a way they are not available to me by virtue of union with Christ.
Probably the simplest way to answer this is:
1. Christ’s person and benefits are available in both objectively.
2. They are not available to one due to unbelief, not believing it to be so, not trusting it to be so, no confidence in it being so, and that is due to ‘a doctrine’.
Simple borrowed example:
Two men under a crisis of faith, a suffering and temptation from the flesh, world and/or the devil both have been baptized by any mode in the Trinities name:
Man #1 says, “No devil I am baptized and with baptism I HAVE the promise of eternal life in body and soulâ€. Christ said He baptized me, Christ cannot lie, therefore I am baptizedâ€. The sword of faith strikes back from the tangible Sword of Baptism.
Man #2 says, “Well IF I have faith and figure that out without a shadow of a doubt, THEN I must be a Christian…if I know that some how, if some only some tangible thing could tell me this…woe is me I cannot know…†The devil’s dart hits a killing mark.
Now both men actually objectively HAVE the WORD of God, His promise in Baptism and His name of which is partly “Jesus or Yaweh saves†– Christ’s person and benefits. Man number 1 has been taught the Christian truth and can draw this real objective tangible Sword of the Spirit to strike back at the attacking devil. He actually trust via the sacrament that it give Christ’s person and benefits and thus HAS it to HIMSELF, the Gospel TO THE MAN in particular. The second man has Christ’s person and benefits, the real objective tangible Sword of the Spirit (in baptism), but he does think, trust nor have confidence that he does and so the Sword of the Spirit stays sheathed with on lookers saying, “Why does he not draw his sword, a curious thingâ€. In short unbelief due to a false doctrine on the issue causes him to not know that he in fact has what he HAS.
Now, expand that up from the individual level to a whole congregational level, like two armies of the Lord. One church, brigade in our analogy, have been informed (doctrine) and KNOWS they’ve been given weapons and uses them when the enemy attacks. The other church, brigade, having been lied to (false doctrine) have weapons but they might as well be flowers for all they’ve BEEN TOLD (false doctrine).
Same with the supper. Perhaps that is helpful.
Blessings,
Larry
LikeLike
If you tell me that Christ is “really present†in the eucharist at your church, I’d like you to distinguish how Christ’s person and benefits are available to you in the Eucharist in a way they are not available to me by virtue of union with Christ.
I agree with Fr Peter that a false dilemma is being posed by the question. It assumes that we may speak of union with Christ apart from baptism and Eucharist. On the contrary, I would suggest that all New Testament discourse on union with Christ is predicated upon the Church’s practice and experience of baptism and Eucharist. I know that I cannot prove this to anyone’s satisfaction who does not already hold a fully robust catholic sacramentology, but I believe it to be the case nonetheless.
The New Testament writers and Church Fathers would never have asked the question Michael has posed to us. To be united to Christ simply is to be united to the Church, which is his body, and baptism is initiation into the Church. To be baptized into the Church is to be incorporated into that community that constitutes itself as the body of Christ by sharing in loaf and cup. “And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” There was no understanding that one could be united to Christ apart from the Church and thus apart from baptism. Hence the strong understanding held by the Church Fathers of the necessity of sacramental baptism. Precisely how this necessity is to be understood has been a matter of theological debate for 2,000 years, but the debate begins with the necessity and then proceeds to nuance and qualification. What can be said is that baptism is necessary to salvation precisely because the Church is necessary to salvation: extra Ecclesia nulla salus. In what ways the Church is necessary to salvation, we will want to discuss; but I do not believe that the New Testament is read rightly if one does not recognize this necessity. In the words of the risen Christ: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.”
The sacraments of the Church are precisely sacraments of the Church. They are essentially ecclesial, not only in the sense that they are celebrated by the Church but also because they realize the Church’s identity as the Church. As Aidan Kavanagh writes: “A eucharistic group that is neither baptized nor baptizing maybe be many things, but it is not the Church. A baptized and baptizing group that never celebrates its death and life in Christ around the Lord’s Table may be a sect of some vigor, but it is not the Church.”
The ecclesiological understanding of the sacraments is expressed by Thomas Aquinas when he states that the res tantum of the Eucharist is “the unity of the mystical body, the Church, which this sacrament both signifies and causes.”
Is it possible for an individual to be united to Christ apart from baptism and Eucharist? Yes. Christ is not restricted to the sacraments he has ordained. In the words of the Catholic Catechism: “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” But as soon as we start asking in what ways Christ’s person and benefits are available to us by the sacraments that are not available to us by virtue of union with Christ, then, I suggest, we have departed from the biblical understanding of Church, sacraments, and union with Christ.
LikeLike
Matthew,
I haven’t said that Catholics have departed from Scripture. I am just wondering about the development of the theology surrounding the LS, so please don’t take my question as an implication that I have the right view, and others do not.
LikeLike
Michael:
“I would challenge anyone to produce a text that says the Holy Spirit limits or localizes this sacramentalism to one group of Christians.”
Not me!
I would like to hear more about your take on Zwingli’s view sometime (you mentioned in an earlier post that you are closer to his view than to Calvin’s.)
BTW, are there any M&M’s left?
LikeLike
To Terri,
Acts 2:42, seems to express the centrality to the early church of devotion to breaking of bread, the prayers, along with the teaching of the Apostles.
To Brian and the “one true church”
St.Paul started some of this mess with his own condemnations of “other Gospels” and “super apostles.” See Gal 1:9. He was a stickler for what he thought was right (Gal 2:11) until, of course, he was under pressure (Acts 21:20-26). Paul certainly believed in one Church and one Gospel. He excommunicated people. Hundreds of schisms occurred, with triumph of the “church,” occurred long before 1054: gnostics, Aryans and on and on. This idea of the true church is what established the NT Canon and developed the Creed.
And I don’t think it is at all clear when Sunday worship became the norm
LikeLike
Believe it or not I like simplicity. (incredulous laughter subsiding) Luther once and for all to ‘get to the point of it all’ said to ask the pastor (or by extension today, deacon or elder) what it is that he is putting in your mouth (or handing you) in that bread or wine. Here we reach a reality of what is actually there because we ultimately have to side with Luther or Zwingli/Calvin et. al. This hit me strongly the other day when our 2 and 3 year old asked us during the Supper “What is it you have thereâ€. That flat out stunned and made me pause. I thought to myself, “Well there you go Larry, how do you answer that because a child of this age is simply asking an innocent question without ANY denominational/doctrinal front loading or agenda behind itâ€. Children have a way of teaching us adults and pointing out in bare nakedness our faithless weaknesses. I either had to give an answer in agreement to Zwingli/Calvin or Luther, but what I could not do was breach some half-way house.
Of course we, my wife and I, believe, though we attend PCA in the real body and blood in, with and under the elements 100%. So my answer to them was the bread was the body and the wine was the blood of Christ ‘in, with and under’ the bread and wine given for our sins. My oldest 3 soon to be 4 EASILY believes and trusts that. I found that stunning that this was NO problem whatsoever for her to trust in and it takes the “well developed†rationalism and fallen reason of an adult to actually begin wrestling with it and against what Jesus so plainly said. The easiest thing for them to believe was the “under†that is hidden under the elements part, a child has absolutely no problem with that, God has the ability to do this and says He does this – its cut and dry faith for them and their blessedly underdeveloped fallen rationalizing.
Which leads me to what a dear brother of mine once graciously patient with me advised, when I was wrestling with this. It’s a matter of asking the right questions like: What would Jesus have had to say to make it more plain? Or the similar joke that got me to laughing at my own wrestlings with the issue, “If Jesus would have only said ‘this is my body and blood’ then I’d believe Himâ€. What is actually given for your sins, mere bread and wine or Jesus body and blood? Is my issue REALLY with true doctrine or is my fallen reasoning trying to subdue the Word of God rather than vice versa? What is really put in your hand and mouth that is in fact GIVEN for your sins? Denominations aside, those are some honest questions to answer. And there is really no mitigating point on this, because it would be like some mitigating theistic atheist trying to bridge atheism and theism by saying, “Yes there is a god but he didn’t create ex nihilo but out that which already wasâ€. Both the atheist and theist, though diametrically opposed, MUST mutually laugh at the folly of that. For at least a pure atheist is as internally consistent as is a pure theist on that issue.
We are often miffed at a child’s blunt honesty because we are in reality ashamed of our own dishonesty and thus cover it up by the miffed attitude to answer their deadly honest questions. Like wise we do this in all areas of life. So, the kind of questions above regarding the Lord’s Supper are good to consider, they may or may not convince and that’s fine, but they will at least force thought in what one really thinks/believes/trusts independent or in spite of denominational moorings. At least they force up the same honesty that a simple child’s question forces.
Blessings,
Larry
LikeLike
Michael,
Sorry I reposted my reply to your reply. I probably should have just figured you didn’t have time to reply.
Matt
Terri,
Mt. Zizioulas thought that it was there from the beginning. I believe St. Irenaus of Antioch was very sacramental and he died in 110AD. It seems to me the real question is why did it cease to be so central. From my perspective, the Sacraments (particularly the Lord’s Supper) is alluded to very often in the Scripture, and when it is mentioned directly, outstanding claims are made about it. I suppose you would disagree, but before we ask “why have Catholics dparted from Scripture” we have to ask “have Catholics departed from Scripture.”
LikeLike
I can relate this easier to my experience in baptism. Back when I so struggled in terror of the conscience over this I didn’t grasp the full weight of the Gospel in the Sacrament and fully had my baptistic categories firmly fixed, believed and understood. However, I was NEVER offended when a Lutheran presented Baptism as that doctrine does. Neither did Luther himself offend me EVEN though I just “couldn’t get it†and still disagreed with it without offense. Yet, I wondered at it.
So, I see where and concur with Bror Erickson’s posts. Again, I relate it more easily to baptism (but am growing to grasp it in the Lord’s Supper). People have asked me why I hold so tenaciously to baptism this way and not my old way, why NO argument on earth can now pull me back. SO, I’ve tried and tried to explain that if you just would SEE the Gospel in it, you’d never go back and see why it is essential and not non-essential and why you can NEVER go back. To ask me to go back to ‘believers baptism’ would be in fact to ask me to deny the Gospel as it pertains to baptism. And at least in theory EVERY Christian would say one should never deny the Gospel. But I am convinced, as it was for me, that people’s fear against the sacraments as pure gift and pure Gospel is not a fear of law or works, but rather a hidden fear of true free grace. I really mean that. We all as good protestants say, “Yea team, free grace…†but I wonder if we REALLY mean that and carry that seriously through in the doctrines. Saying ‘it doesn’t matter because its not essential’ is a great strategic trick of the devil and is the Christian ecumenical “in-house†equivalent of the pagan, “all truths are truthâ€. Ergo believe what you will at the spiritual buffet or if you don’t like that make your own spiritual pizza. Now that’s COMPLETELY different than accusing one man of not being a Christian because he/she doesn’t understand or believe X doctrine. That’s not the case. It’s a sad matter of one being Gospel deprived due to a doctrine, malnourished and not understanding why on some things like the sacraments, but that is NOT to mean one is not truly a Christian.
Yours,
Larry
LikeLike
Michael,
My sincere apologies, I totally misunderstood the lifting of the moderation rules in between catching kids, reading and writing. Now that I reread it I should have caught it and understood it the first time. Completely my fault, I didn’t intend to break them at all. I will certainly watch that next time!
Your truly,
Larry
LikeLike
I understand the LS as a weekly event in the early church, but that isn’t exactly what I’m trying to get at.
How did the weekly ritual tbecome transformed into the focus of the getting together? In the Catholic church, isn’t Mass, with it’s high point being the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood through the invocation of the priest, The Way to worship? It goes beyond simply being one way/avenue to worship and draw close to God. The belief that actually partaking of the eucharist imparts a special grace that renews the believer spiritually….more than simply edifying them….seems like a leap from the brief mentions in Scripture.
When did these beliefs become common in the life of the church?
LikeLike
Michael Bell,
Thats just it. I think if you agreed with me, then you wouldn’t see Lord’s Supper as a secondary issue. It’s not, not for Lutherans. It is the “New Testament” christ’s Last will and Testament, in his blood. How serious does it have to be before it is not a secondary doctrine? Your messing with God’s Testament here. For us Lutherans it is quite simply the gospel itself we are consuming.
As I have said before it is at the heart of everything we believe, teach and confess. What you confess about the Lord’s Supper colors everything you confess about Christ and who he is.
And for this reason I would not want to join you in what I can only see as a profanation of the Lord’s Supper. And for that reason I would ask that you wait until you are thoroughly instructed as to what us Lutheran’s believe teach and confess, before you make a common confession of faith with us at the Lord’s Table, so that you understand what it is you are recieving and why.
It may be a secondary issue for you. But understand for us it isn’t, we ask that you respect that.
LikeLike
We brothers are going to need an eternity in heaven so we can argue.
LikeLike
Bror Erickson
I think you have misunderstood my post on a number of fronts.
I agree with you that false doctrine should not be tolerated and doctrinal division should not be glossed over. I agree that “those that are teaching things contrary to the word of God should be told as much, warned, marked, rebuked and avoided…”
My point is that I am a member of Christ’s church. I believe, like the creeds, in the “holy catholic (universal) church.”
When we disagree on secondary doctrinal matters, I say, let us agree to disagree, but as long as we both hold to a classic Christian faith as expressed in the creeds, you are welcome at my church and at my communion table. Because it is not my church, and not my Communion table, but Christ’s, and if he has accepted you into his family, then I call you brother and accept you into mine.
It saddens me that I would not be welcomed into your church and allowed to participate in your communion in the same way I would welcome you into mine.
You state that you would “rather be open about our differences and discuss them candidly. No one is served by anything less.” I am totally in agreement with that, as long as it is done with a spirit of gentleness and generosity. I have felt like that gentleness and generosity has been sadly lacking in many of the posts above.
