# How does the Episcopal Church explain how they partake His body and blood if



## earl40 (Apr 7, 2012)

they do not believe in transubstantiantion?

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.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Apr 7, 2012)

earl40 said:


> they do not believe in transubstantiantion?
> 
> 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.
> ...



The 39 Articles is directly quoting the Apostle Paul. While I have many issues with Anglicanism, this is not one of them. 


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



Individual Anglicans will probably explain their confession differently, but I think it sounds most compatible with Calvin's view. For a good synopsis of Calvin's view, try this essay.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 7, 2012)

Thank you Bryan. Do you think it would be OK to say Jesus is with us in His human nature because His divine nature is in union with His Human nature and thus His humanity is in essence present with because of His divine nature. I am thinking how the human nature may be omnipresent because the hypostatic union and how we can be with Jesus and His human nature even while His body is in heaven. Of course as I write this it appears there would be no way to say His body is omnipresent (as per the creeds) but does hurt the hypostatic union?

For example as a crude analogy let us say we have an ice cube in water and we say the water is the divine nature and the ice is the human nature. We are in the water and touching the ice because of the connection of the water to the ice. Could we say the ice is with us because of the connection of water to it?

I am missing something I know it.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Apr 7, 2012)

If I recall correctly Cranmer shared Calvin and Melanchthon's view on the Lord's supper. Most Anglicans I know are more in line w/ Luther.


----------



## John Bunyan (Apr 7, 2012)

Maybe they believe, with lutherans, in consubstantiation.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 7, 2012)

I am refering to the creeds which state clearly In my most humble opinion that each nature of Jesus, human and divine, retains it proper attributes. I am also saying the Human nature Jesus is indeed present in communion because of the hypostatic union of the divine nature. Am I off here?


----------



## Dearly Bought (Apr 7, 2012)

earl40 said:


> Thank you Bryan. Do you think it would be OK to say Jesus is with us in His human nature because His divine nature is in union with His Human nature and thus His humanity is in essence present with because of His divine nature. I am thinking how the human nature may be omnipresent because the hypostatic union and how we can be with Jesus and His human nature even while His body is in heaven. Of course as I write this it appears there would be no way to say His body is omnipresent (as per the creeds) but does hurt the hypostatic union?
> 
> For example as a crude analogy let us say we have an ice cube in water and we say the water is the divine nature and the ice is the human nature. We are in the water and touching the ice because of the connection of the water to the ice. Could we say the ice is with us because of the connection of water to it?
> 
> I am missing something I know it.



I don't believe this would be congruent with the Calvinist view. The Heidelberg Catechism gives us some helpful commentary on this question:


> Question 47. Is not Christ then with us even to the end of the world, as he has promised?
> 
> Answer: Christ is very man and very God; with respect to his human nature, he is no more on earth; but with respect to his Godhead, majesty, grace and spirit, he is at no time absent from us.
> 
> ...



Historically, it was the Lutheran position which appealed to the hypostatic union as the basis of Eucharistic communion, based upon a Christology which held to a full communication of the properties of the divine nature to the human nature. From a Calvinistic standpoint, we would say that this tends towards a Eutychianism which fails to distinguish the natures of Christ. Calvin looked to the work of the Holy Spirit as the basis of communion instead. It is the work of the Spirit through faith which "lifts" us to partake of Christ's body and blood where he now sits at the right hand of God.

In summary, the Lutheran ground of Eucharistic communion is the hypostatic union. The Calvinistic ground of Eucharistic communion is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This fundamental difference is why Calvinists do not say that unbelievers receive Christ in the sacrament.


----------



## yeutter (Apr 8, 2012)

What modern liberal Episcopalians believe about the Lord's Supper, I have no clue. Most learned Anglicans would answer with John Donne:
"He was the Word that spake it.
He took the bread and brake it.
And what that Word did make it.
I do believe and take it."
Most Anglicans would say that Christ is objectively really present in the consecrated bread and wine; but are silent as to the technical nature of His presence.


----------



## dudley (Apr 9, 2012)

*The Episcopalian community I joined after leaving the Roman catholic church said....*

Of the Lord's Supper the Episcopalian community I joined after leaving the Roman catholic church said as is taught in the 39 articles that 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: in so much 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. 

