A Theological Announcement….Sort of

150 thoughts on “A Theological Announcement….Sort of”

1. question for I monk that is only slightly (I hope! ) off thread:

   My understanding is that Lutherans are the only christian sect that believes that faith is planted in the heart by baptism, ie, that babies a few days old, are given faith in baptism. I don´t think that roman catholics believe this or anglicans or anyone else so far as I can tell…. is this your understanding as well? I have be curious about this for a while. Are Lutherans truly outliers on this point?

   This is how Lutherans understand the Nicean Creed btw where it says “one baptism for the remission of sins”. remission of sins could not happen in baptism (following Lutheran thinking) without water baptism being identical to spirit baptism and so the holy spirit working through the word connected to the water and actually effecting the new birth and creation of faith in the heart.

   LikeLike

2. my understanding I monk, is that the anglicans were pretty lutheran in their understanding of baptism and the lords supper under cranmer, and the original 39 articles were meant to reflect this, but also provide some wiggle room to understanding things in other ways.

   LikeLike

3. Jerry a question for you:

   IF Jesus had really meant to say that the bread and wine at the last supper were really and truly and actually ALSO his body and blood, that very blood shed on the cross for the forgiveness of sins, how would the words where Jesus instituted the supper as quoted by st paul, need to be different to force you to understand what he said as being literal and not metaphorical?

   i would be very curious to know.

   LikeLike

4. A sizable portion of the scholarly community seems to believe that much, if not most, of the material attributed to Ignatius of Antioch consists of 4th and 5th century forgeries.

   LikeLike

5. Don’t you wish you could reply to them all. I take the traditional Protestant view of the Lords supper. As I read scripture, I make a habit of looking for patterns. I believe Jesus is/was God. He was also a teacher/rabbi and therefore taught in that vein. Jesus called himself a lion, lamb, rock, stone, gate, food, word, light, etc, when he was clearly not physically any of these. He calls us sheep ,if you are reading this and are actually a sheep please include this in your response and I will re-think my position. I understand that there is spiritual siginificance to the teaching that transcends the specific word he chooses, but come to the conclusion that his reference to his body and blood are just that, metaphores, that he uses throughout his teachings. Since you can easily find dozens of these representations in scripture, I struggle with sorting out this perticular one as literal.

   LikeLike

6. imonk,

   you should read some Richard Hooker…

   he gave us Anglicans the baseline understanding of eucharist…it’s a position that seeks to reframe the conversation away from zwingli types and transubs (RCC/anglo-catholics) on either pole.

   it was also a position articulated so that people would stop killing each other over this discussion…

   LikeLike

7. I define myself as Protestant Evangelical NOS, and have attended Australian Baptist Churches (and the occasional Church of Christ church) over the last 17 years.

   In recent times I have found myself craving more ceremony and even a little liturgy (shock horror). I find that in the historic evangelical revulsion to liturgy as a sign of corrupt episcopy, something has been lost. My church will happily acknowledge secular festivals such as Valentine’s Day, Father’s Day, Mother’s Day, etc and yet completely ignore Christian festivals and observances such as Advent, Palm Sunday and Lent.

   I have recently read “Ancient-Future Time” by the late Robert Webber and found it fascinating and inspiring. I have undertaken to personally observe traditional Christian festivals such as Advent, Epiphany and Lent in 2009/2010 and may even venture into Anglican lectionary and the Book of Common Prayer (gasp, shock, faint!).

   I have started blogging my experiences on my blog “Faith Interface”: http://www.faithinterface.com.au/books-im-reading/ancient-future-time-robert-e-webber

   LikeLike

8. Michael,

   There are a handful of Baptists who have been “rethinking” the traditional view of Baptists and the “sacraments’ – including, of course, the Lord’s supper. Historically speaking – based on the earliest Baptist confessions of faith – there is not just one Baptist view of the supper but many. Some early English Baptists viewed the Supper as a sacrament which had “regeneartive” power (akin to real presence) others expressed the contemporary “popular” Baptist view.

   Some of those Baptists who are revisiting the Lord’s Supper have abandoned the “popular” Baptist view – claiming that the sacramental view is the more faithfully “christian” view – nevermind whether it is “baptist” or not. These days I tend to agree with them. Moreover, given that there is – in the earliest Baptist confessions – no uniform confessional agreement as to the nature and theology of the Supper, to claim to be able to find the historical roots of the the Baptist view of the supper is a bit of a non sequitur.

   LikeLike

9. Amen.

   LikeLike

10. I found it very interesting that Sara Miles, who went on to write the book Take This Bread was not even a Christian when she, on impulse, walked into an Episcopalian church that was celebrating the Eucharist and she also took the bread and wine and had an spiritual “experience” that forever changed her life and enriched the lives of many around her.

    As important as I think it is to understand the Christian faith within whatever tradition we are in, I sometimes wish that Catholics priests would announce before Communion, “If you believe that this bread and this wine is truly the body and blood of our Lord Jesus and you wish to take up your cross and follow Jesus until you, too, are taken up in glory, then you are welcome to receive.” So, it would still have some guidelines in accordance with the warning that the Apostle Paul gave about people not knowing what they are doing when they receive the body and blood of Jesus, but it also welcomes all who wish to come forward with the belief that they are truly receiving Jesus.

    That’s just my thoughts on it. I will continue happily receiving Communion in the Catholic church anyway.

    LikeLike

11. Historically most Christians practice closed communion. Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Lutherans all practice closed communion according to their historic doctrine and practice. They do this because they have serious concerns that anyone communing with their church body be catechized properly. They have real theological and pastoral care concerns.

    Their theology is such that communion is NOT symbolic or even just “spiritual”. Generally speaking, only those who believe the body and blood are symbolic practice “open communion”; because after all, nothing is really going on with it anyway. But even Calvin, who understood communion “spiritually”, was very strict in his approach to the sacred meal.

    Again, real theological and pastoral care concerns are at the heart of this, and besides–it’s not your supper or mine, but the Lord’s. We are not at liberty to do with it as we wish.

    A pastor can’t tell if anyone is internally genuine or not, but he does know who has been catechized and have made a good confession in his flock. I would never demand the Sacrament at another denominations altar, because I know I believe differently than they do. In fact, I have been at wedddings where open communion was practiced but I took a pass (even though I was the only one), because they had a completely different confession. We can make no such demand upon pastors and congregations outside our individual confessions, nor should we.

    LikeLike

12. INternet Monk Commenting Rules

    10. What is the commenting policy at IM?

    Comments are welcome. Sometimes comments are held in moderation, but not most of the time.

    I moderate assertively. I delete comments that are irrelevant, too long, off topic, selling things, pimping blogs and especially those that reject the Christian profession of other posters.

    A primary commenting rule is to not engage in attempts to convert other Christians to your tradition or away from their own.

    If I announce a policy in a particular thread, I will moderate assertively according to that policy.

    Comments that denigrate the discussion itself or participants in the discussion will not be posted.

    You do not need to be obnoxious, mean or profane to be placed on moderation or banned. If your comments consistently are obstructive to the conversation, I will moderate accordingly.

    I have no problem banning commenters that offer no positive contribution to the discussion. I have a large audience and I moderate so they can have a civil discussion. I do not have any commitment to absolute free speech on my blog. I have worked hard for the success I have in this medium, and I do not share it or allow others to denigrate or manipulate it. You may participate, but I do not sponsor wars, slander, threats or pointless arguments.

    I’m not a perfect moderator, so if you want to accuse me of being hypocritical or inconsistent, I already agree with you and it doesn’t matter. You won’t win the comment war.

    LikeLike

13. Pr. Frahm:

    Your lengthy list of quotations was too long. Most of our readers are familiar with this material.

    ms

    LikeLike

14. Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. His Church is known by the teaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. His Words are powerful and do what they say. If we say of Jesus that He cannot deliver on what He says in the Holy Eucharist, then who do we think is speaking?

    Jesus is Lord and God in the flesh. He is the Word who became flesh and made His dwelling among us. This is foreshadowed to us in the burning bush which Moses saw. The two natures in Christ are not joined together simply like two boards glued together, but as a piece of iron placed into fire where the properties of the fire are communicated to the iron. Therefore what Jesus says is because He says so as the God-man. This is the same power that was evident in the creation of the world from nothing, simply by the Word of God going forth. The Word is joined to the bread and wine and it becomes the sacrament that is what Jesus says most clearly – even when I do not understand how – I can still confess from God’s Word what it is and simply say “Amen.” Transubstantiation is an error because it is a faulty philosophical attempt to explain how it happens. But traditional Lutheranism avoids that imposition of philosophy and simply sticks to the word of Jesus – this IS My body. The Lord God in the flesh says of the bread it is His body, and likewise of the blessed wine that it is His holy blood. So there is no gap between us and what has redeemed us. For we are not re-sacrificing Jesus as Rome says, but receiving the living, already-having-been sacrificed body and blood of Christ given for the forgiveness of sins. The Gnostic will say “yuck” and the rationalist will say “that’s impossible” – but the Church has always said “Amen” let it be unto me according to Thy Word, and we ponder these mysteries in the heart.

    This is the meaning of Revelation 3:20, which is not about conversion but the Eucharist which was being neglected in Laodicea.

    LikeLike

15. Luther quote:

    We treat of the forgiveness of sins in two ways. First, how it is achieved and won. Second, how it is distributed and given to us. Christ has achieved it on the cross, it is true. But he has not distributed or given it on the cross. He has not won it in the supper or sacrament. There he has distributed and given it through the Word, as also in the gospel, where it is preached. He has won it once for all on the cross. But the distribution takes place continuously, before and after, from the beginning to the end of the world. For inasmuch as he had determined once to achieve it, it made no difference to him whether he distributed it before or after….