LikeLike
In 1 Corinthians 11:20-21, Paul says that when the Corinthians came togehter, it was not “The Lord’s Supper” that they ate (although this was their intent). However, Paul invalidates their eucharist not based upon the Corinthians’ improper theology, but upon their improper ethics.
The Corinthians saw the Lord’s Supper as a time to emphasize class distinctions and “shame those who have nothing.” Jesus intended the Lord’s Supper to model the eschatological banquet, a place where tax collectors and sinners are welcome to eat with the Scribes and the Pharisees. Thus the Corinthians were corrupting the rite’s original intent, and Paul says they were “partaking in an unworthy manner” and thus incurring God’s judgment.
Perhaps the 1 Corinthians passage is relevant if there are elitist denominations out there who see the way they do the Lord’s Supper as a way of distinguishing between those who are “truly united to Christ” and those who are kidding themselves because their theology is errant. They may not be “shaming the poor” with the way they do it, but are they “shaming the Baptists”?
LikeLike
“At what point did the eucharist/communion/LS become the principal means of worship in the early/Catholic church?”
The primary reason early Christians began meeting on Sunday in the first place was to observe the Eucharist/communion/LS.
LikeLike
“I would challenge anyone to produce a text that says the Holy Spirit limits or localizes this sacramentalism to one group of Christians.”
You won’t. That’s all based upon the notion that there is only “one true church.” We’re told there was only “one true church” until 1054.
The reality was a good bit messier than that, but fleshing out those details compromises the claims to power of certain institutions.
I was amused reading a Chrysostom homily berating some Constantinopolitans for attending the liturgies of a rival Nicene sect not in communion with Rome, given that Chrysostom himself was previously a presbyter in Antioch under Meletius, who was the bishop of a Nicene sect outside of valid apostolic succession.
I find it further amusing that “excommunicate” Meletius (since reconciled and made a saint) was one of the bishops presiding over the Council of Constantinople in 381, and that said council at the time was rejected by Rome as schismatic. The ultimate amusement was that it was that very council that added the words “one catholic and apostolic Church” to the Creed.
LikeLike
Is this in response to my question, or someone elses?
LikeLike
I don’t think there is any text or correct doctrine “that says the Holy Spirit limits or localizes this sacramentalism to one group of Christians.†God is not bound by the sacraments.
From my view, the way to be sure of the sacramentalism (for 5 of the 7 sacraments), is if a priest that received authority from the apostles is present.
[And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.†John 20:22-23]
LikeLike
Terri:
At what point did the eucharist/communion/LS become the principal means of worship in the early/Catholic church?
Three pointers to when this might have happened:
a. In 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 Paul seems to be drawing no distinction between when the Corinthian Christians “come together” and when they “come together … to eat the Lord’s Supper”.
b. Acts 20:7, “On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread…” suggests a weekly practice of the Lord’s Supper.
c. Acts 2:42, “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”
All these strongly indicate that the regular, at least weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper was the norm in the early church.
LikeLike
Terri321,
In Acts Chapter 2 “the breaking of bread” which the disciples seeming ly did every day, is code if you will, for the lords supper. so it seems it became the pinnacle very early on. Like with in days of Pentecost.
LikeLike
Michael,
For us Lutherans it is not that the Holy spirit limits or localizes the sacraments to one group of Christians. But rather, that some christian groups exclude themselves, wittingly or unwittingly from them. This would happen if they taught something contrary to scripture concerning the sacraments.
As far as why i would try to persuade you of my position? does it really matter to me that much what you believe? Yes especially since you teach others to believe it. of course you are trying to persuade me also, of your positin that it doesn’t matter.
But I second John H. for us Lutherans it does matter, our Christology, and, therefore, our soteriology are intimately bound up with our understanding of the Lord’s Supper. It is for this reason that when Luther and Zwingli met to debate the Lord’s Supper, the debate quickly switched to a debate over Christology, and barely touched on the Lord’s Supper. The Sacraments matter dearly to us, it is how God interacts with us here in time. We believe that we are saved by our baptism. We believe that if Christ isn’t truly and physically present in the Lord’s Supper, then it wasn’t God who died for us, but a mere man, and that doesn’t accomplish much for us. And we believe that without these blessed gifts from God, we have no real grace, no tangible assurance of the forgiveness of our sins, and are left to our own devices, our own works. And that would be a horrible position to be in.
LikeLike
I have a fully sacramental worldview and accept completely that the Holy Spirit works through matter.
I would challenge anyone to produce a text that says the Holy Spirit limits or localizes this sacramentalism to one group of Christians.
LikeLike
Clarification request: is there an assumption that it is not the Holy Spirit working through word and sacrament? Maybe we’re all batting around strawmen in this discussion.
Montanists fell into heresy when they believed the Holy Spirit works outside the boundaries of the apostles’ teaching. Regardless of ones view of the sacraments – or if you believe there are any at all – the objective cannot be trumped by the subjective. If not, don’t get in a tizzy the next time someone on TBN gets a “word from the Lord”.
Spiritual union needs context, and at a minimum, God’s word is that context. (I believe sacraments are another part, which truly is that kiss from a journeying spouse.) Pentecostalism had terrifying consequences on my spiritual life, because it lacked this context. The Holy Spirit uses this context, these means, to draw us to Christ, to bring Christ to us – to keep us at the foot of the cross.
“Not what I feel or do can give me peace with God; not all my prayers and sighs and tears can bear my awful load” – Horatius Bonar.
LikeLike
oops….the name should be Terri..not terri321…just in case anyone cares who I really am! 🙂
LikeLike
I have a question that maybe could be clarified on this post:
At what point did the eucharist/communion/LS become the principal means of worship in the early/Catholic church?
It seems as if the LS is the pinnacle of daily worship in Catholic and some Lutheran churches. While I definitely think there is something sacred/holy/spiritual about the LS, I have a difficult time understandning how it came to be The Main Way to receive grace and spiritual nourishment.
The Epistles mention it in a few places briefly and The Last Supper institutes it with the phrase “Do this in remembrance of me”…..but otherwise it seems to be a part of worship, but not THE way to worship.
When it did it move to the forefront in the history of the church? It seems to have grown from a community act of worship into the point of division between denominations, the measuring stick of exclusivity, if you will.
Any insight on this?
LikeLike
I haven’t read all the comments yet, but like very much the comment by Alan at on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:33 pm. including his, “So, if you have an understanding of our union with God as growing and progressive then there’s really no disconnect with the idea that a Sacrament like the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper could be a conduit for increasing or deepening that union.”
I was brought up Catholic but have not been attending for a number of years for various reasons. So I pray, read, study, work and blog. And I do know and “feel” that I am united to Jesus but I know I can grow in that union. I am still not perfect or I would not continue to do the things I do not want to do. But sometimes I miss gathering with other Christians and participating in Eucharist.
Take care, Michael. I appreciate your blog site very much.
Joanie D.
LikeLike
Is Union with Christ separate from membership in a local congregation? It seems that this is part of the question. Not what is the sacrament, but what is the church? From my perspective, we don’t distinguish between the universal/invisible church and the local-denominational/visible one. One is exists by the grace of God. The other is a human attempt to create a social setting where the former can be nurtured.
As for me, the sacrament is not only about union with Christ, but OUR union with Christ. Especially when we receive the sacrament by intinction, and the congregation lines up down the middle aisle to receive the bread and wine, I see this diverse collection of people each coming to receive the sustenance of God’s grace. I sit there and pray for each person as their partake. In doing so, I feel a greater sense of connection and union to people.
So, I think, these are important questions because they are forcing us to make clearer distinctions about the nature of the church and Christ’s life in it.
LikeLike
For clarity’s sake, I am a 30 year old Catholic (lifelong Baptist), husband, and father of 4 who, together with my wife, received the sacraments of Eucharist and Confirmation this Easter…
CS Lewis said that the most Holy thing that would ever be presented to our senses (aside from the people we meet every day) is the Blessed Sacrament. Look at the Mass. What’s going on? At the most literal level, a bunch of Christ’s Sheep are eating and drinking. These are among the most intimate of human acts. We can’t wrap our minds around this stuff, but it is undeniably real.
Just as a man could be legitimately married but locked behind bars interminably, so can we truly be united with Christ without any corporeal union with him whatsoever. But try to describe the urge that humans have to kiss in a moment of passion. Try to explore the history of the Vampire and the spiritual implications of such a monster’s evolution. Some sort of spiritual/carnal realities, dynamics beyond the scope of our minds, are at play here… and apparently Christ affirmed them in his institution of what led early Christians to be called cannibals!
Consider St. Dismas of Calvary. Crucified at Christ’s right, he merely called out to the Lord and was assured of his place in heaven.
It is right that we grapple with these issues. It is right that we test these things. It is also write that we heed Hebrews 13.17.
LikeLike
Michael: I don’t say this to justify the “press conference” tendency you describe, quite the opposite. But perhaps part of the answer as to the “motives” of those showing such passion on this question is that, for Lutherans, the Lord’s Supper (which, as we understand it, is the Lord’s body and blood under the bread and wine) is “mere Christianity”. (Indeed, it was for C.S. Lewis as well, if you read Mere Christianity.)
But as I’ve already said (and have said at more length on my own blog), that is “mere Christianity” conceived not as a bounded set containing all that is agreed upon by all Christians (with anyone outside the set being a defective Christian or even a non-Christian), but “mere Christianity” conceived as the centre of a set whose centre is well-defined but whose boundaries are somewhat fuzzy.
However, if you keep in mind this thought: “Those crazy Lutherans actually think the Lord’s Supper is part of the irreducible core of ‘mere Christianity’, for some impenetrable Germanic reason of their own” ;-), then that will probably help you understand where some of your more impassioned commenters are coming from…
LikeLike
Michael,
I feel as though I can relate to you so well sometimes. I have been working for years to answer some of these questions myself. When I was younger, I was prone to arguing over any subject that came up. As I have grown older(and maybe wiser), I have been less and less willing to argue over a great deal of things. I like the analogy I got from one of my professors in college. He talked about three circles of issues in Christianity. The first and innermost circle is the doctrine of salvation, specifically what is necessary for eternal life. The second circle encompasses those doctrines that are important, but which it is still possible to have eternal life even with flaws in thinking. Things like baptism and speaking in tongues would fall in this category. This is where I feel the Lord’s Supper belongs as well. The third circle are the maturity issues, like eating meat sacrificed to idols and so forth. They are things that we have to be careful not to offend a brother or sister with, but also have no bearing on the truth of the gospel when it all boils down. Ultimately, I have become very wary and reluctant to expend any significant energy on any arguments outside the first circle. I am more than happy to have discussions and consider different points of view. I take those views back to Scripture and prayer and trust that God will show me what I need to know.
By the way, I want to thank you for some of the books that you have recommended along the way. I bought a couple of the Worthington books, about the Last Supper and about Baptism and enjoyed them very much. They gave me a lot to chew on so to speak.
LikeLike
I see all through the scripture this concept that Christ is in us. An example is Colossians 1:27. Additionally, Romans 6 and Galatians 2:20 and other passages help us understand that when we became followers of Jesus we were literally incorporated into Christ’s body. We died with Christ on the cross; we were buried with Christ; we were raised up with Christ.
I see communion as a reminder of that.
LikeLike
Why anyone tries to persuade someone to their version of theology is really amazing to me. State your view till the cows come home, but why would you ever NAME someone and QUESTION them about a theological persuasion that is beyond the “mere Christianity” boundary?
What compels all this? I am used to class discussions and discussions around the table, but I really can’t get the motive behind some of this. Does it really bother you that I don’t see things as you do? What does it matter?
We have a good question, and there is so much good discussion to be had without making another person’s CONVICTIONS the focus.
I appreciate all of you who are passionate, and it’s not my job to lecture or judge you, but I really struggle with the way these discussions become “press conferences.” If my boundaries are clearly drawn- “this is who I am”- then is it wrong to say that discussion should explore the question, but not another person’s commitments?
LikeLike
Michael Bell: Yes and amen.
John Hendryx: I am not a Calvinist. Do you think that a non-Calvinist can believe in union with Christ? Or not be a heretic?
Do you think Jesus believes it is important that I be a Calvinist? I don’t.
Matthew with the wife question: I’m sorry that my responses are unsatisfying. My apologies.
Why are we talking about ME anyway?
LikeLike
There are three aspects to Pauline soteriology–justification by faith, union with Christ, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Don’t you think that when you say that “all the benefits of salvation come to us through union with Christ,” you are omitting the other two ways of describing “salvation”?
Being “saved” is more than just being united with Christ, it is also about being indwelt with the Holy Spirit–the “downpayment” of our eschatological salvation. (Perhaps this bleeds into the discussion of the Jesus-centered Christianity. In a lot of ways our faith is not Christocentric, it is about a relationship with a Trinitarian God.)
To me, the Lord’s Supper is a big part of the “union with Christ” part of being “saved,” (although I see “spiritual presence” in the elements rather than transubstantiation or consubstantiation).
LikeLike
Larry: I wasn’t moderating this afternoon, but that post is simply too long. Please write shorter or I can’t publish them. Put them on your blog and link them. I’m quite serious.
LikeLike
You said you lifted the normal rules and this one IS a bit long, but I hope helpful because I come from the background through many others. If it is too long, then I apologize in advance and accept any verbal flogging I may receive for such. My hope is GREATER riches of the Gospel to all, TRULY. If it sounds otherwise or I have mistakenly spoken poorly leading to otherwise, then chalk that up to my apish mind.