Episcopalians who follow the thirty nine articles do not accept the RC doctrine Transubstantiation. When I became an Episcopalian I renounced the RC doctrine of Transubstantiation. (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, because I admitted and agreed completely that it cannot be proved by Holy scripture, and it is repugnant to the plain words of Gospel in John 6. It overthrows the nature of a Sacrament, and it definitely has given occasion to many ridiculous superstitions. 

I left Roman Catholicism because of my objections to papal authority and I began to question RC teachings on the sacraments. Although I at one time believed or I would now rather say accepted the RC teaching of transubstantiation , I now firmly believe I was brainwashed into that belief as any one is brainwashed if a member of a cult that professes such absurdities. It is only by brainwashing one could accept such a foul and corrupted teaching like the RC doctrine of transubstantiation. I renounce the RC teaching of transubstantiation and Roman Catholicism completely now. I began to understand why even as a catholic who accepted the teaching I was repulsed and could not attend services that involved the adoration of the bread wafer in a golden monstrance. 

Vatican II did de-emphasize such man made 11th century practices for the purpose of trying to demonstrate unity with Protestants in basic Christian beliefs. But this current pope totally reversed that trend and began moving the RC church completely backwards to a Pre Vatican II mentality; he reintroduced the practice of worshipping the bread wafer. That practice and other unscriptural moves which were a move backwards is why I left Roman Catholicism , renounced the pope and became a Protestant. 

I was also taught and I affirmed as an Episcopalian that the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner; as is taught in the 39 articles and the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, to carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. I would say that this change in my belief about the Lords Supper was the beginning of my true conversion to Protestantism. 

I had not yet explored the Lutheran church or the Methodists. 

When I explored the Lutheran church I did commune with them on several occasions while searching Protestant denominations. I found I could not accept the Lutheran teaching of Con substantiation because it believed that Christ was present in a carnal manner under the bread and wine. It is why I did not seriously consider becoming a Lutheran. I explored the Methodists and did commune also with them for a while because they had an open communion table and I believed as a Protestant that the bread and wine remained bread and wine and that it was by a spiritual nature and by faith that Christ became present. 

It was shortly after that that I began reading about the Protestant reformers John Calvin and John Knox and I began to believe that their teaching on the Lords Supper was not only in line with the scripture and John 6 but it also made such wonderful sense and it was why I decided that I thought I would become a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian. 

I am now a Presbyterian and a rabid Protestant and believe firmly in the Westminster standards and confess the WCF and the teachings of the Presbyterian church on the sacraments and the Lords Supper.

I was not only controlled but was brainwashed into believing that Roman Catholics only had the reception of Christ himself as they believed in transubstantiation. I always believed that Christ was present but would say to others, it is a mystery no man can truly explain. I was brainwashed into believing that all Protestants and especially Presbyterians did not believe in the presence of Christ in the Lords Supper. I knew that Lutherans and some Episcopalians believed in the some true presence. I think that is why I first explored the Episcopalians and the Lutherans they were not as far away from Roman Catholicism, I thought. 

I was also brainwashed in to believing that the Presbyterians were the farthest away for the Roman church and what they said was the church of Christ. I was told that attending Presbyterian services was a bad idea for any catholic. It was bad because they would undermine the true faith, which they said was Roman Catholicism. I believe it was the Grace of God who blessed me with a good intellect and mind that led me to question those beliefs. I found quite the opposite was true, I believe that the gathering we have of services on Sunday in the Presbyterian church is more in line with the early church which never had a mass. I also began to see that Calvin’s idea of ascending to Christ in faith that he became truly present to us in the Lords Supper; we are fed spiritually which is what Christ intended. The Lords Supper is food for the soul ,it is represented by the bread and wine which remain bread and wine. When I studied Knox very thoughtfully I began to not only see what he saw; the RC mass as an abomination but also a blasphemy. I began to see that nothing remains pure and undefiled in the mass. I began to see the mass was an invention of men, popes and I could as Knox understand how the mass itself is a form of Idolatry. I now understood why I was always turned off to the adoration, of the bread wafer in a Gold monstrance. I thought the practice was repulsive, I still do. I could not even conceive of Jesus Christ when I looked the catholic bread wafer wrapped in Golden ornaments and worshiped. I always in my own mind also thought that the saving of the communion in a Gold tabernacle was also wrong and an abomination. It led to so many superstitious practices and beliefs. 