    [So] if now I seek the forgiveness of sins, I do not run to the cross, for I will not find it given there. Nor must I hold to the suffering of Christ, as Dr. Karlstadt trifles, in knowledge or remembrance, for I will not find it there either. But I will find in the sacrament or gospel the word which distributes, presents, offers, and gives to me that forgiveness which was won on the cross. (LW 40.213-214)

    LikeLike

16. Here’s a great classic Lutheran work that demonstrates and applies the theology of the (corpo)real presence of Christ in the Holy Supper:

    http://www.logia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=81

    LikeLike

17. “…and approaches the supper as they should…”

    But there’s the rub. What does that require?

    Ignatius of Antioch, writing in 107 A.D., said that “They (the heretics) even absent themselves from the Eucharist and the public prayers (c.f. Acts 2:42) because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ.” (Smyrna 7:1).

    In the beginning of the second century, Christians–and even heretics!–took Paul’s instruction to the church at Corinth at face value: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the Body and Blood of the Lord… for anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (1 Corinthians 11:27,29)

    Is it really so unreasonable, so offensive, for Catholics merely to continue doing what Christians have been doing for 2000 years? Why must they disregard the considered judgment of those who have gone before us in the faith as Protestants have?

    LikeLike

18. OK, but I still have no idea what you’re getting at.

    LikeLike

19. No reply needed.
    The scripture stands on its own.

    LikeLike

20. Interesting words at the start of this response to the post regarding the three, somewhat, different views on communion in an Episcopal church – interesting because about three weeks ago I attended a LCMS church near Gatlinburg,TN and the service bulletin mentioned
    a “note on communion” which had some general wording and then a reference to reading
    the info in the front of the hymnal. What makes that experience interesting here is that the
    average believer (non-Lutheran) visiting that congreation would have had no idea from what
    was in the service bulletin and the hymnal that this was closed communion. In fact most
    would assume that a baptized believer would be welcome to commune in that congreation
    on any given Sunday. It left one with the distince impression that one should consider all
    that was said in the info and if one could agree with it then that person (assuming a geunine
    believer here) was fully welcome to commune with that congregation. Of course the question
    here could be how many even bother to read it? True perhaps…… but, I did and carefully so
    and conluded that I was fine with it.

    I never have thought that any church body of any denomination should ever be in the business of excluding any genuine, baptized believer from communion period! I still hold
    to that and always will. Call me hard headed but if a person is fully aware and certain of
    their position in Christ as a baptized believer and approaches the supper as they should
    having examined themselves and settled things then there is no question in my mind
    regarding their being able to commune with any – AND I MEAN ANY – congregation of
    believers.

    LikeLike

21. One would not necessarily have to believe that the church went haywire at any certain point, only that it followed the same pattern that most religions have — by which I mean that religions tend to develop rituals and traditions surrounding the religion’s founder or founders, and, as time goes by, these rituals and traditions come to be afforded more importance than the central message and teachings of the person or persons on whom the religion was founded.
    Now, I’m not trying to offend anyone. I’m just throwing that out there for consideration.

    LikeLike

22. I respect what you’re saying, but I guess I’m just too much of a “saved by faith” Protestant. To me, Christ stands ready and present to forgive my sins any time I come to Him in a genuine and honest way to confess my sins and ask His forgiveness (I John, 1:9), whether that be during the observance of the Lord’s Supper, at work, or in a public restroom. As far as what Jesus says in John 6, I think Jesus’ requirement that we eat His flesh and drink His blood refers to a chosen lifestyle of hungering and thirsting after Him as our spiritual sustenance — and I think He is pointing to the coming sacrifice of His flesh and blood as the source of our salvation and the doorway through which we can have eternal life. But, like I said, I am a Prostestant, through and through, and salvation and forgiveness of sins through observance of sacrements seems somewhat strange and alien to me and is altogether outside my religious upbringing and personal experience. I mean no disrespect toward your beliefs and church traditions.

    LikeLike

23. Christiane, I’m afraid I don’t understand your comment. Would you please explain?

    LikeLike

24. Sorry, I meant to say that a Baptist must commit himself to the belief that the Church went haywire WELL BEFORE the end of the second century.

    LikeLike

25. That’s a good point. On that we wouldn’t agree.

    LikeLike

26. ‘And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters . . . ”
    Genesis

    LikeLike

27. Thanks I’ll have to check it out…

    LikeLike

28. Thank you for your interesting post!

    I believe, particularly with regard to the nature of the Eucharist, a Baptist must commit himself to the belief that the Church went haywire “following the second century.” Are you familiar with the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch? In about 107, Ignatius was arrested by Roman soldiers. He was transported to Rome, where he was fed to the lions. Along the way, he penned a number of letter to churches, encouraging them in the faith and instructing then on matters of doctrine.

    Ignatius’ letters contain many strong statements about the nature of the Eucharist:

    – He called the Eucharist “the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins.” (Symrn.7.1).
    – He said “…They (the heretics) even absent themselves from the Eucharist and the public prayers (c.f. Acts 2:42) because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ.” Smyrna 7:1).
    – Writing to the church at Philadelphia, states, “Take care, then, to partake of one Eucharist; for, one is the Flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and one the cup to unite us with His Blood, and one altar….” (Philadelphians, par. 4).

    Back to Zwingli, his beliefs on baptism were truly radical. In “On Baptism,” (1525), Zwingli stated, “In this matter of baptism–if I may be pardoned for saying it–I can only conclude that *all* of the
    doctors (teachers of the faith) have been in error from the time of the apostles . . . . All the doctors have ascribed to the water a power which it does not have and the holy apostles did not teach.”

    LikeLike

29. You ask about the differences in Lutheran/Anglican belief (other than Closed Communion).

    I once attended and Episcopal church in which, between the Book of Common Prayer, Bulletin Announcement and priest’s announcement, there were three different views presented! My guess would be that for the MOST part, the Lord’s Supper in the Episcopal church means whatever the recipient thinks it means.

    As for the Lutheran view, we ought to point out that the ELCA (less Scriptural Lutheran body) has fellowship agreements with several churches that don’t confess the “real presence.” This would indicate that, as Lutherans anyway, they have fallen away from the historic (historic Catholic and historic Lutheran) confession of what the Lord’s Supper is. Again, my guess would be that MOST simply take it to be whatever the recipient says it is.

    Confessional Lutheranism (according to the Lutheran Confessions) simply takes Jesus’ words at face value: it IS His body and blood. How? We don’t answer that. We just say it is, along with, under, in the bread and wine because of the Lord’s Words. This is, one might say a “sacremental presence” that is, one that is real but is not seen with the eyes but is more concrete that simply the “eating Jesus by faith” or “faith looking up to Jesus while eating the bread and wine,” etc.

    With regard to Closed Communion: We practice this in part because the Lord’s Supper IS the body and blood of Jesus and St. Paul very clearly says one may eat and drink to their harm. We want no one to sin against Christ’s body and blood, least of all by denying that it’s actually there!

    Finally, wrt to the comment about finding God in the sunset, etc.: The Lord is indeed present everywhere. But what good does that do? The only good for us is if He is in a certain spot where we can be certain to find him for the forgiveness of sins. I can know that God is in the sunset, that’s nice. But he’s also in cancer cells and hurricanes, too! What does it prove? But the Lord’s Supper is Christ’s promise and delivery of forgiveness of sins, eternal life and salvation.

    LikeLike

30. There has been a lot of talk here about the Presence of Christ in the elements of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist. But is Christ’s Presence in the lives of His people limited to that? Did Christ not give us His Spirit, and do we not have Christ living within us, as Paul points out? And, if that’s true, do we not have His Presence in a 24/7 kind of way? And can we not experience His Presence outside the auspices of organized religion in things like a sunset, a walk in the woods, a deep conversation with a close friend, the simple joy of a child, or even in feeling the reality of His peace and love during a particularly hectic day at work?
    I guess I’m wondering if the Lord’s Supper is the exclusive means by which we receive His Presence or if it’s just a way that we’ve been given to remind us of that Presence which is always with us?

    LikeLike

31. Part of the reason that apophatic theology is so strong in the Eastern Church is that it recognizes the limits of our human logic and reasoning abilities. In fact, many of our theologians end up saying that we know nothing about God’s essence and can only speak about his energies. That is, the Incarnation does overthrow our metaphysics in that it shows our utter inability to actually speak accurately about the essence of God. The West does not tend to have the distinction of essence and energies, thus they rely much more on their philosophical conclusions.

    So, in the East, while Greek philosophy was used to explain many things regarding God’s energies, the Church Fathers denied that philosophy could be used to describe his essence. Since the Body and Blood are indeed part of Jesus’ Person, it involves the whole area of God’s essence, so … . We cannot describe it in positive terms, other than it is Body and Blood; we can only describe it in negative terms, that it is not merely symbolic presence and it is not transubstantiation.

    LikeLike

32. Too wide. Either it is or it isn’t. They need to pick one.

    LikeLike

33. Michael,

    I apologize, I led you astray. Jesus and His disciples were baptizing in the Holy Scriptures before the command was given in Matt. 28. In the Gospel according to St. John 3:22 and following, we see Jesus and His disciples baptizing even as John the Baptist is baptizing. A transition is ensuing.

    It is of course at this time that John the Baptist and his baptism of repentance is giving way to Jesus and Holy Baptism for the forgiveness of sins (granting and sealing with the Spirit as well). The Gospel shows us in chapter 2 and following that Jesus is the bridegroom and this culminates with the woman at the well who is the “new bride” who asks for “living water”.

    The servants of John make it clear that Jesus is baptizing through His disciples, just as He does to this day through His Holy Office. Given His words in Matthew 28 that “all” are to be baptized, and His words concerning the fact that infants and toddlers posess the kingdom of God; this is pretty good evidence for infant baptism.

    If you would like more: David Scaer “Baptism” in the Confessional Lutheran Dogmatic Series is a good primer to get you started–if interested. You can get it through CPH.