If I might add because my own journey was from SB > PCA/reformed > but quickly learned I’m Lutheran though I still belong officially in PCA. Sometimes those having come from a background can speak the language in a way that may be helpful. What I’ll do is go through it the way I did, that way I’m not saying “your wrong†“I’m rightâ€, which is in a word the “law†route. Luther spoke that we should convince of the sacraments in such a way that “they†see the Gospel and are compelled by the Good News not by the opinion or route of the law which obscures the Gospel in the sacraments that one is trying to “get†someone to see. In other words if we go the route of “law†then the Gospel is obscured and the whole argument becomes a “my law unto the sacraments is better than your law unto the sacramentsâ€. That understanding is EXACTLY what one is trying to GET away from but rather serve the food. I labor that up front because THAT was the BIGGEST hurdle for me coming from a full blown non-sacramental view (SB) and then ALSO as a reformed person that uses the term “sacramental†but doesn’t really mean the same thing as Luther did. Side Note: PLEASE don’t hear the denominational references as a “my team†versus “your teamâ€, I simply reference them for brevity because we all know in a “nut shell†what each understands and sets forth as doctrine. So instead of writing a fully page or two explaining say SB or Calvin’s doctrine on the sacraments, I just reference the term “SB†and “reformed†and “Luther†and etc… Hopefully, that disarms personal attack in reality or by the readers perception. Anyway, back to that being the BIGGEST thing. Why? Because if we come at it from what is often termed “the opinion of the law†the argument, whether it explicitly means to or not, degrades at a minimum implicitly into “My law on the sacraments†(i.e. understanding/doctrine/teaching/etc…) is better than “Your law on the sacraments/ordinances†(i.e. understanding/doctrine/teaching/etc…) AND THAT MEANS either explicitly or implicitly; “Ergo, more pleasing to Godâ€. Hopefully, that’s clear.
So by analogy a lavish four star meal with wine is prepared on a Sunday in a SB church, and a lavish four star meal with wine is prepared on a Sunday in a PCA church, and a lavish four star meal with wine is prepared on a Sunday in a Lutheran church, etc… It’s all a four star meal (or five whatever is your highest counting stars for meals) prepared at each church. Per paragraph one; we should not argue thus,
“ERGO, our Lutheran four star meal is more pleasing to the Chef than is your SB four star meal or your PCA four star meal is that we/as if we prepared them.†(opinion of the law)
Nor do we argue:
“ERGO, our Lutheran four star meal is more pleasing to the Chef than is your SB four star meal or your PCA four star meal is as if the same Chef is more pleased with HIS meal HE prepared at one church or the other.†(opinion of the law)
When we go the route of the opinion of the law we will NEVER see the Gospel and we hide the very Gospel IN the sacrament we are trying to convey. In other words once your hearer hears it as an opinion of the law, you’ve already LOST the Gospel to him/her in the discussion.
The situation is such that the SACRAMENT is in fact the Sacrament, truly Christ’s body and blood, baptism truly God’s work alone WHETHER OR NOT THE RECEIPIENT BELIEVES/TRUSTS THAT TO BE SO OR NOT, WHETHER OR NOT FAITH EXISTS IN THE RECEIPIENT OR THE PASTOR OR THE ENTIRE CHURCH IN WHICH IT OCCURS. The Sacraments are God’s Sacraments and are UTTERLY objective. E.g. a rose is still objectively exactly what it is, a rose, even if the ENTIRE WORLD does not believe it so and denies it to the death. Thus, Luther could POWERFULLY say that you can receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ from the steaming claw of the devil (perhaps he had the Pope in mind at the time). “Noâ€, you say? That’s exactly how he was given to us on the cross, by the hand of wicked men Gentile and Jew (and us by extension) and by ultimate extension the devil himself. Christ for you is UTTERLY objective or NO Gospel may be had. Or in Luther’s words, “…the ENTIRE Gospel is outside of youâ€. That’s just another way of saying the same thing.
So the sacraments of baptism or real body and blood of Christ is there in a SB, Reformed or Lutheran church objectively (assuming the institutional words are biblical and last I heard they are still in all these denominations and others). The REAL objective benefit is there, the Gospel FOR YOU, it comes to you and is thus truly GOOD NEWS TO YOU, as opposed to just good news over there to Bob which is not really Good News TO me. I’m approaching by way of the Gospel and steering utterly away from the opinion of the law.
So, what’s up? Let’s take two extremes just to show, SB/Bap. Vs. Lutheran. For the Lord’s supper both objectively HAVE the body and blood of Christ, really. Yet in one church/denomination (and it can vary even within a denomination as to an individual, e.g. a Lutheran could really be a practicing Baptist and vice versa). The body and blood of Jesus is really in, with and under the elements even in the SB church, the utter absolute gift of Christ is there. But DUE TO the predominant doctrine on the supper the hearer, the believer, is prevented of feasting truly on Christ as Gospel because of it only being a memorial meal. Using our four star meal analogy in a sense it is like this: Both have four star meals prepared by them by the Divine Chef in the institutional words “…this is…†and then the elements are there that have it objectively ‘in, with and under’. HOWEVER, when the mind of the hearer is REDIRECTED by denying Christ is really there and then RE-directed to his/her internal memory and powers of imagination (because none of us were there that day of the crucifixion some 2000+ years ago in a land half way around the world), he/she is redirected to “gin upâ€, that is works of the mind, to feel something, have something, think something. That’s very different from being told, “So you don’t feel, think or otherwise you have Christ really…TO BAD He’s right here in this Bread and in this Wine truly in body and blood, FOR YOU, the same body and blood given for you (the FOR YOU is crucial to the Gospel, I cannot emphasize nor repeat that enough) ANYWAY, your sins ARE IN FACT NOT THEORY forgiven.â€
Same thing with the sacrament of baptism if it’s a work of man it is nothing and utterly vain, even a blaspheme (if that were actually in fact true), if it is a work of God objectively it is everything regardless of faith being there or not. That’s why I often ask, “If man X at 30 was baptized, admits openly he denies Christ laterâ€, did the Baptist see a baptism according to the doctrine? I say that to make a point about utter absolute objectivity and not to pick on some one. If the Word of Gospel can be denied openly and still be objective, then why not the font? It is the glory of God that men DO INDEED come to faith from death, utter death in sin and trespasses to God, called into being. It is also the glory, fame, of God that men deny this even when it is PUT DIRECTLY ON THEM IN BAPTISM AND THE SUPPER. For ultimately men deny the utterly FREE grace of God for the vanity of their good works and thus prove the point, men are absolutely dead in sins and trespass to God WHO is glorious and famous AS THE REAL GOD JUST BECAUSE His love, as displayed openly in Christ crucified, is utterly selfless in its seeking. That means His glory rises as selfless love when men trust nakedly and passively and only in it, AND when men who by fallen nature are merit mongers deny to trust in it. Either way His glory, His true glory and fame as revealing Who the REAL God IS – is revealed by its acceptance and rejection either way. The true fame and glory of the TRUE God, ‘so this is what God is really like’, is openly revealed, made famous as in revelation, His glory is revealed by the naked passive truster AND by the merit monger by the merit monger or helpless ‘doer his way to heaven’ by the later’s very rejection based upon what he is and seeks, merit. The merit monger or ‘doer’ yields glory to the REAL God by his/her very rejection of the REAL God, that is the altruistic Lover AND that is why Jesus is the face of God and the fullness of His revelation particularly at the Cross. I labor that because that goes ALL the way back to one’s grasp of the sacraments as utter Gospel or some form of law. To the “doer†he/she thinks the movement of the sacraments is from earth to heaven, thus gaining the favor of God, or better bewitching God. But the receiver, the passive worthless sinner, RECEIVES objectively the gifts of God as GIFTS and as gifts FROM God they must be utterly and absolutely objective; that is baptism and the supper or “…the Gospel is ENTIRELY outside of us†PERIOD.
So, the sacraments are really still sacraments in our example SB, reformed or Lutheran churches, but the church’s, denomination’s or even individual doctrine in spite of may hide or prevent the GIFT, Gospel, to be efficacious to one. NOT, and this is crucial, due to some failure to fulfill some “lawâ€, faith as a law or work, but by the very nature of not believing that is TRUSTING in them to BE what they are said to be. And THIS unbelief is generated from a doctrine, a “hath God really saidâ€, and that “hath God really said†is nothing more than the devil’s original perversion ever so subtle on the Word of God. All it takes to turn an objective Gift (Gospel), a sacrament, into a law ‘to do’ is just to tweak the doctrine a bit, the devil’s word twisting some of the Word of God to mean something else and thus speak something else to us calling God a liar. It takes the utter objective gift of a father to a child for their child, from the child and turns it into a lie, a conditional, “Your dad will only love you if…â€
Therefore, hopefully that at least points in the thought direction of the Gospel and why the Sacraments are the sacraments. It is like this: there is a world of differences, in fact two separate religions in saying, “Christ has died FOR YOU specifically†which causes faith and saying “IF YOU believe†in our modern understanding. Faith is not a condition by the vehicle by which the GREAT water and meal are received just as that, LIFE ETERNAL.
Maybe this will help, there I cannot recall if it was Sasse or Chemitz who said that if you get the sacraments wrong you will get the entire Scriptures wrong. They were correct.
E.g. How one gets the sacrament of baptism effects one’s ENTIRE grasp of the Book of Acts. Whether it is Gospel that could bear you up in suffering or “lâ€aw and no avail to you. It, the sacraments, are NO small matter or secondary thing to the faith.
Example the book of ACTS:
1. If one’s view is that baptism is based upon faith and man’s profession/confession one will read and understand Acts thus; All the events recorded in Acts where baptism and the Spirit are will flow upside down. IF you confess/profess/believe, that is some how have/get the Holy Spirit first, THEN you may be baptized. The whole of the baptistic doctrine derives from this upside down look at Acts. From this is derived the idea that only those who could, Adults, profess/confess their faith received baptism. So, the Holy Spirit is gotten some “other way†and by the reasoning faculties of man. How you see the Sacrament affects the Scriptures and hence ALL of Acts becomes “lâ€aw. “Lo, here is christ, there is christ…†Jesus warned to be aware of.
2. It is just a tiny step from #1 having turned everything upside down to ENTIRELY divorce the Spirit from the Sacrament, because in #1 baptism is made small and insignificant, a reward for a work or badge of faith – to full blown Pentecostalism. Pentecostalism is the next logical step. So that in #1 the way one views the sacrament affects Acts, the smaller the sacrament becomes, then the next step is to seek out the Spirit elsewhere in a ‘signs and wonders’ ministry (which Jesus cursed as deception by the way). Since the sacrament does not bring the Spirit per #1, Pentecostalism merely carries out the next logical step from Baptist doctrine. So the Pentecostal view of the sacrament, we might call it a non-view toward it, or Gnostic view, affects their understanding of the Book of Acts. And so yet another “lâ€aw view arises whereby they look to Acts for guidance and develop another ‘hamster wheel’ to heaven as they seek out the experience of signs and wonders. Again and worse than #1, “Lo, here is christ, there is christ…†Jesus warned.
3. The sacrament is TRUE Gospel view, Luther. It brings the Holy Spirit not because it is a man’s work but God’s and His promise to BE THERE where His “name ISâ€. This too, for the true faith, affects how one understands Acts. Rather than IF you get the Holy Spirit somehow otherwise, THEN you may have baptism, rather than seeing that as what Acts is communicating to us (law). Rather than seeing signs and wonders as that as what Acts is communicating to us (law). We see baptism BRINGING the Spirit. The reason the Holy Spirit is seen in and around baptism in Acts; just like when Jesus was baptized the Spirit descended like a DOVE, just like Noah when the DOVE brought back the olive branch of the peace from God’s wrath resting on the Ark, a type of the Cross and Christ; just like the Spirit hovered over the ‘waters of the deep’ in Genesis…the reason we are SHOWN this in the book of Acts, the Holy Spirit is with the baptismal waters OBJECTIVELY, is so that we will see that God is EXACTLY where He said He’d be for us, in the waters of baptism, where HIS NAME is given, where among the other Trinity name is given is the NAME of Jesus, Joshua, that is “He will save His people from their sinâ€, Jesus literally mean “Yaweh savesâ€. Far from Acts showing an “IF/THEN†works scenario or a “signs and wonders†to look for, it is showing that BAPTISM is where the Holy Spirit comes for us, and the Spirit bears witness NOT of the Spirit but of Christ FOR us. You see that is Gospel because one does not have to GIN up their profession/confession of faith, “do I really believe whereby I may receive the badge of baptism†(works – the devil’s religion using things from the Word of God upside down), nor, “I must have this signs and wonders experience†(works – the devil’s religion using things from the Word of God upside down). But rather, GOSPEL, BE baptized for the forgiveness of your sins, RECEIVE the SPIRIT, RECEIVE CHRIST – FREELY, by no works what so ever. The devil’s greatest trick to protestants is to tell us ‘you are not saved by works’, so you are not “Roman Catholicâ€, he lost that battle with some and had to re-tool/strategize, but then he points to the gifts of God like baptism and calls them ‘works’ by a doctrine like “believers baptismâ€, rather than gifts so he can guide/trick you back to some new works. The devil is concerned DEEPLY with doctrine.
Sasse/Chemitz, which ever it was – was 100% correct, if you go wrong with the sacraments you will go wrong elsewhere in the Scriptures, the way one understands one, yields the other. Are they Gospel/gift passively received or “lâ€aw?
Blessings,
Larry
LikeLike
Bror,
We are in a different Synod. But we don’t give a hoot what those yahoos think anyway.
They (the Synod) can’t stand the guy we have now and that’s the way we like it. But when he retires…we are in big trouble.
I’ll bet your Dad was a real bulldog for Christ, too!
Grace and Peace, Bror,
– steve
LikeLike
Michael you said: “All Christians are united with Christ by the sovereign, gracious work of God himself. All the benefits of salvation come to us because of union with Christ.”
Just for the fun of it Michael, if you believe this, especially the part the says “all the benefits” then, from all appearances you are still a monergist? AKA a Calvinist. I know you don’t like the term but this Christocentric view of the benefits of salvation is the most important distinctive of that branch of Christianity.
How? Consider, do your “benefits” of union with Christ also include effectual grace? Is that one of the bbenefits you are speaking of? If so, then it follows that Christ died in a way for the elect (to give them the benefit of effectual grace) in a way he did not for the non-elect (who never receive effectual grace). This is not some generic grace from the Father but comes from union with Christ just like all the other benefits.
peace be with you
John
LikeLike
Steve,
I don’t think Stotero (sure i misspelled his name) wants me down there given my dad’s history in that district.