The Roman church also church defies the 5th sola of the Reformation which I also believe;I believe strongly in the 5 solas of the Protestant Reformation. All Glory and Honor is given to God as he directs us in scripture not when man adds to the service their wicked opinions and change it as did the popes and the Roman church ,the mass becomes a total abomination and not true worship as I at one time believed. 

I then began to also see that it was the sacrifice of Christ alone on Calvary that freed us from our sins. We are justified by Christ alone and we are saved through his sacrifice alone which gives us salvation. The mass is still taught to be a sacrifice for the remission of sins. I see that as a blasphemy ,because it denies the completion of the one and only sacrifice of Christ on Calvary as written in the Gospel and the words of Christ himself , ‘it is finished” To have a priest offer a sacrifice is in denial of what Christ came to change. I totally renounce the RC mass as an abomination and a blasphemy now as did John Calvin and John Knox. I do believe I experienced as did John Calvin described" a true Protestant conversion" and only by the grace of God , no merit of mine.

I also see (the RC mass and communion) as a way of controlling people and making then believe they must have the RC church and its ritualistic mass to be saved. Because of this foul teaching I have begun to say to some I changed denominations I am still catholic in the Greek meaning of the word, universal. I am of the Protestant fold and a Presbyterian now. There are some Roman Catholic friends and family who are still little upset at my becoming a Protestant and a Presbyterian. Some are not completely happy with my converting to the Presbyterian faith. I try to tell them that as a Presbyterian and a Protestant I began to know a personal Jesus I never met of knew in the Roman Catholic faith. I have told all that I truly receive Jesus in the Lords Supper or the Eucharist as the Roman church calls it. I said in John 6 the RC church misconstrues the teaching of Christ on the Lords Supper. Christ spoke as he did many times symbolically and he meant that the bread which was his body was received spiritually it was meant to be spiritual food ,The bread represent his broken body on Calvary and we feed on his body spiritually in communing. The wine represents his blood and we receive Christ completely in our soul as he intended. 

I believe I tell others that I receive Christ as much and I believe more so correctly in the Presbyterian church that I ever did in the Roman catholic church,. I receive Him completely and I do not believe the bread becomes His body and the wine becomes His blood through the consecration of the priest only at mass. (Another way of making the Priest and church a necessity) I believe that the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. I see Jesus more clearly when I pray in the Presbyterian Church and worship in the Presbyterian Church more that I ever did while attending the mass and received her Eucharist which I now see as did many of the Reformers a blasphemy and an abomination.

I think many do not understand what I am saying I pray that God will grant to them the grace he granted me.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 9, 2012)

dudley said:


> I was also taught and I affirmed as an Episcopalian that the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner; as is taught in the 39 articles and the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, to carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. I would say that this change in my belief about the Lords Supper was the beginning of my true conversion to Protestantism.



As usual Dudley you are a great read and what I find interesting is that I have a similar journey from Rome to Protestantism. 

So is it me or does this not sound like transubstantiation with the words "heavenly" and "spiritual" thrown in to confuse the goombas like me? "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."

In other words, what is the difference between a Episcopal and a Presbyterian on what the bread and wine ARE?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 9, 2012)

Heidelberg Catechism Question 79


> Q. Why then does Christ call the bread His body and the cup His blood, or the new covenant in His blood, and why does Paul speak of a participation in the body and blood of Christ?
> A. Christ speaks in this way for a good reason: He wants to teach us by His supper that *as bread and wine sustain us in this temporal life*, so His crucified body and shed blood are *true food and drink for our souls to eternal life*.[1] But, even more important, He wants to assure us by this visible sign and pledge, first, that through the working of the Holy Spirit *we share in His true body and blood* as surely as *we receive with our mouth these holy signs* in remembrance of Him,[2] and, second, that all His suffering and obedience are as certainly ours as if we personally had suffered and paid for our sins.[3]
> [1] Jn.6:51,55. [2] 1Cor.10:16-17; 11:26. [3] Rom.6:5-11.