    Given that fact that unregenerate man has no part to play in his salvation (monergestic), infant baptism cannot be objected too. In fact this is exactly what circumcision points to. Just my brief thoughts. pax

    LikeLike

34. I have some quotes and comments on infant baptism at the web site linked through my name. I think the page is fair–but of course I do, I wrote it.

    It links a Catholic page of infant baptism quotes that are pretty clear.

    I’ve read all the writings of the 2nd century fathers repeatedly. You won’t find anything in them that defends a purely symbolic Lord’s Supper. Far from it. The comments in defense of the bread and wine being his body and blood (however you want to interpret that) start VERY clearly in the writings of Ignatius in A.D. 110.

    So if you want to find something for a symbolic Lord’s Supper you’ll have to look later than that–though I’m sure you won’t find it.

    LikeLike

35. Yup, this is part of the “Up religion” view, i.e., that we ascend to find Jesus, rather than the “Down religion” view as in where Jesus always comes to us in his body and blood, and also through the other means of grace like holy baptism and the Word. Geniune Lutheranism is truly unique in the “down religion” view, it goes together so well with the idea that He’s accomplished everything for our salvation; there’s nothing left for “us to do.”

    LikeLike

36. Hey Emilio, methinks you’re a Lutheran. “Is” means “is” and that’s good enough for me. O, and BTW, Lutherans believe it is a means of grace; it works forgiveness of sins, brings life and salvation.

    LikeLike

37. In other words, you have the Calvinistic view, as I understand it, i.e. spiritual communion with Christ in the heavenlies.

    LikeLike

38. Michael,
    I will submit this comment at the risk of you deleting it, because I realize it is not technically within what you are asking for.

    That said, I grew up Baptist and have my M.Div. from a very Baptist seminary (Liberty). I struggle with this because I feel the Catholics have overstated reality, and the Baptists have understated it. My heart would rather be wrong in the Catholic way than the Baptist way, but my head says there is no need to be wrong either way. So here is my conclusion at this time.

    The presence, power, and fellowship of Christ in communion is undeniable. I think where the discussion has veered off track historically is when the emphasis became on Christ coming down to us in communion. For whatever reason it was, what became important was the material issues at stake (trans, con) rather than what was actually taking place. The Baptists fell into the same error, by simply swinging the pendulum the other way. Christ already came down to us, and died at a place called Golgotha. I believe in communion we are actually present and communing with Christ where he is. No miracle of substance is taking place, but a spiritual miracle is taking place. We for a moment are remembering Christ and his death, and joining him where he sits interceding at God’s right hand. The error is focusing on material substance rather than spiritual activity. If this catches your eye, Michael, would love to interact on it.

    PJ

    LikeLike

39. tdunbar, it would be very, very, very naughty of me to mention the “filioque” here.

    So I won’t 🙂

    LikeLike

40. Michael, I accept your statement.
    I am NOT a long-term commenter, so I’m the last person to lecture anyone, as I still frequently make ‘faux-pas’ here, but not intentionally.

    I had no idea that that person’s remarks would get him ‘banned’.
    I am wondering if he knew what the outcome of his remarks would be.

    All I can do is to try to avoid commenting to a person who might possibly be offensive to you.
    I will try to follow this as a guide-line, but I may lack the ‘discernment’ because I am not totally aware of what IS offensive and what is not, and the degrees in between.. It’s complicated.

    LikeLike

41. Acts 2:38-39 (ESV)
    And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

    I haven’t read the scholarly “consensus”. But when Peter tells me (and he as an apostle really speaking as Christ here) that the promise is for my Children, I accept that, and tend to believe a lot of children were baptized among those three thousand that day.

    LikeLike

42. The Sacrament is a sacred ordinance to commemorate Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf. It ties us to Him and allows us to renew the covenants that we made with Him at our baptism. The ordinance and it’s meaning has been mingled with the teachings of men over the centuries and the pureness of it has been lost. Many of teachings concerning this sacred ordinance have been lost through translation and interpretation. The Catholics either perform this ordinance in it’s correct state or no one does for sure. The only way that we can be certain if we are correct in our administration and interpretation of this sacred ordinance is through divine revelation which comes through personal prayer. The heavens are open. All we need to do is ask!

    The History Man
    http://wwwhistoryman.blogspot.com/

    LikeLike

43. Some people reduce what Zwingli taught to mere memorialism. I’m not sure I agree that this is the sum of what he taught.

    I discovered that Zwingli was concerned that our forgiveness should be based upon the once-and-for-all, finished work of Christ upon the cross, and that the sacraments cannot add to that. I think he finds agreement among all of the reformers regarding this. In Joseph Stump’s (1907) explanation of Luther’s small catechism, it is stated, “The Lord’s Supper confers all the benefits which Christ secured by His sufferings and death”. (It just happens to be the copy of the Small Catechism that I carry; it is much smaller than the current volume).

    But what does it mean to “do this in rememberance”? I don’t think that means to reduce communion to a history lesson; again, I can’t find this view being taught by Zwingli. I think the point is to couple the “for you” and “remember”: receive in communion that Christ’s finished work, won for you on the cross so many thousands of years ago, is real, personal, and efficatious right here, right now, for you – your current state of brokenness and not dependent upon a promise to be better tomorrow. That way, we are communing with Christ and his grace and forgiveness in a very real sense. The bread and cup still play a vital role in connecting us to Christ, to each other, and all generations of believers, which should still scare off the gnostics.

    That’s not offered as a compromise, but perhaps as a way to show that our diverging opinions on the Lord’s supper are not that far apart.

    LikeLike

44. there’s a lutheran blog: “ask the pastor”
    http://xrysostom.blogspot.com/

    LikeLike

45. As a Roman Catholic, I can tell you that Catholics stand in great admiration of the Amish behavior at Nickel Mines, after the massacre of their children at the school-house.
    If any of their beliefs are part of your ‘Baptist’ heritage, you should be proud. Their behavior in showing forgivenss and loving-kindness to the widow and family of the murderer of their daughters is a lesson in pure Christianity.

    I feel blessed to have had the Amish witness to all of us about what the love of Christ can do to overcome evil.

    LikeLike

46. I have an interesting aside regarding the Didache connecting the Lord’s supper to “thankfulness for creation, remembrance of Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promises and an image of Jesus’ eternal-life giving relationship to the church.” Some of the Jewish liturgy for the bread & wine ceremony that kicks off the Sabbath (the Kiddish) blessed God for the Sabbath and calls it a “rememberance of the act of creation and a memorial of the Exodus from Egypt.” Combined with Eucharist being a re-imagined Passover meal, I think there’s a liturgical connection there somewhere.

    In our Hebrew Christian fellowship, we use part of that liturgy as a segue into Communion to tie together Kiddish and the Lord’s Supper.

    LikeLike

47. *claps* – sorry – have nothing really to add, but that this kind of post is why I read you….

    Though speaking of things that puzzle us without causing us to disbelieve something, does anyone know of any kind of “theological answers” website where theology geeks have fun answering people’s questions? I have a couple of questions that have arose in the last 6 months during sermons that due to the pastor leaving I have no one I feel comfortable asking about (the questions SOUND like I’m questioning certain things, when its not – I just want to know WHY we interpret it one way, when it doesn’t seem to be clear to me that there’s biblical evidence as to that interpretation) – and I haven’t been able to find addressed in commentaries in the library – and I’d love if there was a good website for those of us who don’t really have the knowledge to research these kinds of things ourselves…

    LikeLike

48. indeed (re essence/energies)!

    LikeLike

49. Wow. Lots of comments since I last was here. Differences between Anglicans and Lutherans on the Supper.

    If I had to boil it down to one significant thing, I think that Anglicans still (whichever approach they use) take a philosophical approach to how the Lord is present. Lutherans steadfastly refuse to do this.

    It is our Lord’s body and blood under the form of bread and wine given to us Christians to eat and drink.

    LikeLike

50. You get that Monk, if you go in on a Wednesday night prayer servica and try to change it up to having set times for different prayers, i.e. a prayer of repentance, intersession etc.

    you also get that question if you say the Lord’s prayer too often:)

    just the fact that PL even used the words SBC and rubric in the same question made me laugh

    LikeLike

51. As usual, I’m rather late to respond — fascinating stuff.

    A very good source on early-late mediaeval period, and on Luther/Zwingli (including the best reconstruction available of the Marburg Colloquy) is Hermann Sasse’s This Is My Body. It’s ultimately about Luther’s theology and a defence of Luther’s position, but whether you buy that or not, it’s also a very valuable source of historical detail. And as someone wrote in an earlier comment, Sasse does a good job of demonstrating the influence of Augustine on the ‘Reformed’ side — as well as on early Luther.

    And my penny’s worth on Lutheranism/Anglicanism: there is a similarity only insofar as a given Anglican clergyperson/congregation holds a Lutheran view. The non-confessional stance of Anglicanism in general makes it impossible to come up with anything better. The early English Reformers ended up somewhere in ‘moderate Calvinist’ country; the Oxford Movement went more Catholic (though still denied the bodily presence a la Lutheranism, as in Pusey’s “Real Presence”); modern Anglicans vary from Baptists to More-Catholic-than-the-Holy-Father Thomists. You can’t really ask the question about similarities or differences on a given point of doctrine, because there is such a fundamental constitutional difference.

    Which is not the kind of answer you were after, I suppose…

    LikeLike

52. Probably 1% of the SBC has any idea what the Zwinglian position is. There is a general view of “the Catholic view” and “what the Bible teaches.” If one embraced the Catholic view, you’d be in trouble in most places. But there are many, many SBCers who resonate with a greater emphasis on the presence of Christ, many who want to partake more frequently and many who resent the de-emphasis on the LS and Baptism. This is obvious to anyone. But saying what I’ve said might prompt a conversation of “Are you a Catholic?” but you would get that for talking about Advent or Lent.