-Bror
LikeLike
Bror,
When my pastor retires…do you want the job?
I think you guys are on the same page.
You’d have to move to California and live fairly near the beach.
Sorry, you’ll have to supply your own suntan lotion.
– Steve
LikeLike
Refocusing on union with Christ:
Michael, I wish more Christians (including me) had your focus on “union with Christ.â€
There’s a beautiful 40 year old live oak in my backyard. I hung a cypress swing from it as an anniversary gift to my wife when we moved in 10 years ago. I painstakingly arrange my favorite flowers around it every spring because it is a sacred place for me. I experience the presence of God in creation, and the blessings he has given me every time I see that tree. It always draws me to prayer and union with Christ. But, I would never bow down and worship that tree.
The Eucharist makes me keep his commandment to first love God, and then love my neighbor. When I’m present at mass I don’t feel a special way about God or understand his Word perfectly; but it’s the only time I have a “blessed assurance†that I’m actually doing His will, which is to worship and serve Him. I attribute my ability to do that second part about loving my neighbor (union with His body) to a Real grace I receive from communion. A little part of me dies and is replaced by Him every time; and that is a Real union with Christ to me.
The way figure it, if he could miraculously appear in the womb of a little peasant girl in Nazareth so long ago; who am I to say he can’t appear in the hands of the recovering alcoholic/chain smoking priest at my neighborhood parish?
LikeLike
Michael Bell,
Quite frankly I haven’t heard anyone here say you or anyone else won’t be in heaven, where all sins will beforgiven even sins of the mind.
But that doesn’t mean false doctrine should be tolerated, or doctrinal divisions should be glossed over here in the church militant. God has given us his word. If we love him with all our heart and with all our mind we will take that quite seriously. And those that are teaching things contrary to the word of God should be told as much, warned, marked, rebuked and avoided, it really is the only charitable thing to do. It is infact what the New Testament tells us to do in many places. It may not be nice by worldly standards, it may not be politically correct, it may even come off as unloving. But we don’t get to choose what parts of the Bible to believe, and what parts to ignore.
If I was to take what you said to heart, I would have no choice but set aside my ordination, forsake all my Lutheran distinctives, and swim either the Tiber or the Bosphurous. If doctrine doesn’t matter, than none of us had any reason to break with Rome, or Constantinople for that matter. Nor do we have any reason to split from a creedal Church chanting the mantra “only the Bible.”
I’d much rather be open about our differences and discuss them candidly. No one is served by anything less.
LikeLike
How are we united with Christ? Just reading Colossians, we discover.
1. “Ye are complete in Him” 2:10a
2. “Ye are circumcised…by the circumcision of Christ.” 2:11
3. “Buried with Him in baptism, ye are risen with Him.” 2:12
4. “And you…hath He quickened with Him…” 2:13b
5. “For ye are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God.” 3:3
6. “When Christ, who is our life,shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory.” 3:4
7. “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly…” 3:16
From baptism through the Second Coming we are in Christ and He in us, according to Paul.
How does this relate to the Lord’s Supper? Can it be neglected without damaging the relationship with Christ?
First of all, communication with Christ is a necessity for a vibrant Christian life. Whether that be through prayer, through teaching, reading, and hearing the Word, through praise, through acts of charity, or through communion, all build up not only the individual, but the body of Christ. It is not an either/or situation, but both/and.
The question is not how we try to explain the mystery of the Lord’s Supper (which is ultimately unexplainable), but whether we obey Christ by participating in it, invite others to share in table fellowship with us and Christ to build up the body.
Christ gives us the same honor he gave His disciples of sharing with Him the Passover meal. If we are united with Him, how can we pass up the opportunity to break bread and commune with Him or exclude others from the same experience?
LikeLike
Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened and I will refresh you. (Matt 11:28) The bread that I will give for the life of the world is My flesh. (John 6:51) Take and eat, this is My body, which is given for you. Do this in memory of Me. (Matt 26:26; 1 Cor 11:24) He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I abide in him. (John 6:56) These words that I have addressed to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63)
A ‘Devout Exhortation to Receive Holy Communion’ that was quoted by Thomas a’ Kempis at the start of Book IV ‘On the Blessed Sacrament’ in his book ‘The Imitation of Christ.’ Sort of says it all I guess.
LikeLike
I realize that this is an important topic to many by the impassioned comments on this blog, but the comments are really over the top. I am tired of people who proclaim that my (take your pick) denomination/mode of baptism/communion/union with christ/experience of the holy spirit/version of the bible/understanding of the scriptures/understanding of truth – is better than yours.
If you want to know why young people today are being turned off of organized religion, denominationalism and the church, then just reread some of the comments posted above.
As for me, I cherish my union with Christ, which has been deepened through many different experiences. My table and fellowship is open to all those who have also expressed a union with Christ, no matter what their background.
I know that there is such divergent Christian thought about so many topics that I can’t possibly get it all right. But I can try to earnestly follow Christ with all my “heart, soul, mind, and strength.”
When we get to Heaven someone may point at me and say to Christ, “He believed incorrectly about topic X”. Christ will say something like, “I died for him, and he has chosen to follow me as best as he knows how. He belongs to me. Why did you exclude him from my table/my church’s membership? He is welcome at my table and in my church.”
LikeLike
Michael,
You still haven’t really addressed my question. You know what “access” mediated by the Holy Spirit looks like–it looks like the relationship you have with your wife when she’s in another city and you can only talk with her on the phone. This sort of relationship is, I assume, rather unsatisfying.
So why is it suddenly different when you start talking about Christ. You want more contact with your wife than Christ? Come on.
The difference between the two is that your relationship with your wife is exclusive? Well, yes, but you don’t kiss her because it’s exclusive do you? So I ask again, what would be lacking from your relationship with your wife if it was mediated by the Holy Spirit (as it is) and not by your body? Why is there nothing lacking in your relationship with Christ if it lacks what your relationship with your wife would be lacking if you never touched physically?
That said, no one believes Christ is limited to the Sacrament.
LikeLike
Michael,
Good at least we are agreed on the incarnation, I hope.
I didn’t say we have him and you don’t. And I don’t believe we Lutherans are the only ones who have a valid sacrament (Though I do believe we have the right understanding of it. And I’m not sure or any other church body going by another name that has it in the same way we do.) Like John H says, Luther was pretty adimant that the Catholics also had it. But he is not so clear on those who deny the Body and Blood is present. Most Lutherans I know think two things of a Church Body that doesn’t confess the Bodily presence. One, they don’t have the body and blood of Jesus in their sacrament. This is partly because we beleive that if they did they would be eating and drinking judgment on themselves for not discerning the body. And two, they might possibly be makeing a mockery of it, unwittingly to be sure, but still dangerouse. I hesitate to go with John H here on the word trumps understanding. Though I understand him here, and have had the same thoughts at times. It is the word of Jesus that makes it the sacrament and not my faith. But I don’t think an actor playing a priest has the sacrament because he says the words. I think there is an aspect that the public confession, and common understanding of the gathered body, may nullify it. In isn’t some magic formula we are talking about here that works despite context. (this is all hazy to me) But when it comes to baptism, we don’t believe Mormon’s have a valid baptism because their concept of the trinity is invalid. I think the same goes on some level for the words of institution. (I’m just trying to be honest with you as to what we believe and why.)
I am trying to digest your words “the Jesus mediated by the Holy Spirit.” One the Holy Spirit too is God and could very well mediate the physical body of Jesus should He want to. All things are possible for God. But in my understanding it is the Holy Spirit that proceeds from the Father and the Son, not the other way around. The Holy Spirit creates faith, But it is Jesus who gives Himself in the Sacrament of the Altar. And it is precisely His ascension, which we celebrate today, that allows him to do this. For in His ascension He reclaimed, in His Body, the full use of His divine powers. Therefore he is present in both his human and divinde natures everywhere. As God is omnipresent, so he, being God, is everywhere.
LikeLike
If Father Peter has the right answer can we still play? If so here are my two bits.
Maybe the differences in the our understanding of the sacraments are just differences in our perceptions of what the “Union with Christ” means. We Catholics expect frequent reception of the Eucharist will bring us in greater sanctifying union with Christ, depending on the state of our souls and our trust in Him. I expect that Christ is always within my heart, as long as I avoid grave sin. It is my understanding that another worthy reception of Him in the host and blood is like blowing a glowing ember into flame. He was already there but each new sacrament enlarges the fire.
Further I believe that frequent confession, another sacrament, opens my heart up to receive the Eucharist more worthily (through grace) and more perfectly suppress my own will in favor of his will (again through His gift). We Catholics see our Christian lives as a life long process of ongoing conversion and renewal.
Of course, it doesn’t really matter what I think. When I converted I accepted on faith the dogma of the Church before I understood it in it’s entirety ( not that I think I’ll ever fully understand it all) and if there is ruling dogma on any subject there is ruling dogma on this one. The institution of the Eucharist is considered a mystery in the Catholic Church. Meaning that we only fully understand what He has revealed and do not expect to grasp it all. The doctrine of the Eucharist is crucial because it not only unites ourselves with God but also with our fellow Christians in a literal body of Christ.
Here’s the part that gets in the way. The Church holds that the reception of the Eucharist is the ordinary normative form of union with Christ and that the Eucharist is only valid among Churchs with direct Apostolic succession among other things. Thus any “union with Christ” outside of these Churches is extraordinary and in a form known only to God. I believe this is what the Pope refers to when speaking or writing about “special graces” in other Christian communities.
LikeLike
Bror and Brian: Do you guys really believe I am only talking about the physical body of Jesus? Pre-ascension? I’m sure you are aware I am talking about Jesus as mediated by the Holy Spirit.
I mean, if you want to say that Jesus is at your church but not at my church because you have the physical presence and we don’t….ok.
LikeLike
“And to the guy who said I shouldn’t be bothered by a quantifiable, locally appearing God…….***crickets*** If that’s what the New Covenant tells you, then don’t let me disturb you. I’d be a Buddhist tomorrow if I thought that was Christianity.”
Seriously? In my understanding of Christianity, the one God of all Creation came in all his fulness to Earth, incarnated in one quantifiable, locally appearing body.
How is your understanding different from that?
LikeLike
(Michael, if you consider this off topic and don’t post, I understand.)
To Rick Frueh,
I’m a bit puzzled about your comment about what the Early Church believed as not being important. They were the ones who learned either from Jesus directly or the apostles.
I’m not talking about the development of doctrine, because we have had more time, and energy to think about, and write about the Trinity. So, of course, we are more sophiscated about it.
But, if you ignore their beliefs, what is keeping you from changing the canon of the New Testament? What is keeping you from rejecting either the humanity of Jesus or His Divinity?
LikeLike
Just another passing thought as I read through all these very challenging views about union with Christ and the sacraments.
I’m no less convinced by the discussion that when by faith I receive Christ, I also receive through the Holy Spirit “every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Eph. 1:3, NASB). I don’t realize all those blessings at salvation, but I do receive them. There is no “blessing” held back from my union with Christ (being “in Christ”). My walk with Christ from that point on is not one of trying to find and get more blessings than I received at salvation, but rather of understanding and releasing the blessings into my life that are already all there in the person of the Holy Spirit. Sanctification is the means of allowing the spiritual blessings I have already received to find full expression in my life.
So where do the sacraments fit into that picture. Here’s what I’m thinking. “Spiritual blessings” are for the most part subjective. Sacraments objectify for us those blessings so that we can “see” the reality of what is unseen. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are visual sermons that continually objectify and visualize for us the reality of what we can only see with the “eyes of [our] heart” (Eph. 1:18-21). Baptism is a visual sermon of forgiveness, the “spiritual blessing” of the whole drama of salvation. The Lord’s Table is a visual sermon of redemption, the “spiritual bessing” of the whole drama of the atonement.
Do the sacraments add something altogether new that is missing in my spiritual life? In my biblical opinion, no. The act of any sacrament, which is in essence a “work,” does not create a new “spiritual blessing” for me that did not exist before, and that is not already mine “in Christ.” However, it does serve as what I would call a “window of grace.” The sacrament is not a grace in and of itself, but it opens the “eyes of my heart” to the grace of spiritual reality and truth that I do not otherwise see or fully comprehend. The sacraments pull back the curtains that keep me from seeing and receiving the light of the “unseen world.” I can see into the “heavenly realms” (Eph. 1:3) through the windows of baptism and the eucharist in a way that I cannot see without them. The sacraments are divinely-provided windows that allow grace to enter my spirit, sanctify me, and mature me “in Him” so I become more like Christ. The means of grace, for me, are still God’s Word, prayer, and fellowship, but the sacraments act as catalysts and lenses that activate and focus those means of grace.
Sacraments then, in my mind, are less than the “real presence” of Christ, but are more than “memorials” or even the “spiritual presence” of Christ. They are not “means of grace,” but they are real “windows of grace” that “open the eyes of my heart” just as Paul prayed for the Ephesians. They do not create any more union with Christ than I already have, but they reveal and review that union for me so the life of Christ can find more and more expression in my life as I am drawn to be more like Him and less like this world.
LikeLike
Michael,
You write:
“John H and others have been working for a long time to get me over my issues with sacramentalism. I’m a tough case. To me, it goes deep into who God is and what belongs to all of those who belong to Christ. I’ll try to apologize when I misrepresent, but I don’t think any of you are going to be happy with where I am on this or where I will be when the thread runs out.”
I want to add to what I said in my last post. I’m discussing here. From my vantage point we approach the scriptures and God from very radically different positions. I don’t know that I expect you to be Lutheran when the discussion is done, though I certainly hope not Buddhist. But I think discussion is good in that it does challenge our notions, and either strengthens them or changes them. Sometimes we have assumptions that cloud our thinking and the only way to bring those assumptions to light is discussion with others who maybe don’t share our assumptions. but that God gives himself to me in the same body and blood that died on the cross, and rose from the dead, goes to the heart of what I believe about who Christ is, and what he has done for the world.