We speak of "true" in the sense of "real" and "genuine." We believe in a genuine communion with the real (true) body and blood of our Lord. The _mode_ or _manner_ of that communion is *spiritual*, as opposed to carnal. We deny that it takes a carnal ingestion of the "physical" body and blood of Christ in order to be a "true" and "real" communion.

But (!) as really and truly as believers receive bodily the *signs* of the spiritual blessing of communion, the ineffable grace of union with Christ; so by that participation in those signs believers' spirits are (yes, even in the very act) put in genuine (true), spiritual communion with the genuine (true), ascended and glorified (and local-in-heaven) flesh-and-blood of our Lord.

Again, we don't require that the signs become the things they signify, in order that they should help us experience the communication effect. It is a perverse insistence that the signs defy the nature of signs so as to accommodate our prejudice, and not just our weakness. Such promoters think it makes the Sacrament easier to understand (as likewise, those who make the signs mere memorials). But this actually attempts to eliminate mystery from where it belongs, and institutes new and impenetrable mystery where none before existed (ala transubstantiation).


----------



## dudley (Apr 9, 2012)

earl40 said:


> dudley said:
> 
> 
> > I was also taught and I affirmed as an Episcopalian that the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner; as is taught in the 39 articles and the means whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, to carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. I would say that this change in my belief about the Lords Supper was the beginning of my true conversion to Protestantism.
> ...



Earl I would agree completely with Bruce Buchanan in the way he explained it and it is what I do believe also and what I meant in my explanation that it is food for the soul …it is not food for the carnal body nor do we receive Christ’s carnal body , the bread does not become Christ’s flesh , nor the wine his blood they remain bread and wine I agree with Bruce when he said We deny that it takes a carnal ingestion of the "physical" body and blood of Christ in order to be a "true" and "real" communion.
I also believe like Bruce in a genuine communion with the real true body and blood of our Lord, however the mode or manner of that communion is spiritual, as opposed to carnal. I deny that as a Presbyterian and a Reformed protestant it takes a carnal ingestion of the "physical" body and blood of Christ in order to be a "true" and "real" communion. That is the difference between us earl and the Roman catholic s who wrongly teach ‘transubstantiation, which is a man made notion with no biblical basis. 

Jesus is always being misunderstood. John rarely records Jesus’ correcting the misunderstanding of people.
The people in John 6 were looking for Christ to provide for them like Moses did and they were not interested in His talk about belief and eating his flesh. Some naturally thought that he was being literal about his statements. It is true, Christ did not correct them. But this is a common theme in the ministry of Christ. As Peter demonstrates, it is only those who stay with him that get the answers for eternal life (John 6:68). Often Christ would speak in parables and not tell any but those who were His true followers (Luke 8:10). The rest He let go in their ignorance since he knew all men and he was not committing himself to them.

But why didn’t He simply correct their misunderstanding in this case? For the same reason He does not throughout the book of John. He often says things that are open to misinterpretation and then leaves His listeners in their confusion. Notice these examples
a. John 2:18-21 “The Jews then said to Him, ‘What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’ But He was speaking of the temple of His body.”
Notice, Christ was not being literal here yet He did not correct the misunderstanding. This misunderstanding eventually leads to His conviction and death.

b. John 3:3-4 “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?”
Notice again, Jesus does not correct Nicodemus’ misunderstanding (although, like in John 6, it is obvious to the reader that this is not to be taken literally).

2. Another important point Roman Catholic apologists fail to take into account is that John does not even record the central events of the Last Supper at all. Obviously if we took the Catholic interpretation of John 6 and believed John included this passage to communicate that believers must eat the literal body and blood of Christ in order to have eternal life, you would expect John to have recorded the events that it foreshadows. You would expect John to have a historical record of the Last Supper, the inaugurating meal of the Eucharist. But John does not. What an oversight by John! In fact, John is the only Gospel writer that did not record the Last Supper. Therefore, it is very unlikely that in John’s mind, a literal eating and drinking of Christ body and blood are essential for salvation. Remember John wrote the only book in the NT that explicitly says it is written for the purpose of salvation and he does not even include the Lord’s Supper.