    LikeLike

53. iMonk, how much latitude is there in the SBC for varying beliefs and practices regarding the Eucharist? If, for instance, you believed in a Catholic/Orthodox definition of the Eucharist, would you be kicked out of the SBC? If you held the Lord’s Supper once a week, would that be in violation of your denomination’s rubrics?

    LikeLike

54. I don’t want to re-fight the Great Schism of 1054, particularly since we (on our side) agree that your sacraments are valid 🙂

    I am very interested in knowing what the rest of Christianity says on this point (which is one reason why I want my brothers and sisters to shut up and not jump in with helpful explanations of what Catholics believe).

    I know what we believe, and I am amused that in many of the posts here, the position seems to be “Whatever it is we believe, it’s not what the Romans believe!” That is, the last fall-back seems to be more disagreeing with Roman Catholicism than defining one’s own denominational position.

    Yes, I get that the Protestants don’t believe what we do – that’s the whole point of the Reformation. So what is it you say you believe positively, rather than negatively don’t believe? That’s what I don’t know and would like to find out.

    I have no problem with mystery, that’s why the priest says “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith” after the consecration of the chalice. I would just stick up for the poor doctrine of Transubstantiation which is taking a battering here; it’s not saying, in a “add 50mls of hydrochloric acid to the titrate” way that this is the mechanism by which the bread becomes flesh and the blood becomes wine; it’s a theoretical way of expressing how it might occur in a reasonable manner, as opposed to accusations of “it’s magic and superstition!” We’re certainly not trying to bind God or reduce everything to mechanics.

    It’s because the Church defends reason and opposes Fideism; it’s saying – remember we discussed this in the whole Darwin versus Genesis post? – that the world is not arbitrary and that God is not capricious; that we can use our God-given intellect as a starting-point on the journey (but faith is a divine gift and Divine Revelation is necessary precisely because reason cannot take us all the way).

    Besides, the Orthodox Church’s theology of Divine essence and energies is technical in its own way too, no? 😉

    LikeLike

55. That passage has always made me wonder what Jesus is really saying there. Is He saying that eventually His church will develop this ritual called the Eucharist in which we ceremonally drink His blood and eat His flesh and thereby gain eternal life by participating in this ritual? Or is He implying that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is a way of life — making Him the object of our hunger and thirst and drawing our spiritual substanance from Him on a daily basis? Or is He pointing to the coming sacrifice of His flesh and blood, and that we gain eternal life by relying on His sacrifice through faith? Or maybe He’s saying all of these things at the same time. I don’t know.

    LikeLike

56. Eh, not really.

    LikeLike

57. I see what you’re saying, and I think you may be on to something there. I believe the things Jesus presented as metaphors, similees, and word pictures point to actual spiritual realities –so in the truest sense (the heavenly reality) Jesus is the Word, the vine, true manna, the door, and the good shepherd. Or maybe metaphor was just the best language tool Jesus could use to hint at spiritual realities that can’t be fully defined or described using human language.
    So, it could be that in the heavenly reality, we are actually eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, even if there is no molecular transformation occuring in the bread and wine here in the physical universe. I don’t know for certain, and because I don’t know for certain and because scripture doesn’t really give a detailed theological breakdown on the matter, I’m going to refrain from fully embracing any particular doctrinal or theological position concerning the Lord’s Supper.

    LikeLike

58. Reading Matt. 18:18 in context, it seems to me that Jesus is talking about the real spiritual power involved when believers get together in agreement, petitioning God in faith according to His will. Just a couple of verses later, He points out that just two or three can do this “binding” and loosing” thing. I could be wrong, but I don’t think Jesus is handing a blank check of authority to the church. It seems to me that He is saying to those who truly believe in and follow Him that the power of heaven itself has been made available to them (through Him) in their daily circumstances. But that’s just how I interpret that bit of scripture — it don’t mean I’m right.

    LikeLike

59. I’m with you. The Baptist tradition just doesn’t have historical merit. Although I am an Anabaptist I lean toward the Anglican understanding that Jesus is present spiritual in the bread and wine.

    But this is probably a remnant of my close conversion to Orthodoxy. 🙂

    LikeLike

60. That’s nonsense David. If the only thing to be gain from taking communion was to remember Christ’s death and look to His future return, that is would still be quite worthwhile.

    LikeLike

61. RonP,

    You said: “Jesus used a lot of metaphors in His teachings and metaphorically identified Himself as a number of things — a vine, manna, the good shepherd, etc. Could it be that He was speaking metaphorically when He identified the bread and wine as His body and blood?”

    I went from the SBC to LCMS and, during the switch, was frequently confronted with this argument. My question is, who is to say Jesus WAS speaking metaphorically. Granted that I am a true believer in Plato’s Ideals, but couldn’t Jesus be the door after which all other doors are fashioned? Couldn’t he truly be the Ideal Vine and all others be mere shadows of his true vine-ness? Consider that manna might be a metaphor of Jesus (as well as a physical reality), not the other way around. This is how we treat the Gospel of John’s use of the word Logos.

    LikeLike

62. Boaz,

    An online source you can consult on this issue, which will give you concise overviews of the eucharistic beliefs of pre-Reformation sources, is Philip Schaff’s church history. See, for example, section 69 here and section 95 here. Concerning Origen and Clement of Alexandria, for example, who lived in the second and third centuries, Schaff comments, “Origen evidently goes no higher than the Zwinglian theory, while Clement approaches the Calvinistic view of a spiritual real fruition of Christ’s life in the Eucharist.” (note 421 here)

    Scholars sometimes disagree about the eucharistic beliefs of pre-Reformation sources. Schaff’s conclusion that there are traces of Zwingli’s view in Origen and other fathers is denied by other scholars. And some scholars will discuss the views of the pre-Reformation sources without attempting to associate those views with later individuals or groups. They’ll describe the eucharistic beliefs of a patristic or medieval source in terminology that could be defined in more than one way, without making any effort to align that source’s beliefs with Zwingli, Calvin, or any other later individual or organization. Even in my quote above, Schaff only says that Clement approaches the Calvinist view.

    I don’t know enough about Origen and Clement’s eucharistic beliefs to form a confident conclusion about Schaff’s evaluation, and I disagree with him on some other points. But he’s a good source to start with, and he’ll give you an outline of some of the issues involved and the relevant texts. You could then move on to books like the ones recommended above by some of the other participants in this thread. If you want a defense of a Calvinist view in particular, you could read the book by Keith Mathison referenced above, Given For You (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2002).

    LikeLike

63. I strained to understand the meaning of the Supper and what was happening when I partook of it from the time that I first became a Christian. I was always confident that it possessed far greater significance than it was given in the American Evangelical/Baptist flavored branch of the church gave it. In other words, I saw it as a sacrament. I hungered for it, but was at the same time disoriented by it and confused about how I should approach it. I came to it like I was attending a meal for the first time with the Swahili parents of a girl I liked. It’s all pretty interesting, but also a little scary and bizarre. So I tried pressing it (the Eucharist) into pre-packaged and “theologically correct” servings hoping to make it more palatable and digestible. But no matter how hard I tried, it wouldn’t remain in the boxes it was pressed into.

    The Eucharist finally opened up to me at a small group conference I attended at Willow Creek. The service was set up so people could go as they wished to tables having the wine and bread that were located all about the big auditorium. Much time was given for this. People could pick up the elements and go off into a corner, take them and pray, or do whatever else they wanted. I found myself praying, “Lord! I don’t what the bread and wine is. I don’t know if the wine is wine and the bread is bread, or if it somehow actually become your blood and body. Whatever it is, I want it to become your blood and body to me. I pray that your DNA will overtake mine, that I will be changed in my deepest parts. Overtake me with yourself. I pray this in Your Name.”

    Since that day, a logjam was broken. It now seems obvious to me that it is impossible to know what the bread and wine are. To say with certainty that they are the blood and body of Christ, or that they are merely symbols each seem beyond what we can speak with authority. But that they are important and that God means to feed and change us through them seems equally impossible to deny. I think of how the apostles must have experience that last night with Jesus, and what the meals they shared in after that must have meant to them. They surely didn’t think of it as nothing. That Jesus took the few moments he had with the twelve that final night and inaugurated the meal should make us ashamed to turn our back to it.

    The meal, I now believe, has infinitely rich and varied meanings. Eugene Petersen wrote of it as relating to the grace of salvation; as something only Christ can give us and that we can but receive. He relates this symbolism in how the priest places the wafer into the kneeling recipients cupped hands and tips the common cup into their open mouth. God gives. We receive.

    I think of baby birds with their heads tipped back, their necks stretched out and quivering, awaiting the mother to feed them. All they can do is hope to receive. If the mother doesn’t feed them, they die. But for the grace of the mother, they cease to exist. But she wants to feed them. And so does Christ. I thank God for that.

    LikeLike

64. Haha! If I could afford it, I would be delighted to play Santa. Alas … but perhaps one of Santa’s helpers might surprise you this Christmas. 🙂

    LikeLike

65. “The fact that the Eastern Orthodox church rejects Transubstantiation today shows that the Aristotelian silliness of forms and accidents is hardly apostolic.”

    “I like how my friend who’s an Orthodox priest described it to me the problem between the Eastern understanding of the Eucharist and the Western struggles over it.

    Orthodox Priest: ‘We believe the elements are the body and blood of Christ.’
    Western Christian: ‘But HOW?’
    Orthodox Priest: ‘…sigh…

    The Western Church really does trip over trying to figuring out “how” this all works an awful lot. Sometimes we need to step back and remember that God’s too big for us to figure out.”

    “In one sense the Reformers were correct to repudiate the Roman stance. It went too far. It defines an undefinable mystery. But, rather than returning to mystery, the Reformers decided that they could define it better than the Romans. That was their big mistake. They could not define it better than the Romans because no one can define it.”