LikeLike
Michael: as you point out, Fr Peter wins the prize for the best summary.
As for Lutherans saying that non-Lutheran celebrations of the Supper are invalid: I can’t think of any Lutherans who would go that far, and they are badly mistaken if they do. (After all, Luther was very clear that the true sacrament of the altar could be found in the Roman Catholic Church, despite the abuses surrounding it.)
There are two possible issues that can come up:
1. Where the Words of Institution are not used: Lutherans would say that this is not the Lord’s Supper, because the essence of the sacrament is Christ’s word to us in the Words of Institution. That’s not to say it can’t be a good and edifying act of remembrance, but the participants can have no assurance that the body and blood of Christ are present in the bread and wine. But then, the participants presumably wouldn’t believe that anyway!
2. Where the Words of Institution are used, but with what we would regards as an incorrect meaning: some would say that means the Supper is invalid. Personally I do not hold to that view, as I think the word of Christ overrules the mistaken intentions and misunderstandings of those who declare that word in the Supper. I do think it is possible for people to “have the experience but miss the meaning”.
LikeLike
Is church authority at the heart of this? Sacraments will definitely raise that issue. The word authority is typically linked to power rather than servanthood, and power typically leads to abuse (e.g. temple worshippers being forced to go through the money-changer racket). In light of that, I can see how any talk about sacraments can be linked to thoughts of dependency, oppression, constraint, limitation, or localization. (The reformation was supposed to take grace out of the hands of church leaders and put it soley in the hands of the laity, right?) If I said the opposite is true, that sacraments free rather than restrict, I would understand if you rolled your eyes and muttered, “yeah, right”.
I do believe, speaking from personal experience, that “Jesus Only” can quickly become “Just me and Jesus” pietism, which can be a very lonely place. An ecclesiology which permits a pastor (sinful and broken as he may be) to announce forgiveness and administer sacraments frees me from bondage to self, which is a far more abusive, power-hungry despot.
Also, sacraments are not the only means of grace. I also receive God’s grace anytime I read or hear God’s word. That should aleviate some concern about localization. It is not a choice of one versus the other; it is an invitation to both. The sacraments in my church are presented as “The gifts of God for the people of God”, not obligations. We also practice “close” communion, versus “closed” communion, which is a completely different discussion altogether.
LikeLike
This is one Lutheran who wouldn’t advise anyone to become a Lutheran. The Lutheran “churches” are really sruggling within themselves on just what it means (anymore)to be a Lutheran.
Sometimes we try to move heaven and earth to get someone to believe as we do. On theological matters, it’s often best to just throw it out there and let God do the rest…one way or the other.
Personally, my goal is to try and let people know that God has taken this “religious project” upon Himself. That is why He has given us the sacraments…to take this stuff out of our hands. We naturally want to turn all this stuff into a big ‘ME’ project.
I think there is great freedom in handing it all back to God. And isn’t that why He died for us..to make us free?
That’s it for me. Thanks again for letting me play!
– Steve
LikeLike
Michael,
That’s a really good question. I’ve wondered about it on and off for some time.
To be sure, I’m on of those who believes that Jesus taught at the last Supper that, in receiving the Supper I receive the forgiveness provided by his shed blood (Mt 26.28). But the question is — in what way is the Supper necessary to receive Christ’s forgiveness? What does it “add” that I don’t or can’t receive elsewhere?
One possible answer, I suppose, is the “hard” Jn 6.53 answer, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.”
But that doesn’t seem quite right — and even Martin Luther did not think that Jesus was speaking of the Supper in Jn 6.
So how does the Supper minister forgiveness to me in a way that, say, confession of my sins (1 Jn 1.9) does not?
I don’t know. But, nonetheless, every time I go to the altar, I believe I receive that body and blood which forgives my sins — my individual, particular sins. Jesus, “my body . . . given for YOU; this cup . . . poured out for YOU” (Lk 22.19-20). So I receive the Supper as specific and personal absolution given by Christ personally to me personally.
Maybe that sounds goofy; and maybe it isn’t strictly a “necessary” means of receiving forgiveness. But I guess I’ll take Christ’s forgivness just about every way he’s willing to offer it to me.
LikeLike
Michael,
you write:
“And to the guy who said I shouldn’t be bothered by a quantifiable, locally appearing God…….***crickets*** If that’s what the New Covenant tells you, then don’t let me disturb you. I’d be a Buddhist tomorrow if I thought that was Christianity.”
I’m not trying to be nasty here, But I need to ask you, Who is Jesus?
And did Jesus not appear locally? I don’t know what you mean by quantifiably, but if you mean in a tangible way, then I think he did that too. “In the beginning was the word…. and the word became flesh.” I’m not getting angry, believe me I’m not. I’m just asking here. Maybe I’m trying to convince you of my position. (you said you would allow that) But more I’m discussing.
LikeLike
I may be too late to join in, and hope this makes at least a bit of sense…
I think there is union with Christ apart from the sacraments of a denomination, but perhaps not apart from the church which is human, fractured and denominational by nature.
Can we really have union with Christ through the universal church in the abstract? Do we really have union with Christ in isolation from other believers? Or do we have union through Christ through union with a particular local, real, gathering of believers?
We are to make peace with our brother prior to communion, and so we share communion with people with whom we share a bond through Christ.
While I like the generous Methodist call to Communion that recognizes our most basic unity through Christ, I can understand the Catholic exclusion of people who are not fully in fellowship with them.
An abstract communion that can be shared with an imagined universal church may not be a real communion at all. Even if it is a nice idea.
I think we can affirm Christ’s salvation and communion across denominational divides, and yet see it as something most appropriately performed among believers with whom we are at peace.
LikeLike
Fr. Peter:
Right answer. Perfect. You win the M&Ms.
Chris S: I have a series of posts here at IM on the rich imagery of the LS that was once the heritage of Baptists. Look under “Baptists” in the categories and find the posts on the LS.
LikeLike
Two brief comments that are somewhat off-topic but related to what various persons have said in this thread:
1. To say Zwingli preached that the LS is a “mere memorial” as if Christ isn’t present and active through the celebration is to terribly misunderstand him.
2. Meanwhile, Baptists have not univocally held to a “mere memorial” view of the LS. For example, Christopher Blackwood, a very early Baptist, wrote in his “A soul-searching catechism” (1653) that the ordinances are vehicula spiritus and that in the LS Christ is “present spiritually to the Faith of the receiver to increase by his Spirit the Union and Communion of the soul with Christ.”
LikeLike
“I’d like you to distinguish how Christ’s person and benefits are available to you in the Eucharist in a way they are not available to me by virtue of union with Christ.”
This seems like a false dilemma (if I read you rightly). The sacraments effect, nurture and sustain one’s union with Christ.
Blessings!
LikeLike
John H and Patrick: I want to be very clear that I never heard either of you say this, nor was I implying that you had. I apologize if I seemed to assign that statement to you rather than to myself.
I will be just as clear that I have heard many Christians, including Lutherans, say what I understand to be “the Eucharist is valid in our church and not at any other church that I know of.” You know some of them.
And to the guy who said I shouldn’t be bothered by a quantifiable, locally appearing God…….***crickets*** If that’s what the New Covenant tells you, then don’t let me disturb you. I’d be a Buddhist tomorrow if I thought that was Christianity.
To all the Lutherans getting angry at me because I am “deciding what is true” and I am “misunderstanding” etc.: I don’t hold to your position, and I won’t be argued into it. I didn’t start this open thread to convince myself of Lutheranism etc. I’m far closer to abandoning any form of organized Christianity than I am to moving to one of the denominational understandings.
John H and others have been working for a long time to get me over my issues with sacramentalism. I’m a tough case. To me, it goes deep into who God is and what belongs to all of those who belong to Christ. I’ll try to apologize when I misrepresent, but I don’t think any of you are going to be happy with where I am on this or where I will be when the thread runs out.
My interest is in how those who are sacramentalists interpret the New Testament on various things that are true for ALL of us, sacraments or not.
LikeLike
“I totally disagree, but I think it’s the most consistent and reasonable response to the question.”
Oh, that was an interesting statement, Michael 🙂
I would say that all truth is consistent, and maybe also reasonable as well…
LikeLike
In 1st Corinthians 1:18 Paul writes “for those who are being saved…”
This goes against Baptist theology.
One time, when I accepted Jesus, or way back there on the cross, it’s a done deal, don’t need anything else. Wrong.
“Being saved”. It is a process. We still stray. We still have our sinful selves, the sinful world, and satan who wishes to tear us from Christ.
So we have the gift of the sacraments to keep us in faith, and give us the assurance that WE NEED apart from relying on …whatever.
There are different Lutheran views on the Lord’s Supper. Some Lutherans practice closed communion and others do not.
In our congregation we offer the Lord’s Supper to all baptised Christians who believe the Lord to be truly present in the meal. Everything you need is in that meal. It’s not parsed out to you as you’ve earned bits of graciousness on some gradual ladder of assent to more and more holiness in greater union with a God. That’s not the God that I have come to know.
If you don’t believe He is present then you will accesss none of the benefits, so don’t come.
It’s not a lucky rabbit’s foot. Trust is involved.
In the Supper He reads His last and and testament to us, assuring us that whatever is His, is ours.
“You have set a table before me in the sight of my enemies” (23rd Psalm)
The table is the altar of the Lord where invites us(His enemies) to dine with Him.
What a gracious God we have.
This is the view of the Lords Supper that I beleive in.
Thank you, Michael.
LikeLike
Michael,
why would you have a problem with God dispensing himself in local quantifiable appearances?
I’m not sure if I am understanding you rightly. But isn’t this what Christ did in the upper room? To Paul on the road to Damascus? To Moses in the burning bush? To the Isrealites in the Temple? This is also what he, not the LCMS, says he does in the Lord’s Supper. God is God, he can do whatever he wants. I think at the heart of it this has been the Lutheran problem with Calvin and Zwingly all along and almost every other protestant. Zwinlgy at Marburg, (and the best book disecting this historical debate is Sasse’s “This is my Body…” Wanted to tell God what he could and could not do based on finite logic. Luther believes that with God all things are possible, even making bread and wine be His Body and Blood. As Philip Watson once said, “Let God be God.” Who are we to judge Him for whatever it is He does, we can only believe His words. maybe he doesn’t live up to our preconceived notions of who he is, but if we let go of those, we might find that he far surpasses them. He surpasses them, by puting himself into the the box for us.
LikeLike
Michael,
You seem to be playing a game here where you decide what’s true. Our fatih can not work that way. Truth must be received, and we must receive it beyond our wants and our fears.
As Pascal said (a paraphrase): There is enough light for those who want to believe, yet enough shadow for those who don’t.
If you can’t see why recieving the very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord is important then I don’t know how to explain that to you. It is a fortaste of Heaven, a taste of salvation.
To me, it seems, you make the mistake of suggesting that all denominations are equal because Truth is whatever we say the bible says it is. We know Christ is the Truth and we know truth is objective. It is grounded in something bigger than ourselves. Therefor if two groups disagree, either one is right or they’re both wrong, BUT they both can not be right (assuming we’re talking about an objective reality and not a matter of opion). The more we reside in authentic Truth the more we reside in Christ. Therefor some traditions will most certainly be more in tune with what Christ intended his followers to believe and practice.
To answer your question: The Eucharist is the source and summit of my union with Christ. It is the ordinary means of uniting oneself to our Lord (note: there are extra-ordinary means such as a strictly spiritual union, but these are the exception not the rule). When we eat His flesh, we abide in Him and he in us. We become one flesh with the God of the universe. I, along with all the Saints of history, can not imagine life without this most blessed Sacrament. If you can’t understand the appeal, I don’t know how to explain it to you.
Joseph
LikeLike
I’m cogent and reasonable! Woo hoo! 🙂 I’d like to add that I’m talking about a progressive union that is not only to be had through the Sacraments, and not only to be facilitated by them. They are conduits given by God for a broken humanity. One day the Church (in any expression) won’t be necessary. One day Sacraments will fade away in the blinding light of our complete and unbroken union with God through and in Christ by the Holy Spirit. Right now we’re talking about a God who works through His People, through the Body of His Son both in and, in a way, through the context He has created us to live, the world. But, of course, the more technically we try to nail these things down and define them, the more trouble we get in, for God won’t hold a nail. Well, He did once for a little bit, but you know what I mean. His mystical Reality is not bound by our understanding of the Sacraments or even how He might have intended them to work. Peace to you Michael.
LikeLike
Everyone believes that the Thief on the Cross, was not baptized, per se, did not receive communion, did not spend hours in prayer, may have not studied Scipture, and may have not lived much of a Christian life – yet he was saved. He probably felt more fulfilled and more united with Christ at the moment of death than many of us will feel. Many of us may have “felt” united to Christ at certain times of prayer, after reading certain verses, and after helping someone hurt or disabled. Despite all the value judgments that have been made about our various different modes of worship, would we not all agree that a Christian is somehow deficient in their union with Christ if he/she never prayed, heard the Word, practiced self-sacrificing love, or met Jesus in the poor or sick?
More than for a “feeling of forgiveness” many come to Eucharist for the grace of transformation – to be better Christians and to be more united to Christ. This is not accomplished through “having all the right thoughts” but rather through faith receiving a grace. A grace that we must be mindful of. A grace that has a reality that was not readily apparent to the Corinthians or the Disciples on the road to Emaus.
LikeLike
I’m Pentecostal, too. To be more accurate, the road of my journey to date makes me Jewish-Metho-Bapti-costal. But, hey, I don’t like labels. I’m a Christian.
Flannery O’Connor, a devout Roman Catholic, famously said of the Eucharist, “Well, if it’s just a symbol, I say, To Hell with it,” and then added that was all she could say, or would ever have to say, about it.
For the record, I am not a Roman Catholic.
But one day I might be.
Michael, you have been taken to task quite handily by several of the commenters on this thread. God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Trying to understand is not a sin, but insisting on your own way is.