The brief questions that I have for those who believe that Christ’s words must be taken literally are these which are all related:
Do you take Christ’s words literally when he said “This is my body” (toute estin to soma mou)? If so, since the verb “is” (estin) is in the present tense, do you believe that it was his body at the time of the original Lord’s supper? If not, why are you at liberty to take it non-literally here, but insist that it is literal otherwise? In other words, how could not be literal here, but be literal after Christ’s death? If so, don’t you think this is a violation of Chalcedon? 

Earl, the roman catholic teaching is a blasphemy and an abomination of the sacrament as is the Roman catholic mass! You and I are fortunate to have been saved from the bondage and lies of Roman Catholicism. You and I are by the grace of God now Reformed Protestants, I thank God for my conversion to the true faith , I know you do too Earl.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 9, 2012)

Rev. Bruce and Dudley I thank you both very much.

One quick question concerning "But this actually attempts to eliminate mystery from where it belongs". Would the mystery be in that we are in communion with Jesus via our spirits to His body which is in heaven via The Holy Spirit?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 9, 2012)

Earl,
The mystery we face is *how* we partake, or have communicated to us, the alive and embodied _person_ of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is *real* fellowship we enjoy with our Savior; better than a phone call, better than a video conference, better than a letter containing perfume and a lock of hair. None of those media can do what the divinely appointed means empowered by the Spirit can do: which is give us the nearest and sweetest foretaste of our promised heavenly conviviality in anticipation of the event.

*THAT* we (that is, believers) so communicate is a datum of revelation. We accept it as a fact. And we accept that *how* that happens is partly (mostly) shrouded in mystery. It isn't especially needful to know the inner-workings that make it so.

The Reformed are sometimes accused of "overanalysis" of the Table Sacrament, and the importation of "logic" or "reason" to explain away the language of Scripture. Honestly, its hard to imagine a more blatant piece of "projection." (I think it was R Scott Clark who first showed me this).

The fact is, that transubstantiation (Roman), or the ubiquity of Christ's humanity (Lutheran), are attempts (along with the Reformed) to offer _some_ explanation of *how* the fact of communion happens. Our argument against Rome is that their explanation of *how* actually destroys the Sacrament entirely, in the mass' putative power to render Christ's sacrifice *present* for the participants. Their teaching (doctrine) "undoes" the actual work of Christ, finished so long ago, and puts in its place a gross idolatry.

Our Lutheran friends feel the need to maintain a belief in a *corporeal* presence in the Supper, and they point to Jesus' words, "this is my body" as sufficient proof. What seems to escape them is the fact that their own "philosophy" (theological first-principles)--regarding what qualities are necessary for attributing "reality" to something--drives them to their conclusions, just as much as our first theological principles direct our Reformed conclusions. Thus, their charge that the Reformed are beholden to philosophy, merely recoils upon their own unselfcritical aprioris, which remain undisturbed and unquestioned. There is significantly more of Medieval philosophical accretions (traditions) left in Lutheranism than in the Reformed tradition. The Eutychian charge against their understanding of Christ's human nature is cogent; and an appeal to the "uniqueness" of Christ as a defense is cold-comfort to the soul who feels the need for a Savior who is "like us in EVERY way, but without sin."

In the end, I argue that the Lutheran (along with the Romanist) has _eliminated mystery_ from the "first point of contact," namely from the very question of how the simple and ordinary partaking of bread and wine puts the believer in contact with the risen, embodied, heavenly-located Christ. We say it's spiritual, and therefore mysterious. The others offer a "philosophical" answer, by inserting a corporeal "presence" where none is necessary or called for. The Romanist's answer is more complex, because they invoke the Aristotelian categories of "substance and accident." But the Lutherans' answer merely affirms the Romanist conviction, absent the rigor of a "philosophical" explanation; "in, with, and under" is their loosely defined _corporeal_ presence. The mystery of the first point of contact is eliminated by adopting a physical presence "in some manner." But the prior question, of why the need to so affirm that sort of presence, is never raised.