    I rise in defense of the Catholic presentation of transubstantiation. The objections and criticisms that have been advanced simply do not touch the formal teaching of the Catholic Church. I am, quite frankly, particularly perplexed by Fr Ernesto’s criticisms. It is misleading to suggest that somehow the Orthodox view is more “mysterious” than either the Catholic or Reformed positions. In fact, the Orthodoxy is just as critical of Protestant construals of the Eucharist as Catholicism is–and for precisely the same reasons. I reference the Orthodox rejection of Calvinism as expressed in the teachings of Patriarch Lucaris. Orthodoxy and Catholicism disagree on several points, but they are one in their belief and confession of the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the risen Savior.

    Transubstantiation is not an attempt to explain the mystery of eucharistic transformation, and it most certainly is not an attempt to dogmatize the metaphysics of Aristotle. As with all dogmas of the Church, it is best understood as the exclusion of false teaching and the protection of the mysteries of faith (see, e.g., Fr Herbert McCabe’s Eucharistic Change). Perhaps individual Catholic theologians can be rightly accused of seeking to say too much about the eucharistic transformation, but this criticism that can be advanced equally against specific Orthodox theologians (e.g., Sergius Bulgavkov and Paul Evdokimov). Saying too much is a pitfall into which all theologians may fall; but the speculations of individual theologians are not Church teaching.

    LikeLike

66. I’m curious about whether there is any pre-Calvin support for the Calvinist view. Any good papers or links?

    Bible doesn’t talk about Christ’s “real presence;” it talks about “this is my body” and “this is my blood.” Calvinism rejects that and tries to replace it with a different kind of presence. So the bread really isn’t Christ’s body, and really isn’t Christ’s blood, but Christ is connected to it somehow by the Holy Spirit. I don’t understand where that comes from.

    LikeLike

67. Fr. Ernesto,

    I know you are aware of the Church’s dependence on Greek philosophy in the first four councils, even in her use of term such as physis (nature), hypostatis (person), and ousious (substance). So, your use of the adjective ‘silly’ here seems quite ad hoc.

    The idea that the incarnation “overturned” all our philosophy, if unqualified, would make grace destroy nature. If the incarnation “overturned” all our philosophy, Christians should just throw Plato and Aristotle in the trash. But that is not how the Church has treated philosophy. The Church recognizes that truth does not contradict truth, and that many philosophical truths can be known by the natural light of reason. These truths can be of great help to the practice of sacred theology. Granted, there were some who took Tertullian’s “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?” stance, but that was not the consensus position. It was precisely from the Greeks and Greek philosophy that the Church acquired the philosophical tools to articulate reasoned defenses of the faith in response to criticisms both from pagans and heretics.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    LikeLike

68. Boaz:

    There are people who live in libraries for 40 years and study this sort of thing with a devotion I can’t comprehend. They have, as best I can tell, reached a consensus that even Catholic scholarship accepts. It in no way challenges why any Lutheran baptizes today. It simply lays out an evidentiary trail that makes infant baptism a second century development.

    I accept that scholarly consensus. I don’t take it and dance on anyone’s grave. I don’t have any “a-ha” to pronounce. I simply accept it. I accept it from paedo Baptist David Wright and Protestant Everett Ferguson. I accept in in the WCC’s document on ecumenical ministry.

    None of these things are confessional for anyone, nor are they the basis of anyone’s confessions. For me they provide a way to understand and accept rather than exclude. It’s that simple.

    It’s like this: The evidence that Jesus commanded the baptism of infants is apparently the same as the evidence for Jesus saying things that second century infant baptizers could use as justification for what was a new, but quickly accepted practice.

    That works for me.

    ms

    LikeLike

69. “we have no idea who to baptize when we read the NT”

    Here’s where I have trouble controlling my Lutheran literalism. The premise of the question is that we can’t baptize anybody without Scriptural authorization. But with Jesus saying baptize all, what basis does the church have to bar anybody from baptism? There is no example anywhere in NT of anybody improperly baptizing, and we have evidence of infant baptism in second century. Plus, we have Jesus comparing baptism to being born (not our own work, it’s the Spirit’s work, blowing where he will) before he goes off to baptize in the desert.

    On the other hand, Scripture explicitly addresses who should commune. It seems to me, most protestants get it backwards by teaching closed baptism and open communion.

    LikeLike

70. yea, sorry, aparantley I’m an idiot, it appears my wife has been right all along:)

    I was in a hurry,

    I was trying to say that while i would not say we recieve saving grace we do recieve living or strengthening grace for our faith

    sorry again

    LikeLike

71. “I would so not we do not recieve grace”

    I’m sorry but I can’t parse this.

    LikeLike

72. Jesus answers that one: “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

73. “We would clearly say that we truly receive the Body and Blood, whether or not we have the faith to see it.”

    How is this different than the Lutheran view? Consubstantiation isn’t a Lutheran doctrine. Lutherans believe it is both bread and body, blood and wine, whether or not the person receiving it believes it.

    LikeLike

74. The problem most of the Protestants have is with Christ’s human nature in relation to the Sacrament. If one cannot believe that Christ’s human nature is present (that is the human nature of Christ recieved everything that was essential to His divine nature–the communication of attributes) then one must make “communion” as purely symbolic, or one must divide Christ’s human nature from His divine nature–thus feeding upon Him “spiritually”. Both of these latter positions have serious problems.

    It is much preferred to just simply trust Christ’s words and promises, even if one is rationally opposed to the mystery. We accept mystery and paradox all the time with what has been revealed to us–Trinity, Incarnation, Two Natures of Christ, God dying on the cross etc. etc. etc.

    LikeLike

75. All I could did up was this:
    Zwingli was influenced by a contemporary: a Dutchman named Cornelis Hoen who wrote a letter on the Eucharist.
    I don’t know the contents of that letter, or if it references any earlier leads.
    The name ‘Wessel Gansfort’ (sp?) also came up as a contemporary of these men.

    LikeLike

76. I suppose you have to make His words in to metaphor, otherwise you have to change your whole theology. So if we don’t like what He said–then it’s metaphor. That’s what the higher critics do as well. Shall we vote on it? Jesus seminar would love that.

    There is no purpose for receiving the elements (Body and Blood) unless Christ is truely present for the forgiveness of sins. Otherwise it’s all mental imagery to give one goose bumps and to feel subjectively close to Jesus. It makes the objective promises and gifts, subjective.

    keep going. blessings as you search the word and may you find a systematic and historical theology that can aid you in your exegesis. pax

    LikeLike

77. But in that vein, the Orthodox would say “by the power of the Spirit in response to the Epiclesis.”

    LikeLike

78. Pardon me for butting in, but the answer would be “yes”, present in “body, blood, soul, and divinity.” In other words, completely present in a totally integrated an undivided way.

    LikeLike

79. Jesus said “all”. But anyway, on my final followup to a previous comment of yours…I forgot to counter that if this thread isn’t about Sacramental theology then it’s going to get boring.. lol. I’m really done now. I will spare you any further posts of mine. pax

    LikeLike

80. “..but I don’t think any church institution has the authority to either command the presence of Christ into anything or remove it from anything.”

    +

    “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will bed bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee loosed in heaven.” (Matt 18:18)

    =

    ????

    LikeLike

81. It would be a great of example of what I call the “Jesus Disconnect” to say that we have no idea who to baptize when we read the NT.

    The question for me isn’t whom can we baptize based on sound theological reasoning. The question is whom did Jesus tell his disciples to baptize. If that question can’t be answered, then I suppose you go to “sound theological reasoning” based on the scriptures. But it would truly surprise me if our situation is either a) Jesus didn’t make that clear or b) it’s tradition, so ask the magisterium.

    peace
    ms

    LikeLike

82. I don’t see Jesus baptizing anyone in the Scriptures, but I do see His command to baptize “all” peoples; not to mention what He said in John 3 to Nic. Of course I think the argument once again centers around whether “all” really means all in Matt. 28, just as in the communion debate whether “is” really means is. I don’t remember any qualifications given about age, gender or mental competance. Must be Jesus imagery to go along with Pauline imagery.

    As far as an argument from silence goes, I’m not sure that one can find evidence in the text that the Apostles were even baptized, but we know they were.

    And then of course you have Jesus’ perplexing words about infants and toddlers possesing the kingdom. Is this an example of more imagery? Thanks for your time. I’m done

    LikeLike

83. You responded, but didn’t contribute. I would appreciate long time commenters letting people know that a particular comment is going to violate rules. Thanks.

    LikeLike

84. David, I appreciate that you are asking the whole range of questions, but I don’t want this thread to become a comprehensive discussion of all things related to sacramental theology.

    I’ll address your issues in a sentence each:

    Two natures: Nestorianism not necessary.
    Baptism and circumcision: Pauline imagery, but doesn’t establish that Jesus baptized infants. Evidence is fairly substantial for infant baptism as second century. See Ferguson’s definitive study + Wright, What Infant Baptism Has Done To Baptism. That there is a “connecting theology” doesn’t mean there was a first century practice.
    Holy Innocents = the church’s traditional use of the word “innocent” as referring to their place in the act of murder.

    LikeLike

85. Fr. Al….you can get me that for Christmas 🙂

    LikeLike

86. To add to what Wolf says, when the Orthodox say that it is a mystery, we also affirm that the Body and Blood is really truly there. The reason we object to the Reformed version of Spiritual Presence is because maybe it really is transubstantiation! They, too, overdefine. It is truly Body and Blood, but–and here is the important point–we dare not say how.

    Someone in an earlier comment brought up the Incarnation. Because of the Incarnation, all our philosophy has been overturned. Thus to use either Aristotalianism or Nominalism or Platonic thought, to use any human philosophy to explain how it happened is as silly as it is to try to explain the dual natures of Jesus, that is, the Incarnation.