LikeLike
I might get stoned for this, but I’ve been thinking lately about the contextual side of the Eucharist. For me, the taking of bread and wine seems to align me with the historical elements of my faith, helping me to better see the world as Jesus did. Therefore, the Supper is a vessel for the Holy Spirit to move me to greater knowledge and passion for Christ and His purposes in the world. I differentiate this from a “memorial” view, because at least in my SBC context, memorial is very individualized, i.e. “remember what Jesus did for you”. Perhaps in a liturgical setting this would not be as evident, but the Supper has this effect on me – union with the way of thinking of Christ.
LikeLike
I’d like to add my 2 cents.
First of all, I am Episcopalian and a Catholic-leaning one at that. Having said that, I see the sacraments, primarily Baptism and Eucharist, as being “outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace, given by Christ as sure and certain means by which we receive that grace.” They are an incarnational way by which God communicates his grace to us and binds us together by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ.
It’s also important to remember that in many of the ancient Christian fathers, esp. Augustine, the main focus of their use of the term “Body of Christ” referred primarily to the gathered church. What they saw on the altar was indeed the mystery of what they were (Aug., sermon 272). John Chrysostom also stated, “What is the bread? The Body of Christ. And what do those who receive a share of it become? The Body of Christ — not many bodies b
ut one body.”(Homily of 1 Cor. 10:16-17) I’d also like to add that in the Apostles’ Creed, when we say, “I believe in . . . the communion of saints,” the original Latin of the Creed uses the term communio sanctorum, literally “communion of the holies.” This can refer to both the holy assembly in heaven and on earth and the holy gifts. There is an identification between the Body of Christ and . . . the Body of Christ.
I don’t know if this added much, but maybe it gives a little more to think about.
In Christ,
Kevin
LikeLike
Michael: Where did Patrick say that “God has restricted union with him to sacraments dispensed through denominations, rituals and men”? Where has any Lutheran contributor to this thread said that?
I think you are misunderstanding the Lutheran perspective here. When a Lutheran says, “We receive God’s grace through baptism, absolution, the preaching of the gospel and the Lord’s Supper”, we are not “restricting” the ways in which God could conceivably bless us. Rather, we are making a positive statement about places in which God has promised to bless us. It’s an answer to the question, “Where can I hear God’s promise of grace and forgiveness with certainty?”, not to the question, “What are the only places where I can receive God’s grace?”
If anything, it is you who are being restrictive. We all agree that union with Christ comes by grace through faith in the promises of the gospel. But you are left with only one way in which those promises can be received: through the verbal (written/spoken) word. We fully embrace that particular means, but believe that the same word of promise can also come to us through the means of water, bread and wine – and that the validity of those means depends solely on the promise of Christ and not on the denominational credentials of the minister declaring them or the congregation hearing them.
LikeLike
Rick: I don’t believe in the Lutheran view of baptism. I believe union with Christ happens by grace, through faith. I believe that baptism is for disciples alone, a la Fred Malone, but I respect the differing views and their magnification of grace.
Patrick: What would I do if the Lutheran view (as I hear it from LCMS friends) were true? Well, it would have deep implications for my entire belief in the Christian God. Part of my struggle in these questions is at this point: If God has restricted union with him to sacraments dispensed through denominations, rituals and men, I’m not sure what kind of God that leaves me with. My journey to be “reduced to Jesus” is my way of working through all this. I want exactly what Jesus was teaching in his stories, esp the Prodigal Son. I want exactly what he was inviting us to in his proclamation of the Kingdom. But if God is dispensing himself in local, quantifiable appearances, then I have a real issue.
ALL: Alan has given, IMO, the most reasonable and cogent answer: Union with Christ is a process facilitated by the sacraments. I totally disagree 🙂 but I think it’s the most consistent and reasonable response to the question.
LikeLike
Michael: the promises of the gospel are offered to us in baptism, absolution, the preaching of the gospel, the Lord’s Supper and so on.
It is the same promises of the same gospel that are offered to us in each case. The same Christ who is offered to us and received by us in each case. The same Holy Spirit who creates faith in our hearts by means of those promises.
God delights to pour out his blessings in any number of ways, and his people delight to receive those blessings in all the ways they are offered to us. To ask, “Well, what more do I get from that means than I get from those means?” misses the point.
As someone once put it to me, when I was asking much the same question while exploring Lutheranism back in early 2004:
I’m just trying to encourage you not to put your sins and forgiveness on such a linear path. God already knows all the sins you’ll commit in your life, and he forgave them all in your baptism. And he forgives you as often as you confess and receive absolution. And He will forgive you each time you receive his body and blood. His gifts he gives to us oh so abundantly and over and over meeting all of our needs.
How much do we need forgiveness? How much gospel do we need? How much grace can we have? How much building of our faith is enough? God just pours out his grace to us again and again and just because he does a thing more than once, does not in any way mean that the previous was less than enough. Your baptism was enough, but he gives you more. His absolution is enough, but he gives you still more. His supper is enough and even though you don’t deserve it, He gives you yet more.
He does this because he loves you so and you are his child and he knows just exactly what you need – and he gave it to you in your baptism, he gives it to you again in absolution and he’ll continue giving it to you in his supper. In this way, you are forgiven. You can know you are forgiven. And when you sin and are terrified, you can be forgiven again – each time with the words of the gospel administered to you for the forgiveness of sins and the strengthening of your faith unto life everlasting.
So in a sense, the Lord’s Supper adds nothing to your union with Christ through faith and baptism. But God knows how frail our faith is, so he keeps giving us the same gift – Christ, and with him forgiveness, life and salvation – over and over again.
LikeLike
“Is there union with Christ apart from the sacraments of a denomination?â€
This is the key to the question, but then you have to deal with ecclesial theology as well. To a Roman Catholic, there is no full union with Christ apart from The Church (them) and the sacraments. Same for the Orthodox who, in turn, deny RCs as being part of The Church.
You’ve got a completely different definition of ‘Church’ here from the Protestant definition. Church is nothing to do with ‘a fellowship of true believers’; it *is* tied up with the sacraments and the priesthood. I would use the words ‘it’s tied up with the institution’ but neither the RC Church or the Orthodox Church would see themselves as ‘an institution’ or ‘a denomination’; they simply see themselves as The Church. Of course, since Vatican II, the RC officially offers to Protestants the recognition that we are separated brethren.
My own theology: “Here our humblest homage pay we,Here in loving reverence bow; Here for faith’s discernment pray, Lest we fail to know thee now. Alleluia! thou art here, we ask not how.” (Charles Wesley)
LikeLike
Scott M has really touched upon something major here – why do some wish to confine the interpretation of the sacraments to a view alien to not only the majority of the history of the church, but to a key interpretation of the issue in the scriptures itself?
Yes, we can speak of communion as a ‘remembrance’ and as a ‘proclamation’ if we wish, but does that really constitute and conclude all the goes on?
Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 10 about how the Children of Israel, whilst in the wilderness were ‘baptized into Moses’ and drank from the waters of the spiritual rock that ‘was Christ’. These things, he states were so to deter us from evil, to flee from mis-use of life, that we might truly participate in the blessing of the bread and the wine, the body and the blood.
I’ve attended all manner of churches in my life, with all kinds of ideas about this, but it seems that Paul and Jesus Himself are taking about something more than just bringing something to mind – isn’t that something we do anyway every time we ‘preach’ Christ and Him Crucified?
I had an opportunity some years ago to chat with the late Colin Gunton about this, and he was convinced that we had certainly missed something of the richness and significance of this event in the manner we approached and interpreted the matter.
My own view is that the manner of rationalism inherent to the Zwinglian manner of reform has borrowed heavily from the taint of ill-defined (erroneous)teaching regarding negating creation that has wounded the church from it’s earliest days, and thereby dislocating us from the manner of connection between Christ and Creation clearly expressed in the communion services of the first century. The tragedy, of course, is that it is often the potential richness of our fellowship which suffers – perhaps why we so often have a rushing in of other, more dualistic ‘blessings’ and practices to seek to breach the void.
LikeLike
“All Christians are united with Christ by the sovereign, gracious work of God himself.”
I want to know what verses this is based on so that I can know what is really being spoken of here. I suspect you mean something other than baptism.
“All the benefits of salvation come to us because of union with Christ.”
This is like saying all the benefits of hospitality come from the generosity of your host. So when your host said ‘Welcome to my house!’, you figured there was nothing more to receive. No swimming in the pool. No eating a fine meal. No smoking a cigar. For what hospitality could you find in the pool, the meal, or the cigar that was not to be had in the welcome?
“So how does union with Christ relate to your understanding of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?”
I would rather start from the other side. I was first united to Christ when I was baptized into his death on Christmas Day in 1966. I believe I also feed on him by faith throughout my life, hearing His Word and believing it. And I believe that in the Supper, when we break the bread, I am one body with those who partake of the one bread, for we all partake of the one bread. But if they deny the identity of the bread with Christ, I don’t know what that does. I still think they are baptized into him, and cling to Him by faith.
A friend of mine took his small children to church. When he received communion, his son asked, “Daddy what you have?” The father realized that his children instinctively asked the right question. They don’t ask questions about the sacrament as a whole, its benefits, its meaning. They ask what is in your hands. When you answer that rightly, you don’t run into a problem with union with Christ. (And how would a child formulate that as a problem?)
LikeLike
Michael:
The greatest argument I have for the sacraments is that protestantism sinks into transcendentalism without them. Jesus becomes a prisoner of the valhalla of heaven. He cannot be touched except through mental pictures, or some esoteric transport. The material world, including human senses, become unfit for Him to use. Certainly He cannot condescend to reach us from heaven. Our only hope is to find ladders to climb up to Him. It all starts to sound like gnosticism.
I recommend the following post by Peter Leithart entitled “Blame it on Marburg: Why Protetants Can’t Write”. He explains how a lack of a sacramental world view affects the way we view material life – especially art.
http://www.credenda.org/issues/18-2liturgia.php
Paul Tillich had similiar views. I wish I was finished digesting his view of religious symbols, because it might provide a bridge between a Lutheran/sacramental view and a Zwinglian/Calvinist view.
It has always puzzled me why most protestants can only see communion as mere bread and juice, but put red and white stripes on a piece of cloth, add a little blue and a few stars, and that mere piece of cloth takes on mystical characteristics – even for the most iconoclastic protestants! That mere piece of cloth takes on the very honor, power, and name of the entire nation. Any soiling of that cloth is viewed as desecration of the nation itself. Proper disposal of that piece of cloth resembles a liturgical rite. Amazing.
There is one view which still challenges me, and that is the one of the Quakers: that life itself is sacramental, comprised of an infinite number of sacramental moments. Jean-Pierre De Caussade stated a very similar view in “The Sacrament of this Present Moment”, but for him such a view was still dependent upon the sacraments provided through the church.
I think there is plenty of room for discussion, and I appreciate that you make room for it here.
LikeLike
For me as a Lutheran, I receive the bread and wine as well as Christ’s actual Body and Blood in,with and under the bread and wine for the foregiveness of sins.
LikeLike
>Since we will all be raised in Christ, is there some benefit in the Lord’s Supper that makes for a better resurrection?
No. But, spending one’s entire life in a quest to be more vitally connected to Christ will not warrant a “better resurrection” either. However, I think that being vitally connect to Christ does, in some way, bring me closer to Him. (Or maybe removes self-constructed barriers between myself and Him).
I guess whether the LS or Eucharist gets you closer to Christ depends on your understanding of grace. If you think that grace brings you closer to God, and you obtain grace through sacraments, then the LS/Eucharist brings you closer to God.
I don’t know where I stand yet. All I know is that it’s hard to see how someone can absolutely believe their denominational view is correct to the exclusion of all others. When looking at it objectively, there are good arguments for various interpretations of John 6.
LikeLike
I’m Pentecostal, and a lot of us Pentecostals believe we have more of the Holy Spirit than other churches do. I’m not one of them… that is, I’m trying not to be one of them.
Theologically, I understand that the Spirit indwells, inspires, and directs every believer in Christ Jesus. It’s just that Pentecostals feel we follow that direction more so than other Christians, or that we expect the supernatural to be a normative part of the Christian life whereas other Christians don’t.
Now, that’s not entirely fair, because lots of Christians follow the Spirit’s leading all the time, or at least follow what the Spirit says through the scriptures. One doesn’t have to speak in tongues in order to have an intense personal relationship with God. One does have to humbly repent, though. I’ve known lots of non-charismatic Christians who are much further in God (because of this humility) than many Pentecostals who figure—wrongly—that their tongues-speaking covers a multitude of sins. It most definitely doesn’t.
How this connects to the sacraments is in this way: If you’ve just seen God do something during your church service, you recognize the communion ritual is not purely academic or intellectual. We don’t just remember what Jesus did for us 1,975 years ago. We also recognize that He’s still doing stuff among us; that He’s in the room right now, ’cause we just saw Him do something in it. It might not be the “real presence” some churches talk about, but by golly it feels real.
(Not that the feeling is valid, ’cause you can manufacture that feeling artificially with some really good bass guitar. As I said, it’s ’cause we just saw Him do something. Someone got saved, forgiven, healed, a message, or were otherwise ministered to.)
However, the union with Him is more in that He’s personally present in our service, rather than that He’s somehow physically present within our matzo and juice. Or at least that’s our church’s theology. Our union to Christ doesn’t come from a regular ritual, but from a developing relationship. The ritual reflects the relationship, which is why we do it; but it was never meant to take the place of it.
LikeLike
Michael,
I think you may have missed my question. Yes, I know I don’t have access to kiss you wife. And I wouldn’t dare try to take it. But as a member of Christ, I am united not only to Christ Himself, but to all His Church. So, what is the difference between the union I share with your wife, and the union you do? Yes, I agree yours is greater than mine, and no I wouldn’t dare steal that from you. But in what way is it greater?
Or perhaps I should ask, “given that you are fully united to your wife through Christ, and in Christ enjoy all of her, how is kissing her an addition? What benefit do you derive from kissing her?”