The other method of avoiding (or misplacing) mystery occurs when the Radical-Reformation view is taken, sometimes referred to as the "Zwinglian" view. In that, the Supper itself is reduced to a memorial meal, that has no intrinsic spiritual effect (even to faith). They may be viewed as acts of faith (properly so), and yet they do not function in any kind of "sacramental" way, to put the believer in true, bodily communion with the Lord of Heaven. Here we have the abolition of mystery, not just pushing it back a step or two.


Anyway, I hope this sheds some light.


----------



## Philip (Apr 9, 2012)

earl40 said:


> In other words, what is the difference between a Episcopal and a Presbyterian on what the bread and wine ARE?



Depends on the Episcopal and the Presbyterian. Both are generally in this fuzzy place between Luther and Zwingli---unless the episcopal is Anglo-Catholic.

I'd say that in general, Anglican sacramentology (aside from Anglo-Catholic aberrations) is rather helpful because, like Presbyterian (and I consider them both legitimate expressions of Calvin's view, by the way) the Anglican stresses that Christ is really present but doesn't bother as much with the how. To some degree, reformed sacramentology is a _via negativa_, stressing what the sacrament is not more than what it actually is. The main difference between Anglican and Presbyterian expressions has been for Anglicans to wax poetical (as Anglicans are wont to do) and Presbyterians to wax philosophical (as Presbyterians are wont to do). This is one area where I actually find the Anglican response to be more helpful and consistent with reformed thought . . .

. . . which is why I'm going to go read George Herbert now.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 9, 2012)

Thanks Rev. Buchanan. You have always been one of the best to shed light.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 9, 2012)

Philip said:


> reformed sacramentology is a via negativa, stressing what the sacrament is not more than what it actually is.


 I have found that the Presbyterians, Calvin's statements, and even early Particular Baptists do express the means of Grace in the Lord's table. They express what the Presence of the Lord's Spirit is and what His means are in these sacraments to be true and beneficial. The refutation against false understanding might be needful in defining since there are so many. So the need to write more about what it isn't may be of necessity. Satan does try to blaspheme God in His Sacraments by adding to the Word of God. The pointing out of the many disfigurements is necessary so the truth can be recognized. 

If I can make an analogy, I would point out how counterfeiting is applicable here. We have one Dollar Bill. But to expose the counterfeiters we must note the various ways the counterfeiters have done their work. So I might actually expose the many false counterfeits and point to the one true dollar bill and why they are different. I might have to write more about the counterfeiters because of the many various ways that it has been done. Does that make sense?


----------



## Philip (Apr 9, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Does that make sense?



It does---I'm just pointing out that this may be one of the few areas where the reformed tradition has tended not to say very much. Zwinglians, Catholics, and Lutherans all have highly systematic accounts of the Lord's Supper, whereas the reformed reject the systematization of the sacrament, instead (rightly) tending toward a reverent silence or else a bursting forth into psalms and hymns.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 9, 2012)

Philip said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Does that make sense?
> ...



Then I must say we have different experiences. Even in my Reformed Baptist days I experienced what I should look forward to based upon examination and the means of grace in this sacrament. So be careful. Experiences aren't the same. I have heard so many great sermons on the means of grace in this sacrament. I have heard so many testimonies where the Lord used this sacrament to heal relationships between God and man from His Spirit in this means. Maybe you are reading the wrong things. Samuel Rutherford has a book of sermons on this sacrament you might enjoy. Fourteen Communion Sermons. I am sure you can find many more to be edified by.

A Reformed Baptist on Communion as it is a means of Grace. 
http://www.arbca.com/GA2011/thelordssupperasameansofgrace.mp3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 9, 2012)

Philip said:


> instead (rightly) tending toward a reverent silence or else a bursting forth into psalms and hymns.



This can be taken incorrectly. I hope you aren't saying that bursting forth into Psalm or hymn is better than. If that is the point then the doctrine of Scripture or justification should have been even more bursting forth into Psalm and Hymn. Reverent voice is much better than supposed reverent silence.