    LikeLike

87. Saint Paul said that some are sick and some sleep. It is the same idea as the Old Testament blessings and curses that are found in several sayings. If you do something then you are blessed, if you refuse to do it you are cursed. It crosses over into the New Testament in both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

    LikeLike

88. One of the best histories of eucharistic doctrine was recently reprinted and is now available: Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist: http://www.amazon.com/History-Doctrine-Holy-Eucharist/dp/1597529737. I highly recommend it to all who are interested in the history of eucharistic belief.

    Regarding the question whether “there are any significant differences in the Lutheran/Anglican view of the Eucharist, aside from closed communion,” the simple fact is that there is no “Anglican” view of the Eucharist; rather, there are many Anglican views, ranging from memorialism to transubstantiation.

    LikeLike

89. I know of no historical evidence that can aid Zwingli. With that said, I’m curious what you all think of the two natures of Christ. Can you divide the two natures without creating other theological problems as Nestorious did? Also, since infant baptism was brought up as alleged 2nd century development, what is your view of the link between OT circumcision and NT baptism? Is there a link? Why has the Church referred to the little ones who were murdered in Bethlehem as “holy innocents”? What of Jesus’ words (to little Jewish infants and toddlers) that the kingdom of God belongs to the little ones? Thanks so much

    LikeLike

90. Just responding to the end of your comment: I think a lot of evangelicals who come to a “Real Presence” view would say that we don’t know exactly HOW Christ is really present, but we believe He is because that’s what the Scriptures seem to clearly say when read in a mindset thst is not primarily concerned with refuting transsubstantiaton, because it makes more sense than a mere memorialist view when considering the dire consequences Paul promises to those who partake in an unworthy manner, and because that seems to be what the early church believed. We are content to leave the HOW a mystery. In this context I like an expression which I heard in “Churches of Christ” circles: We speak where the Scriptures speak; where they are silent, we are silent.

    LikeLike

91. Well, that surprises me because the Passover liturgy which I agree with iMonk is the precedent for the Supper says clearly that it is not mere rememberance but a re-presenting, a “making present again” of the deliverance from Egypt, and that each participant should not merely remember what God did for our forefathers but should consider himself personally led out of Egypt. To me that is a concept that goes far beyond anything we moderns mean by rememberance or memorial, especially when we insert that significant little word “mere”.

    Fr Ernesto in an earlier comment talked about “over-defining” — the “mere memorial” view does the same thing in a sense — only instead of trying to explain the mystery it denies it. Just as unsatisfactory, and just as unnecessary.

    LikeLike

92. How is Real Presence “overdefining” it? The various interpretations (“in, with, and under” etc) may be, but to me Real Presence does not at all assert a “how” but simply a “that” — that bread and wine is Body and Blood — and I am content to leave it like that, inexplicable mystery that it is.

    It is interesting that some of the current RC eucharistic prayers are quite compatible with this stance. Our local RC bishop says on the subject of non-RCs partaking of communion that any baptized Christian who can join on the eucharistic prayer without reservation is welcome to partake, and that made me look at the language of these prayers.

    LikeLike

93. Steve,

    I would so not we do not recieve grace as in the forgivness of sin, but we do recieve grace as in a living grace that strenghtens our Christian faith, I don’ thave the theological background to fully defend or explain that, but that is where i am as a baptist.

    LikeLike

94. Sorry Michael, if I contributed to that.

    LikeLike

95. Pingback: St. Joseph’s Vanguard And Our Lady’s Train » Blog Archive » Two Points for Honesty: The Symbolic Only Eucharist

96. My understanding of , “after an heavenly and spiritual manner,” is that is not an affirmation of how the presence happens but a repudiation of the idea that the bread literally becomes flesh and the wine literally becomes blood.

    LikeLike

97. MOD NOTE: Please don’t cite lengthy passages.

    John 6:52-66

    Yes, MWPeak, it is a hard teaching, isn’t it?
    Some say it isn’t to be taken ‘literally’. Perhaps that makes the teaching easier for them so that they do not need to ‘turn back and no longer follow Him’?

    LikeLike

98. I did not address that. Luther did in the Small Catechism as do most denominational liturgies.

    LikeLike

99. I just deleted a comment telling me to leave the SBC for some version of Presbyterianism.

    1. Read the FAQ, section 10 for commenting rules. We do NOT tell one another to change denoms on this site.

    2. Michael’s not leaving anyone behind. The idea of moving from one denomination to another as some way of “getting closer to God” is repugnant to me. We are united to Christ by faith, not by denomination.

    LikeLike

100. If you’re interested in the patristic discussions of the Supper, check out Kilmartin’s “The Eucharist in the West.” It is written from a RC perspective, but will put the basic pieces – or at least the major trend-lines – in front of you.

     LikeLike

101. MOD NOTE: Comment is in reference to a deleted comment telling me to leave the SBC.

     But what about the people Michael would ‘leave behind’? Maybe Michael wants more for them too. Maybe the road to unity, however long and bumpy it might be, must be traveled by not leaving people behind as we ‘move forward’ into something ‘better’.

     A story: a young boy who was mentally=challenged worked and trained very hard to win a prize in a race at the Special Olympics. He talked and talked about how much that prize would mean to him if he could win. He wanted to show it off to everyone, that he could prove himself to be worthy of a medal.
     The boy began the race and ran with his whole heart and was moving up towards the front of the racers, gaining speed steadily, when another runner near him fell down. The boy stopped and went over to the one who had fallen and helped him up.
     And then, hand-in-hand, the two ran towards the finish line.

     Maybe Michael wants more for the Baptist people.

     Sometimes when we help those who need ‘to come up’ rise, then we all rise together.

     LikeLike

102. I believe what Jesus said: This IS my body. How it happens I don’t know, just as I don’t know how we have three Persons but just One God. Why we can’t just believe that we take His Body and His Blood?

     LikeLike

103. Christiane is right about the OT. Check our Scott Hahn new book on the Eucharist. Very thought provoking.

     MOD NOTE: Scott Hahn is an apologist for the RCC. I do not endorse his books or agree with the RCC position.

     LikeLike

104. One question that not been directly asked is this: Is the Lord’s Supper a “Means of Grace?” When we partake of the bread and the wine, do we receive the forgiveness of sin through this?

     LikeLike

105. I am glad Mike said to not make a big deal of this because I just do not see it as a big deal. From what little I understand of scripture, the “Lord’s Supper” was supposed to be a cutlurally-ingrained ceremony to remind Christians of where their faith came from. It was the same type of cultural ceremony that Israel was supposed to practice to remind themselves of their deliverance from Egypt by God.

     To me, the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist or whatever theological label is applied can be done privately in a home by a family or in a church settlng. The important thing is that the importance of what the bread and wine / juice means be kept to remind each generation of Christians who they are and where they come from.

     Like the Israelites, we too often forget our history and our beginnings, which is why we have scripture.

     If I’ve missed the point, you have my humble apologies.

     LikeLike

106. Sygagogue services often conclude with bread and wine, as symbols of the land of Israel. I connect this to Christ’s “kingdom” utterances: the eucharist does not so much memorialize as anticipate–or embody–the kingdom of heaven.

     “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” (Mk 14:25)

     LikeLike

107. The Mennonite Confession of Faith (1995) primarily focuses on the Lord’s Supper as an act of remembrance but right in the middle of Article 12, there is this important statement which moves beyond mere memorialism and certainly away from the “real absence of Christ” with which some have charged the Zwinglian tradition:

     “The supper re-presents the presence of the risen Christ in the church. As we partake of the communion of the bread and cup, the gathered body of believers shares in the body and blood of Christ 3 and recognizes again that its life is sustained by Christ, the bread of life.”

     LikeLike

108. I’m a SBC missionary (IMB) who holds to pneumatic (spiritual/mystical, etc.) presence. I’ve been heavily shaped by Reformed and Dutch theologians and that’s simply where I’m at right now. I get around the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 because I do believe it to be a “symbolic act,” but I also believe it to be more.

     To be honest, I’m probably closer to the 1689 LBCF than the 2000 BF&M that I had to sign to serve with the IMB. When I’ve explained my position to other missionaries and even to leadership within the organization, most don’t have a clue what I’m even talking about, so it hasn’t been a problem yet.

     In the end though, I’m more “moved by the Spirit” in traditional sacramental settings. One of my greatest experiences was taking communion in a local Anglican church. There was something that seemed right about the experience as opposed to my typical Baptist experience that hardly even drew the sinner to repentance before taking the cup.

     LikeLike

109. I know I’m asking for people to put their heads on the block here, and I don’t want to give an opportunity for my well-meaning Catholic brothers and sisters to jump in here and start arguing theology (believe me, I’m having real trouble keeping my itching fingers off the keyboard myself), but I do think I would like to hear the various shades of Protestant thinking about the Lord’s Supper and what is it or what does it mean?

     Michael, I know you’ve posted before, but could you just give a very quick summary of what you take the majority or conventional Baptist understanding of the Lord’s Supper to cover – and I know that this is going to mean 26 other Baptists immediately coming on to say “Well, now, that’s not how we do it in *my* church” – but just a quick run-through of what you take the Baptist position to be, and then we’ll have something concrete to work from when everyone wants to say what they’ve been taught is going on.

     For instance, I’m fascinated to know just what exactly people mean by a “spiritual real presence” – really present in a spiritual manner? how is this different from being spiritually present “where two or three are gathered together”? Or what is understood by a “real” presence – is this distinct from a symbol, that is, it’s only bread and juice and we’re sharing a meal but that’s it, there is no greater or other means of grace as distinct from, say, reading a Bible verse?