The answer to those questions is the answer I give to yours. Had Christ not given the Eucharist, we would have the sort of relationship with Christ you, by virtue of your mutual union in Christ and His Spirit, would have with your wife if you never kissed her. And when we receive the Eucharist, all baptized Christians have the sort of union with Christ you have with your wife when you kiss her.
LikeLike
>All sides of this question cite and interpret John 6, as you certainly know.
I don’t. I don’t think John 6 has anything at all to do with the Lord’s Supper or the real presence in same.
From the context of the passage, I believe it is utterly clear that the eating and drinking is faith. Otherwise it would contradict John 3.
LikeLike
>What about those to whom the properly ordered
>denominational sacraments are not available?
>I’d like to hear it put simply: Is there union with
>Christ apart from the sacraments of a denomination?
To simply answer: Yes, for union with Christ is brought about by the Holy Spirit, when He converts the sinner and grants him the gift of faith in Christ.
I would put it back to you this way, however: Once you have been so converted, do you then lay aside all that God gives to you in His Word and Sacraments as of no further benefit? Your question could just as well be asked about the Gospel itself. What further benefit do you get from the Gospel, that you do not already get from your union with Christ?
Discussing the real presence in this connection as beside the point in the end if we do not first understand the function of the Gospel. It is through the Gospel that the Holy Ghost creates _and sustains_ our faith.
However, I am confused by your distinction “the sacraments of a denomination”. I know of no such thing. I’m not trying to play games. The Lord’s Supper which I celebrate every Sunday and feast day is not the sacrament of my denomination. It is Christ’s. He instituted it. It does not become valid because I or any other man perform it, or because any denomination authorizes it. It is valid because Jesus Himself instituted it, and wherever it is celebrated according to His institution, it is His Sacrament, whatever the “denomination”.
What is a Sacrament in the end? It is the Word of God in a visible form. To say, “What do I get from the Sacrament that I don’t already get from union with Christ?” is like saying, “What do I get from food and water that I don’t already get from life itself?”
I am probably not understanding your question in the end, I fear. If the question is “what difference does the real presence make” I can answer this way: It matters because it is that part which particularly assures the sinner that He is forgiven. And it is that cogent and continuous assurance that keeps him in the faith and joined to Christ.
All parsing of verbs aside (as if any single word of the Scriptures could be insignificant . . .) if one, as a premise, denies the real presence, his entire understanding of the sacrament must by definition be utterly different than one who believes it. Further, considering the real presence as a possibility only in so far as one can fit it into a philosophy of Christianity, would, I fear, saddle one’s faith to his reason, rather than to the revealed Word of God which will always be an offense to reason. Reason cannot comprehend the union with Christ. Christ is beyond reason. Nevertheless, reason has its ministerial use when disciplined by the Word of God, which sets the boundaries beyond which reason cannot go.
LikeLike
Hmmm.. After reading Bror’s comments, and my friend Rick Ritchie’s comments on a previous post, I may need to modify my reply slightly. But I need to think about it first.
Imagine for a moment that the Lutheran(or other sacramental churches’) view were true beyond a shadow of a doubt. How would that affect your faith? What would that mean personally to you? What kind of comfort would you experience?
LikeLike
Hmmm.. After reading Bror’s comments, and my friend Rick Ritchie’s comments on a previous post, I may need to modify my reply slightly.
Imagine for a moment that the Lutheran(or other sacramental churches’) view were true beyond a shadow of a doubt. How would that affect your faith? What would that mean personally to you? What kind of comfort would you experience?
LikeLike
You ask the question that Baptists have asked for years, and that has yet to be sufficiently answered. Personally, I “feel” that Christ is present in a special way during the Lord’s Supper, but I’m not so sure that this is not just merely my coming into line with the divine mind during the experience whereas I’m more often simply not consciously aware of my union with Christ at most times.
LikeLike
Well, here we go. I’ve actually read all the comments and decided I wanted to chime in. I am Catholic, just so everyone knows. Your question, Michael, about union with Christ and how that relates to more or less “union” available in the Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist, is a very interesting one. It deserves being asked and thought about.
The whole idea of union with Christ is, for me, the center of Christianity. I think the concept is often talked about too simplistically. Some Christians don’t talk about it at all. Their notion of what a Christian is has more to do with an external statement of faith or merely an assent to a catalog of beliefs. They have no theology of union, of a mingling of Life and life. This is unfortunate. I certainly wouldn’t say this makes them not genuinely Christian. It may hinder their ability to tap into certain aspects of our union with God in Christ.
Another thing that might make this discussion a little more difficult between those of different traditions is this: thinking of union as either an either-or situation or one in which a person is initially connected and then grows, progressively, in a deeper and deeper union with God in and through Christ and the action of His Holy Spirit. It seems, at least as I can see here, that your view, Michael, seems to tend toward the either-or – either you’re in union or not. I can understand your philosophical difficulty if this is your view.
If, on the other hand, you think more in my neighborhood – that there is, yes, an initial connection (justification, union) but there is then a growing union with God, a progressive union. In this view, we may well be connected to God but our union with Him is not yet complete. A lot of things can and do contribute to this growing union. Sacraments are some of the chief ways we can tap into the fullness of God’s Life (God’s Grace – the actual “stuff” of Grace). And the Eucharist is the prima Sacrament I suppose, in which we are given an opportunity to tap into (I like to say it like that) the ever-flowing river of His sacrificial Grace in the heavenly dimension.
Can one be in union with Christ, as you are talking about it, be a Christian, be born from above, belong to God, be “in Christ” without ever receiving the Eucharist as Sacrament? Yes. Are there many ways (in my view of progressive union) that Christians can deepen or increase their union with God in Christ? Again, yes and this gets to this business about having “more of Christ.” It’s not really about someone saying, “nya nya, we’ve got more Christ than yoooouu dooo” – I hope it’s not. It’s about a certain view of a growing union with Him that produces real transformation of our being.
And it’s not just mechanical; i.e., you go up and receive Communion and boom, you’re more unified. The proverbial Sacramental “wormhole” may have been opened up but your inward, participatory faith is a key element in how efficacious this Sacrament is for you. It’s much like “mixing faith” with the hearing of or reading of the Scriptures – faith mixed and change happens – faith not mixed and you have heard words but they don’t do much.
So, if you have an understanding of our union with God as growing and progressive then there’s really no disconnect with the idea that a Sacrament like the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper could be a conduit for increasing or deepening that union. I went around the bush a little there explaining how I think about this. Hope that adds something helpful to the mix. Peace.
LikeLike
My wife is not the head of the church. Your union with the members of the body of Christ gurantees nothing to you. Christ on the other hand is the head of the one body the one church and gives all benefits to all those who are in union with him.
Kissing my wife is a benefit I derive, but the rest of the church isn’t entitled to that benefit.
All Christians receive all benefits of being one in Christ.
For example, since we will all be raised in Christ, is there some benefit in the Lord’s Supper that makes for a better resurrection?
LikeLike
Michael
First, I think that Christ is physically present even when baptists celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Christ’s presence in the Supper is objective. There is an ontological change in the Bread. Everyone who partakes of the Bread has full access to Christ, and is united to Christ through that partaking. But not everyone knows that’s what’s going on.
Second, it seems to deal with works righteousness to me. If our union with Christ in the Lord’s Supper is based on our thinking of Christ, it is a work we do. Our union with Christ is based on our action, our thoughts, our ability to bring Christ down from heaven into our imagination. But if Christ is, by His free choice, physically and objectively present before us, it doesn’t depend on us, and so isn’t a work. The objective physical presence of Christ is what guarantees that no matter how we see the Sacrament, we all have the same access to Christ in it.
Along a slightly different train of thought, in a very real sense, I think that our union with Christ is our partaking the Supper. Holding your wife’s hand isn’t distinct from your union with her, it in a real sense is (or is a part of) your union with her. I am a physical person. Christ is a physical person. My union with Him is physical.
But I think the easiest way to get at my understanding is as follows:
St. Paul says that he is absent in the flesh, but united in the Spirit to the Colossians. Because of his union in Christ, St. Paul was united to the Colossians. Similarly, by your union with your Christ you are united to your wife.
So my question is could you explain how your wife’s person and benefits are present to you in a different way when you kiss her than they are to me by virtue of our union in Christ?
LikeLike
I’m probably not smart enough to answer your question but I have explored it as I recently left the SBC’s quarterly symbol for the AMiA’s weekly sacrament. Not physical, but spiritual, or as Allen Ross puts it in Recalling the Hope of Glory, seeing the bread and wine as more than just part of a meal.
As for union with Christ: Personally, like Mephibosheth, I hobble by invitation to the king’s table for fellowship and nourishment. Corporately, though, I do not know what happens between the Creed and the table that would cause some believers to exclude others.
LikeLike
Michael,
I’ve wondered this. I have a more “spiritual presence” view of the Lord’s Supper, but I work in a church that sees it as (only) a memorial. If most people in my church see it as a memorial, are they missing out on the spiritual presence every week? If so, why?
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Lutherans are right and the bread and wine are “really” the body and blood. If a Baptist has an errant view of the LS and partakes as a memorial, does he forfeit the spiritual union? If so, on what basis? Aren’t they being faithful by partaking, even if they misunderstand the ritual? What is the Lutheran doing that the Baptist isn’t? Will God reward the Lutheran because he is “smarter”?
I’ve never been to a Lutheran church. Is there a kind of blessing on the elements in the same way that there is at a RC church? If so, is that when the elements consubstantiate? If so, what is involved in the “blessing,” and how does the “blessing” consubstantiate the elements?
LikeLike
Refocus please, folks. The question is about union with Christ.
I have no problem with anyone’s sacramental theology of how they believe Christ is present in the LS.
The problem, as stated well by JS Bangs above, is that some have the real presence of Christ and some do not. Since all are in union with Christ, all are mediated by Christ, all are “in” Christ, all are given the fullness of the Spirit in Christ, etc…..my issue is with those who say other Christians have LESS Christ than they do.
In other words, it’s the quantification and localization in the cause of exclusion that I can’t (and won’t) agree to.
LikeLike
Brad:
>If you can’t understand how Christ can be both “everywhere present” and the one who “fillest all things” while also being bodily present in his flesh and in his blood…
Not sure who you are talking to since you didn’t preface the comment.
I do not have the dilemma you are positing. (Assuming you were speaking to me.)
But I also don’t have the dilemma of saying that two persons in union with Christ have different accesses to Christ based on their view of the sacrament.
If I thought God differentiated in the benefits of union with Christ based on one’s belief about the theology of the LS, I’d abandon ship. That’s just me. A God who discriminates based on what I believe about the mechanics of “how” the ascended Christ is “present” is no God I could approach with confidence.
But that’s my problem.
peace
MS
LikeLike
If you can’t understand how Christ can be both “everywhere present” and the one who “fillest all things” while also being bodily present in his flesh and in his blood, then how can you accept the incarnation itself? For in the incarnation Christ is both God and man. He’s both everywhere and in this place and that. The RC and EO view, et al, is much more consistent incarnationally concerning the Eucharist than your position.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, here’s my two cents.
I’d agree with Caine that the strongest clue to the truth of the Eucharist is found in 1 Cor. 11:26, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”
But I disagree with Caine’s emphasis on the word “death.” I think the emphasis, and the key to the truth of the passage, should be on the larger phrase “proclaim the Lord’s death.”
What are we doing during Holy Communion? We are “proclaiming” something. It is a speech-act in reverse.
And what are we proclaiming? We are proclaiming “the Lord’s death.” The Lord’s death. Get it? We are proclaiming that a young peasant Jew, executed by the Roman authorities, is Lord. In other words, we are proclaiming the gospel, folly to Greeks and a scandal to Jews.
And we’re doing so “until He comes,” when there will no longer be a need to proclaim anything, because then every knee will bow and every tongue confess that that young peasant Jew, executed by the Roman authorities, is Lord.
That’s how I see it. I think that’s how Paul saw it, too.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi Shahinian
Parables of a Prodigal World
LikeLike
This issue seems to me to be in the same vein as “second blessing” theology, or dogmatic Calvinism, or even Keswick theology. Is there really something more that some Christians know or receive because they “think” about some aspect of Christian experience differently than I do? Does God withhold some of His blessing based on “insider information” that I don’t have? Is my faith in Jesus somehow deficient because I go to the wrong kind of church? Do sacramentalists really believe they somehow receive more of Jesus in the bread and the wine (or juice) than I do simply because they believe they do? I have a really hard time not feeling that any of that kind of teaching borders on theological arrogance. It is just one more “I am of whatever” thing to divide the body.
This may not be an answer, and I apologize if it is off-topic somehow, but Ephesians 1:3-14 always centers me when I hear doctrines that seem more divisive than unifying. I think what Paul is saying is that we have EVERYTHING we will ever have, and we have it NOW, if we are “in Christ.” If we have come to Jesus in faith (1:1), then we are “chosen” (3-6), “redeemed” (7-12), and “sealed” (13-14) in Him. It is all and already done. Nothing can be added or taken away from that. We can grow and mature in our understanding of what we have “in him” (15-23), but God left nothing out of the “spiritual blessings” that came to us at salvation.
In the Holy Spirit, I in union with Jesus Christ and have every spiritual blessing God intended for me to have. The only thing preventing me from experiencing those blessings is whether or not I am “presenting” myself to God as an instrument of righteousness (Romans 6:12-14)–yielding myself to him, resisting the world, and being transformed by his truth (Romans 12:1-2). The spiritual blessings are all there all the time “in Jesus”–I just have to get out of the way to let God live through me. I never have less of Christ, and I can never get more of Him. I can only mature so there is less of me in the way.