----------



## Philip (Apr 9, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Then I must say we have different experiences. Even in my Reformed Baptist days I experienced what I should look forward to based upon examination and the means of grace in this sacrament. So be careful. Experiences aren't the same. I have heard so many great sermons on the means of grace in this sacrament. I have heard so many testimonies where the Lord used this sacrament to heal relationships between God and man from His Spirit in this means.



I apologize for not being clearer---I was referring to the metaphysics of the sacrament. Naturally, reformed thought has focused a great deal on the practical theology of the Lord's Supper. I was simply remarking that in comparison to the highly Aristotelian RC doctrine, the metaphysically complex Lutheran view, and the empiricist Zwinglian stance, reformed thought has tended to be more vague with reference to the metaphysics of the Lord's Supper, focusing more on its role in the life of the believer and of the body.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 9, 2012)

Philip said:


> I was referring to the metaphysics of the sacrament. Naturally, reformed thought has focused a great deal on the practical theology of the Lord's Supper.



Maybe I am at a loss here. But solid practical reformed theology combines the phenomenal and the noumenal in my estimation. We don't operate out of a vacuum or void.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 10, 2012)

BTW, just for information, here is Dr. Rich Barcellos' (a great Reformed Baptist and one of the best) recent sermons on this topic. 
Lord's Supper: Means of Grace Series - SermonAudio.com


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 10, 2012)

Randy,
I hear Philip saying that it's actually kind of nice that the Reformed are pretty "simple" and biblical when it comes to the Supper. You can be simple, and yet profound. The Apostle John comes to mind.


----------



## yeutter (Apr 10, 2012)

Philip said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, what is the difference between a Episcopal and a Presbyterian on what the bread and wine ARE?
> ...


Don't put all Anglo-Catholics in one basket. Many Anglo-Catholics [especially those who I would call Old High Churchmen] would not deny transubstantiation but neither would they affirm that that is the correct understanding of how Christ is present in the Lord's Supper. A subset of Anglo-Catholics [which I call Anglo-Romish] do insist on transubstantiation. Many of these have recently swam the Tiber and are now in union with Rome.


----------



## Philip (Apr 10, 2012)

yeutter said:


> Don't put all Anglo-Catholics in one basket. Many Anglo-Catholics [especially those who I would call Old High Churchmen] would not deny transubstantiation but neither would they affirm that that is the correct understanding of how Christ is present in the Lord's Supper.



I'll be sure to note that in the future. Now that I think of it, most of the Anglo-Catholics I've known have affirmed the "real presence" and left it at that.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 10, 2012)

I'm sorry Philip. I was reading you as critiquing instead of affirming what Bruce pointed out and what you were saying. Go figure. I got it wrong. It seems the older I get the worse I become at hearing. My apologies.


----------



## dudley (Apr 10, 2012)

*I agree completely with Bruce's explanation*



Contra_Mundum said:


> Earl,
> The mystery we face is *how* we partake, or have communicated to us, the alive and embodied _person_ of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is *real* fellowship we enjoy with our Savior; better than a phone call, better than a video conference, better than a letter containing perfume and a lock of hair. None of those media can do what the divinely appointed means empowered by the Spirit can do: which is give us the nearest and sweetest foretaste of our promised heavenly conviviality in anticipation of the event.
> 
> *THAT* we (that is, believers) so communicate is a datum of revelation. We accept it as a fact. And we accept that *how* that happens is partly (mostly) shrouded in mystery. It isn't especially needful to know the inner-workings that make it so.
> ...



Earl, I agree completely with Bruce's explanation. He explains also what I believe and Bruce explains it far better than I am able to. Thank you Bruce , I have learned much about our Reformed faith by reading your posts. I have great respect for you Bruce. Earl it is interesting that our journies from Roman catholicism to Protestantism are so similar.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 10, 2012)

dudley said:


> Thank you Bruce , I have learned much about our Reformed faith by reading your posts. I have great respect for you Bruce.



Yes I agree. I know of no better resource ,other than the bible of course, than the Puritan Board for the average Joe or serious student of His Word.


----------