     LikeLike

110. Christopher – just a side note – not all CC/coC pastors were trained in “remembrance”, since a great deal of the early Restorationists came from Methodist backgrounds. Several of my profs argued for a “real presence” position – based in Covenant Theology.concepts…

     LikeLike

111. Major issues generally or specifically relating to the Supper?

     I’ll check in again this evening. Very busy Sunday for me today (beyond even the usual).

     LikeLike

112. What do you make of the ‘shewbread’ ?
     And the presence of manna in the Ark of the Covenant?
     There is much more meaning that can be gleaned from the OT that has not been discussed.

     LikeLike

113. Well, that the Lutheran view is the Lutheran view…that I know. And I know that Anglicans are not confessional, and I know the 39 Articles are pretty Calvinistic. I’m more interested in similarities and any MAJOR issues that separate them.

     LikeLike

114. The view of that priest is dead on accurate, and one of the places where the East and Lutheranism end up coming closest. Lutheran’s would, however, have a brief answer to the word “how.” It would be: By the Lord’s Word.

     LikeLike

115. I’m looking at this:

     5) I want to know if there are any significant differences in the Lutheran/Anglican view of the Eucharist, aside from closed communion…

     …and I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking if there’s a difference between Lutherans and Anglicans apart from closed communion?

     If you are, I’ll take a stab at it:

     Anglicanism doesn’t present a united front on the Lord’s Supper. Some take a Zwinglian view. Some take a Calvinist view. Some take a consubstantiationist view. Some take a Roman view.

     None of those is Lutheran. If I’m answering the right question, I’ll write more. Let me know. 😉

     LikeLike

116. During a sermon on Communion I once made that point, asking about the “just a symbol” concept when it came to the American flag. Asking veterans, especially, how they felt when they saw the flag being burned with impunity. When the all growled I asked, “Then why on earth do we think these images of the body and blood of Christ don’t mean anything?”

     LikeLike

117. I like how my friend who’s an Orthodox priest described it to me the problem between the Eastern understanding of the Eucharist and the Western struggles over it.

     Orthodox Priest: “We believe the elements are the body and blood of Christ.”
     Western Christian: “But HOW?”
     Orthodox Priest: “…sigh…”

     The Western Church really does trip over trying to figuring out “how” this all works an awful lot. Sometimes we need to step back and remember that God’s too big for us to figure out.

     For my part at the Baptist church I pastor, we refer to the elements as “images” rather than symbols which is a subtle shift with some rather profound theological implications. I’m a “real presence” kinda guy, the NT (as I’ve come to read it) really leaves me with no other choice.

     LikeLike

118. Jesus used a lot of metaphors in His teachings and metaphorically identified Himself as a number of things — a vine, manna, the good shepherd, etc. Could it be that He was speaking metaphorically when He identified the bread and wine as His body and blood? And when He asked His discilples that as often as they do this (by which He could have meant observe the Passover or He could have meant simply sharing meals together, I don’t know) to do it in remembrance of Him, He was simply instructing them to think of or view the bread and wine as metaphors for His body and blood. That seems to be the most obvious, least complicated answer to me, though I certainly leave myself room to be wrong on the matter.
     As far as the historical evolution of the Lord’s Supper, (like you) I wish I knew more. I’ve heard tell that first century Christians frequently got together in what they called “Love Feasts,” and I’ve heard that the church authorities in Rome banned such gatherings in the fourth century. Whether these early gatherings involved a highly ritualized ceremony or if they just shared these meals in honor of Christ, I don’t know. I think it highly likely that many early Jewish Christians continued to observe the yearly Passover in a way that revealed how the various elements pointed prophetically to Christ. And, by the way, if you’ve never participated in a messianic verson of the Passover, I highly recommend it. But, anyway, my best historical guess is that the Christian ritual of the Eucharist evolved from the Passover as church leadership and population transitioned from primarily Jewish to primarily gentile in the late first to early second centuries.
     As far as the spiritual nature or reality of the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper, I say that if Christ choses to literally occupy bread and wine, then He will. And if He doesn’t, then He won’t. We can wrangle about theology, tradition, and church history all the live long day, but I don’t think any church institution has the authority to either command the presence of Christ into anything or remove it from anything.
     But regardless of exactly how we’re supposed to do it, He did say to do it — so I think we as the church should do it in whatever way we think best and most honorable to Him. Whether or not He shows up and manifests Himself in some way or another while we do it, that’s entirely up to Him.

     LikeLike

119. I think I’m with you on this one, Michael. But I’m also still trying to figure it out and probably will continue to do so this side of Heaven. I grew up as a presbyterian MK with plenty of baptist influence also, and back then the teaching was the the Lord’s Supper was pretty straightforward symbolic in nature. As I mature, I see more of the mystery there and am more comfortable with it. I can’t go as far as transsubstantiation, but I’m definitely in the Real Presence camp, though more than willing to live with the mystery of what that may mean, and happy to be in a church now that celebrates the Lord’s Supper every week.

     LikeLike

120. I think there needs to be a re-examination of what a symbol is. Why can’t I take the garbage out in a piece of cloth covered in 50 white stars, a blue box, and red and white stripes? Why can’t I use it to clean up after my dog? Isn’t it just a piece of cloth? Turning a piece of cloth into an American flag doesn’t transform it chemically or atomically, but we treat and handle it differently than we would a cleaning rag – even though under a microscope the two cloths might look the same. Why is that?

     LikeLike

121. No worries, Michael, absolutely no intention of piling on with the Papistry 🙂

     I would just like to say, in relation to “The Baptist position requires that the early church go decisively wrong in a critical matter following the second century, with not only no dissenting majority, but no dissenting minority.”, don’t beat yourselves up, guys.

     The Baptists aren’t the only ones to think the church went off the rails pretty early on, and they’re by no means the worst offenders. To quote Chesterton:

     “The last limit of an early date for the extinction of true Christianity has probably been found by the latest German professor whose authority is invoked by Dean Inge. This learned scholar says that Pentecost was the occasion for the first founding of an ecclesiastical, dogmatic, and despotic Church utterly alien to the simple ideals of Jesus of Nazareth. This may be called, in a popular as well as a learned sense, the limit.”

     LikeLike

122. Really, though, I’ve never had explained what “eating unto condemnation” is really supposed to mean. Can anyone help me out there?

     LikeLike

123. Here’s some food for thought. Most of the studies I’ve seen where the Jewish customs around the time of Jesus are looked into seem to come away with an understanding of the Lord’s Supper which is very similar to a memorial view.

     LikeLike

124. I wonder how much the fact that the “Table” is alway in the context of the gathering of the saints effects how people in the past described the presence of Christ. Could it not be that the presence in not directly linked in any particular or specific way to the elements, but to the gathering itself which had the table as it’s center?

     LikeLike

125. Fr. Alexander Schmemann does a wonderful job showing the ultimate significance of the Lord’s Supper in his book For the Life of the World. It seems to me that this is quite a Western Christian question, and something that the East just accepts as Christ’s mystical presence. I see a lot of Protestants moving more in this direction. The hard part in analyzing any theological development of the Reformation is trying to tease out what is truly “Christian” in a historical, John 17 sense, and what is simply an overemphasis on one end (Medieval Roman Catholicism) on one hand and Protestantism (Luther, Calvin, and Free Church) on the other hand. It seems to me that this whole question wasn’t as big of a deal before Zwingli.

     LikeLike

126. For some reason, I always get the scene of the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes somehow having something to do with coming to the Table of the Lord.
     I also think of the twenty-third Psalm, where we are promised this ‘my cup runneth over’.

     I think it is the abundant, overflowing goodness of the Lord that I see in these two examples that I somehow connect with (what words do I use?) Eucharist.

     I do not know much about Lutheranism, except that they have a deeper understanding of ‘the Lord’s Supper’ than do the Baptists.
     I wonder if Michael can share how his experience hanging out with Anglicans this weekend contributed to his thoughts on this post.
     I’m afraid to say more, or to pull all this together: too many warnings and parameters that are confusing to me, but I am convinced that, whatever Protestants thinks of Eucharist, they must remember the story of the magnification of the fishes and the loaves, and the promise of the overflowing ‘cup’ of blessing. There IS something more going on, something of great abundance from God, Perhaps Father Ernesto has it right: about the MYSTERY of the Eucharist. Even, as a Catholic, I know what we ‘acknowledge’ about the Eucharist in detail; and I also understand our human inability to understand everything about this great mystery.

     One more thought: Christ’s ‘Presence’
     No one has a problem with Christ’s incarnation: ‘and the Word became flesh’
     So we already accept the possibility of Christ coming to us in a way that we can only begin to understand: born in a stable, as a little infant child.

     So we know. He is able to come to us.
     Remember: it is the Table ‘of the Lord’ and even for Protestants, He is there in ways that we can only begin to understand.

     LikeLike

127. This is an interesting discussion…one I have not given too much thought to. An idea for consideration, though: if the remembrance/Baptist view was espoused by the Gnostics then from an historical perspective it would make sense that none of the ECF would be interested. It would be guilt by association. No writer perhaps felt comfortable expressing anything that might associate them with heretics. By the time the “stink” of the Gnostics wore off it was a non-issue until the Reformation.

     I am in no way saying that this is a correct understanding or saying that it makes the issue disappear. I just read the comments and it got me thinking about historical causes. Absence of evidence also does not equate to evidence of absence.

     LikeLike

128. Michael, what are you doing with the Mennonites next weekend? I ask since I’m going to one of their seminaries. Speaking of Mennonites, they’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the Lord’s Supper recently which you might find interesting. I’m not sure whether it would be of any use for answering your question though.

     LikeLike

129. Permit me a clarifying question.

     If He is “really present” do you believe He is present according to both of His natures?