LikeLike
Michael,
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is like that of Baptism. As long as its done according to the scriptures(in the Triune Name, adhereing to the Words of Institution, etc.) it is a true baptism or Lord’s Supper. The difference is in the comfort, assurance and strenght that is received by the believer because of what is taught.To those of us in Sacramental churches there is little comfort in a symbolic washing that demonstates or witnesses to our committment to follow the Lord. Likewise mere bread and wine (or grape juice) as a token of OUR remembrance of Him places the burden on us and the strength of our remembering. The scriptures teach that the Sacraments are much more rich and beneficial than what the above two views teach. Technically the symbolic view is also true, but it doesn’t go far enough or say all the truth concerning God’s work through these means of grace. The realization that God is actually ministering to me through His promise in baptism forgiving my sins, and offering me His own body and blood for the forgiveness of sins and the upbuilding of my faith has a huge impact on your faith and daily walk, especially when you are suffering or despairing. The symbolic views are unable to deliver this, not because the sacraments are false, but because the substance and benefits are denied by those who hold to these views, and thus the believer remains unaware.
Union with Christ is always through faith created by the Word. So those who deny baptismal regeneration and the “real presence” are still united to Christ through the power of His word. Someone might then say “If we are united with Christ in the same way, what difference do the Sacraments make?” This is not the way of faith to speak like this. Fist, I would argue that the scriptures teach “the real presence”(I know you hate that term, but I use it as a shorthand way of speaking-please don’t read it through the”we have it and you don’t” lens, its not meant that way.)and baptismal regeneration. Second, given the difficulty of the Christian life this side of the New Creation, why deny yourself and others the comfort, encouragement and strength of the sacraments by what is an impoverished and incomplete view of them? Denial of Sacramental doctrine only hurts those who hold it, not because it changes the Sacraments into “non-Sacraments” but it effectually prevents them from realizing their true benefits.
Finally, given my sinful condition, I need every opportunity, whether by the Word prached or read, by taking communion, or going to Confession and Absolution, to have my faith strengthened and to be encouraged by God’s grace. I don’t want to miss out on any of God’s gracious provision for me.
LikeLike
Michael,
The sacraments do not belong to any one denomination. Christ gave them to the church. In so far as a particular denomination has them it is part of Christ’s Church. But insofar as they don’t have them they are not church. Christ’s Church listens to Christ and uses the sacraments accordingly.
But don’t pit Christ’s gifts off one another. The benefits we receive in the Lord’s Supper are received by faith, as are all the benefits given to Christians are received by faith. However, we as Lutherans believe that even those who do not believe Christ’s word’s were they to commune at our Churches receive Christ’s body and blood, they just don’t receive the benefits, rather judgment, as Paul is so keen to tell us in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians. Which is the main reason we practice closed communion.
The benefits we receive are forgiveness of sins, life and salvation. By and large, the same benefits we receive by faith when we hear the Gospel, and when we are baptized. But like in baptism we receive these gifts in a tangible manner in the Lord’s Supper. We aren’t left naval gazing to see if we have believed enough, or not. We aren’t left with any cloud of doubt the devil might plague us with after a prayer in which we have asked God to forgive our sins. We are left with the sure and certain promise of Christ, and we have banquated with God, at the feast of forgiveness he provided us with at His Son’s sacrifice of the ultimate Paschal lamb. We have drunk the life of Christ, and received his Holiness. Our sins have been forgiven.
LikeLike
I’ve only been a member of a Baptist church, and that for only a decade and a half or so, though my intersection with many expressions of Christianity (and non-Christian spiritualities and religions) growing up was pretty broad. However, I have long been interested in history, especially ancient history, and the claims of a faith rooted intimately in historical claims for two thousand years naturally led me to explore them.
I can find no evidence that anyone even vaguely within the realm of orthodox Christian belief ever believed that the Eucharist was simply a memorial, as Baptists teach, until Zwingli roughly 400 years ago. Even today, that’s a distinctly minority perspective. If I have decided to make the Christian story my own story, I find it difficult and somewhat arrogant to hold that the overwhelming majority of believers, many of them martyrs, misunderstood this central aspect of Christian worship which we enlightened few have finally gotten right. That’s really the flip side, Michael.
On the infrequent times they celebrate the “Lord’s Supper”, my Church typically reads from 1 Corinthians. Yet I find they always skip the part where Paul tells them their abuse of the Eucharist is why some of them are sick and others have fallen asleep. I don’t see that it’s the responsibility of those who hold a view of the Eucharist which is consistently held (though details vary) from the apostolic age to the present to justify their perspective to those who hold a schismatic view which is only four centuries old.
There is something out of proportion with that idea.
LikeLike
I believe there is union with Christ (for believers) apart from the sacraments of a denomination.
But I also believe that we should receive the sacrament because Christ commanded that we do so.
He never commanded us to do anything where He would not be present, therefore…He is there. And when He is there He is not just twiddling His thumbs…He is doing something…for us… to us. In the Supper we receive the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.
He gives us this tangible way that we can know (touch, smell, taste)that He is there, so we won’t have to muster up some sort of ethereal spirituality (feelings that cannot be trusted)to know that we really belong to Him.
Thanks!
– Steve
LikeLike
>Baptists, Evangelicals, and other non-sacrmental Christians really are missing out on something.
JS: Thanks for the honesty. Few Christians will be consistent and say that there’s more of God available in their communion.
As long as I’m missing out on something and not someone, it’s of no concern to me.
And for the record, I believe in an entire universe of sacramental reality, as do millions of other Christians.”
Try Promise and Presence by John E. Colwell, a robust sacramental theology for the rest of us.
LikeLike
Hoo boy, you don’t ask the easy ones, do you? Here is my best answer/meditation on your question, “How does union with Christ relate to your understanding of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?”
First, I agree somewhat with the columnist Spengler at Asia Times, that we come to salvation as individuals. Therefore, at that moment my “union with Christ” is as an individual. However, once I make that unity, I find I am in community, a New Israel, part of the Body of Christ. Therefore the emphasis of the Sacraments is to embrace me in that new community; in a union with Christ that is plural rather than singular.
Baptism, represents that transition. I “die” to my old community–as an individual–and am raised to live in a New Community–again as an individual. (This may be a Baptistic view, but don’t even Paedo-Baptists baptize their individual children?)
However, after that point the sacraments move me in community. I hear the words of Christ in community, led by a preacher and evaluated as a congregation. In this instance, the sacrament of the “Word” represents “Life” to me. Indeed, it gives me “life.” Witness Peter’s words to Christ, “Lord, who will we go to? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68)
However, the baptism unites me not to life, but to death–the death of the Lord. “26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” (I Cor 11:26).
So my unity in the Supper is my unity with my Lord as a community–lost admittedly a bit when it is not a communal meal. It is also my unity with Christ that emphasizes the sacrifice of his death and reminds me that my own death and indeed all of our deaths somehow share in His own. His Word emphasizes Life, and that my Life and all of our lives will also share in his own Life.
Best I can do.
LikeLike
There is union with Christ in Baptism, which isn’t restricted to a particular communion except by a very few (Campbellites and some splinter Catholic and Orthodox groups, I think).
But aside from that, I don’t drink the inclusivity kool-aid. Baptists, Evangelicals, and other non-sacrmental Christians really are missing out on something. Who does have a valid Eucharist is a thorny question that I’m not even going to try to answer here.
(I said I don’t want to have a big argument, so I’m done now.)
LikeLike
What the “early Christians” believed is immaterial. The embryonic church had many superstituous beliefs, some of which they carried over from Moses.
“Is there union with Christ apart from the sacraments of a denomination?”
That is the ONLY way to have union with Christ. A more piercing question is:
Is there union with Christ WITHIN the “sacraments” of a denomination?
The answer is still of course. Grace covers all kinds of different and unbiblical beliefs about how people commune and interact with their Savior. The only substantive teaching that Paul rebuked in serious terms was salvation by works. That, he says in Galations, can separate one from Christ.
The Lord’s Supper is a New Testament feast that cannot add to an already perfect grace imputed to the believer. But it is still glorious and should be observed at least weekly!
LikeLike
imonk, I would never want to be in a Church that you are not part of. I know that God gives grace to whomever and however he sees fit, but here’s my experience for what it’s worth.
I became a Christian and a RC about 8 years ago. I was amazed when I studied the RC doctrine on the “real presenceâ€. I had grown up in a Catholic town around Catholic friends my whole life, but no one ever told me the big secret (you actually believe that’s Jesus in that little cracker!). I fell in love with all the Catholic moral teachings and realized something beautiful that I could build a life and a family on, so I made a public profession and acceptance of the faith. First Communion and first confession (though painful) were beautiful emotional moments for me. They set me on a path of studying scripture and theology that I hope never ends.
But something unexpected happened a few years ago. I actually stopped trying to understand, explain, and wonder how I should feel about the Eucharist; and He actually gave me the grace to believe in it. Over the years of reading scripture, praying, sinning, marriage, joy, sinning, kids, pain, sinning, laughing, crying, (did I mention sinning), I have experienced the sacraments in a way that uniquely changed and strengthen who I am. I don’t always feel a certain way about receiving communion, but it is not a crutch or an empty ritual. When I celebrate Eucharist I know that I was created by God for a reason, and I know that I am part of something REAL that is much bigger than me.
LikeLike
What about those to whom the properly ordered denominational sacraments are not available?
Are they in union with Christ?
Is it less union than those with the properly ordered denominational sacraments enjoy?
All sides of this question cite and interpret John 6, as you certainly know.
I’d like to hear it put simply: Is there union with Christ apart from the sacraments of a denomination?
LikeLike
Martin:
I refuse to believe that the parsing of a verb determines whether Jesus is really present to me or not.
And I would join you in saying that as I look at the table, I say “The body and blood of Christ, given for me” because in the supper Jesus says in the super we remember and participate in the same.
peace
MS
LikeLike
I locate the significance of the Eucharist in the first part of your formula. The Eucharist doesn’t add something not found in our union with Christ: it creates our union with Christ, along with Baptism and the other sacraments. If by “the sovereign, gracious work of God himself” you mean to exclude sacramental action, then that’s the point of disagreement. But I could agree with your first bolded paragraph if we understood that the sacraments are God’s gracious work.
I’m not really interested in getting into a long argument about this right now. So instead I’ll just throw out John 6:53-57 as evidence for this view:
“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.”
LikeLike
For me, the Lord’s supper is a physical remembrance of a once-for-all work. It acknowledges an already present spiritual reality and communion. I don’t believe Jesus is any more present at communion than he is at any other time in my life.
I am united with Christ through his death by faith and communion is an illustrative expression of His death. I do it in remembrance of Him. I do it to proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. It is both an act of obedience and an expression of my thanks for his sacrifice.
LikeLike
They are not different benefits in the Sacrament, nor is it a different body and blood. It is the same body and blood which is preached in the Gospel. It is the same benefits which Christ gives to those who believe on Him which is declared in John 3:16.
Jesus, in instituting the Sacrament, said, “This is my body, which is given for you. … This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for you.” The key being “given for you” and “shed for you”. That is the Sacrament. It’s not the presence itself. That is a wondrous miracle, but it is not, of itself, anything more than a miracle, if it did not have the words “for you” attached to it.
It is here that the Papacy makes a mockery of the Sacrament. For them, it is nothing but the body and blood of Christ, stripped of all comfort. It is a mystical experience, but an empty one, for the certain knowledge and faith that their sins are forgiven, entirely and completely, by this body and this blood, is robbed from them.
Here is the great treasure of the Sacrament: That here, in the bread and wine, is the very body and blood which Jesus gave on the cross for me. Here, in the bread and wine, He personally gives them to me, to show that, yes, even for me, for my sins, His body was given and His blood shed. Here is the proof. I cannot deny it. It’s right there. The Sacrament is absolution. It is Jesus Himself saying, “Be of good cheer, for I forgive you all your sins.”
Taking your question a bit further, you could just as well ask, “Why do you need the Gospel of Mark, when you already have the Gospel of Matthew? If you didn’t have Mark, could you still believe and be saved? What do you get in Mark, that you do not already get in Matthew?
Perhaps the difficulty, Michael, is that because you do not believe that the words “is” means “is” (this is an assumption on my part – forgive me if I have assumed wrongly), you likewise do not find there to be any real comfort to be had, anything cogent to be gained.
But there is something else here as well, that I have been hearing again and again lately. The idea that the union with Christ is the source of all that we receive from God, rather than the consequence. In other words, that we are justified because we are united to Christ. This, I believe, is the fountainhead of your grappling with the doctrine of the real presence.
I do not believe this at all. Justification, and all else that comes from the grace of God, comes from His grace in Christ first. That is the first cause, and that is given to us even while we were yet sinners. It is an external fact that Christ is our Savior. It is true whether we believe it or not. By faith we appropriate what Christ already is, the grace that already exists, the declaration of righteousness that has already been pronounced. That is why the Scriptures do not say, “Being united to Christ, we are justified.” They say rather, “A man is justified by faith.” Even those who reject Jesus, were already bought and paid for by His blood. Yes, Jesus even made atonement for the sins of the damned in hell – though in vain, for refusing His atonement, they bear the wrath that is due their sins. If it were not so that the atonement of Christ is both universal and external to us, we could never be certain that our sins were also forgiven.
I do not deny the mystical union of the Body of Christ. It is a treasure to me. But it is a consequence of the grace which God gave me while I was yet a sinner.
His Supper confirms that grace to me every time I receive it. I may, in my heart, tell myself that “When Jesus said that – he couldn’t mean me because of this or that that I have done.” But in the Sacrament, there is Jesus saying, “This is my body and blood, given and shed for your sins.” How can I deny that?
LikeLike
I’m the guy who prepares the Communion for our Bible Church. I’ve been filling up those little plastic cups and crumbling the matzo bread for some 30 years! And I’m glad to do it.
A few years ago I began to read early Christian writers like Ignatius, Justin Martyr and others. I just can’t deny that these people believed that this sacrament involved the actual body and blood. I would also suppose that Ignatius certainly would have picked this up from the Apostle John himself.
At any rate, every so often I go to an Episcopalian service, and the Eucharist is so much more powerful to me than the way we do it (I know Catholics don’t believe Episcopalians are doing the real thing). I definitely feel more united with Christ than with a symbolic remembrance type service. However, both practices are good; and at the risk of being vague, they basically represent two different kinds of spirituality.
LikeLike