     LikeLike

130. IM,

     There was an interesting discussion in the 9th century between two monks. They were reflecting on the real presence and in what sense the wine and bread became the bread and wine. The first monk Radbertus argued for a view that is similar to Transubstantiation (the wine and the bread become the literal and real body and blood of Christ). The later monk, Ratranmus, argued that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ only by faith and that they are in fact only symbols of the body and blood. You can find the discussion in Alister McGrath’s “The Christian Theological Reader”.

     There are a number of things that are very interesting about the debate. First, Ratranmus notes that the Christian world is divided on the issue (it does not appear that he is a lone inovator). Another very interesting thing is that he is very comfortable using phrases like the bread and wine are “the body and blood of Christ.”

     What I think this shows is that in the 9th century (and presumably other centuries) there was no real definition of transubstantiation and that people were left to understand ‘real presence’ in a number of ways that might include understandings that would only be found in a Protestant denomination today.

     The fact that the Eastern Orthodox church rejects Transubstantiation today shows that the Aristotelian silliness of forms and accidents is hardly apostolic.

     LikeLike

131. Have you looked at Verduin’s _The Reformers and their Stepchildren_? He sometimes came up with interesting historical stuff,e.g., very early Reformed church consistory statement that made mode and object of baptism a matter of conscience. Might be stuff on Lord’s Supper, too.

     LikeLike

132. Michael,
     I would highly recommend Keith Mathison’s book “Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.” Although I was already leaning toward the classical Reformed position regarding spiritual real presence, Keith’s book sealed the deal for me. As to your question of any historical precedent of the “memorialist” view before Zwingli, I will defer to those more conversant with that. It’s been just long enough that I can’t recall if Keith addresses that in his book. Though I do think he mentions the gnostic heresies that existed before the reformation period concerning the sacraments. Typically, anytime a church leader has disparaged a sacrament and said it had no physical efficacy, gnostic tendencies were usually not far behind. Much of the recent “left behind” eschatology has been of just that variety. But I digress. Of course, if I had my druthers, I’d have weekly eucharist with real wine and unleavened bread! Much of our weakness in our sanctification view, I believe, is partly due to our weak sacramental view. Weekly communion would force us to consider our state of affairs between each other before we partook of the elements. The “symbolism” of both (bread and wine) is rich beyond words and speaks powerfully to the reality of Christ’s kingdom breaking into our world through His broken bread/body and poured out wine/blood. We miss that very power when we relegate the holy sacrament to something equal to Coke and a pizza. Sadly, I don’t exaggerate when I mention Coke and a pizza, since that’s exactly what a pastor told me would be fine with him as the expression of communion. Needless to say I chose to fellowship elsewhere. Thank you Michael for asking the necessary questions.

     LikeLike

133. The Orthodox argue against transubstantiation. They also argue against Real Presence. It may interest you to know that the reason is because both views over-define the issue. In both cases, the Orthodox would say that Protestants and Catholics are over-defining what is essentially undefinable. We would clearly say that we truly receive the Body and Blood, whether or not we have the faith to see it. We would also argue that if we have not faith to see it, we would receive it to our own condemnation (see 1 Corinthians).

     “Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety . . .” In other words, we cannot understand it, but we simply proclaim it. Bread and wine is Body and Blood.

     In one sense the Reformers were correct to repudiate the Roman stance. It went too far. It defines an undefinable mystery. But, rather than returning to mystery, the Reformers decided that they could define it better than the Romans. That was their big mistake. They could not define it better than the Romans because no one can define it. We can only proclaim it and do a good southern Mediterranean shrug of the shoulders when we are asked to explain it.

     LikeLike

134. I come from a Christian Churches/Churches of Christ background, myself. Their emphasis is on the “remembrance,” though I am swaying dramatically away from this position. Like Luther, I am stuck on the word “is,” which seems rather important. That, and 1 Corinthians 10:16 seems convincing that we are participating in the body, and not the remembrance.

     Also, and this might be nonsensical, but Jesus was both 100% God and 100% man at the same time. It stands to reason that the substance can be both 100% bread, and 100% body, as well.

     LikeLike

135. Other than the Gnostics, for whom anything material cannot possibly be sacred, as far as I know Zwingli’s theology of the Lord’s Supper originates with Zwingli. That’s why it was so controversial.

     LikeLike

136. Thanks for speaking to this sacred issue.
     My whole life I’ve only been a member of a church that has had a traditional Zwinglian view. I have come to believe from study, personal meditation, the majority of the churches past history and ongoing present majority when Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, etc are included, that I’ve been missing something. I believe the real and living presence of Jesus is with us in a way that includes but goes beyond symbol and remembrance. The incarnate Son of God is truly with us and by faith we can partake of his life through the bread and the wine. I’m just not sure how. It’s a mystery to me, and for the moment, I’m learning to be ok with that.

     LikeLike

137. If you look at the Thirty-Nine Articles, there is a theology of the Eucharist articulated there that is later not required. But, the original interpretation was that it was a spiritual presence. The Oxford Movement moved the Church of England to allow for a wider possible interpretation of the Lord’s Supper to include an actual presence. Below is a quote from the Articles regarding the Lord’s Supper.

     Article XXVIII

     Of the Lord’s Supper

     The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

     Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

     The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

     LikeLike

138. iMonk, I’m so glad we (Baptists) have you. Thanks for being vocal and upfront about this issue–I feel that establishing a more Biblcal/reclaiming a more Traditional view of Communion is in some ways, one of the most pressing challenges in the Baptist church today. Keep it up.

     LikeLike

139. …the eucharist as it is celebrated among Lutherans and Anglicans…
     …differences between Luther’s view of the supper and Calvin’s view…

     I am under the impression that Anglicans are not clear on whether there is a spiritual or physical presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. My (limited) research led me to believe that Anglicans hover between Luther and Calvin on a congregation by congregation basis and that they don’t cover this in their statement of faith. Am I mistaken?

     LikeLike

140. Father Robert Hart has written a great piece on the classical Anglican view: http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/02/my-suggestion-other-day-was-that.html

     LikeLike

141. One last thing, when reading Zwingli, he never acts like he’s come up with something new. He always makes it sound like he’s repeating the teachings of the Church Fathers. He especially likes to quote Augustine. I’m not a scholar (just a student!) so I have no clue as to the accuracy of Zwingli’s interpretation. But in my dilettantish thinking, I think Zwingli was on to something, but it was a shame he got rid of the Real Presence.

     LikeLike

142. Michael,

     Besides the Gnostics, who taught a symbolic view of the eucharist but held to a completely unorthodox christology, I can think of two possible examples of those who views were similar to Zwingli before the Reformation. First, Berenger of Tours in the eleventh century. However, he recanted his more symbolic view after he was condemned as a heretic. Second, John Wycliffe expressed doubts over transubstantiation. Nonetheless, while denying transubstantiation was significant, it is unclear if his view was entirely symbolic. Obviously, as the example of Luther shows, denying transubstantiation doesn’t mean embracing Zwinglianism.

     Augustine clearly believed in the real presence. Yet in some places he also described the eucharist using terms such as “sign” and “seal.” I believe that Hermann Sasse is correct that both Zwingli and Calvin borrowed these terms from Augustine, although in a selective manner.

     Still, at best very, very few people believed in anything similar to the Baptist view of the supper before Zwingli. I think it is safe to say as well that probably no Christian (unless one counts the NT) held to both the Baptist position on communion AND baptism before the sixteenth century.

     rr

     LikeLike

143. If you want to say that the Eucharist is purely a symbolic remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice, then you don’t even have Zwingli to help you.

     Zwingli believed that the Eucharist was a symbolic remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice, but he also believed that there is a real spiritual presence in the Lord’s Supper, in which Christ is consumed in a real way. Just not a physical way.

     As for the difference between Anglican/Lutheran views on Eucharist, both hold to the Real Presence of Christ. The Anglican Church, in its documents, is opposed to Transubstantiation as an explanation of the Real Presence, but is open to all others (this is probably historically contingent). Traditionally, Lutheranism has held to Sacramental Union, which says Christ is above, below, within, and without the elements. Unlike in Transubstantiation, where the elements themselves change into Christ.

     LikeLike

144. Just put it on wish list. Thanks.

     LikeLike

145. Read Ferguson. The evidence if more liturgical, artistic and architectural.

     COMMENTERS: No, we aren’t going to argue baptism.

     LikeLike

146. Michael-I would recommend “The Sacraments in Protestant Practice and Faith” by James F White. It looks at origination of Lutheran, Calvin, Zwingli, Anabaptist and Anglican views of the sacraments. If you wanna borrow my copy just email me. I read it this summer for a class and I think it would serve as a good historical background regarding the lutheran/anglican thing.

     LikeLike

147. I’ve been saying Jesus is really present (and letting others work out where and how) for years and this doesn’t change a single sentence of how I present the supper. I’m just not going to act as if there is evidence for a position when that evidence isn’t there….unless I’m missing it.

     LikeLike

148. I wish I could find some. But I’ve never found any ECFs who took a Zwinglian View and decried the Real Presence view as unapostolic/unbiblical. I come from a tradition that tends to be a bit zwinglian too, but I’m of the personal opinion that some form of the real presence seems like the most logical choice to me. Can’t really say that from a pulpit though.

     I haven’t really studied Infant Baptism. Are there any ECFs that come out against it?

     LikeLike

149. Thanks Paul. One thing I have learned from Lutherans esp: there are some real, significant differences between Luther’s view of the supper and Calvin’s view. And esp in the WAY the Lutheran view if presented.

     LikeLike

150. I have been wrestling with these very thoughts….and doing so very publicly in my very Baptist pulpit as I call our people to see beyond the symbolism to the substance. I love what Calvin said: “It is proper that the bread is called the body of Christ because it not only represents but presents Christ to us.”

     I’m afraid I can’t help with any sources in the era between the New Testament and Zwingli but I’m so glad to know I’m not the only one with a Baptist background who wants to see the Supper elevated to more than what Zwingli imagined it to be.

     LikeLike