# Is the Lord's Supper merely symbolic?



## biblelighthouse (Jun 29, 2005)

I assume most of us on this forum either hold to the Calvinistic view that grace is truly imparted in the Eucharist, or to the view saying that communion is merely symbolic. 

I believe grace is actually imparted. I do not believe communion is merely a symbol.

(Of course, I reject the Lutheran and Catholic views of the Lord's Supper. . . . I imagine the rest of us on here do too.)

Take a look at my new article concerning the Lord's Supper:
http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sacraments/communion-partaking.htm


in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 29, 2005)

I hold that Christ is spiritually and covenantally presesnt in the Supper.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 29, 2005)




----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 29, 2005)

It is a means of grace used by the Spirit just like baptism and the preached Word.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 29, 2005)

Clarification....is the question "Is Christ spiritually present in the elements of bread and wine?" or "Is Christ spiritually present in the words of institution?" or when the two are put together?


----------



## brymaes (Jun 29, 2005)

Christ is not locally present in the elements, but spritually present in the whole Sacrament. The words of institution are the "effectual" components of the sacrament, as it were.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I hold that Christ is spiritually and covenantally presesnt in the Supper.



What is meant by 'Covenantally' present?


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 29, 2005)

Only away with that calumny that Christ is removed from his Supper unless he lies hidden under the covering of bread! For since this mystery is heavenly, there is no need to draw Christ to earth that he may be joined to us.

Now if anyone should ask me how this takes place, I shall not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare. And to speak more plainly, I rather experience than understand it. Therefore, I here embrace without controversy the truth of God in which I may safely rest. He declares his flesh the food of my soul, his blood its drink. I offer my soul to him to be fed with such food. In this Sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I do not doubt that he himself truly presents them, and that I receive them.

Institutes, 4.17.31-32 [2:1403-4]


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 29, 2005)

Dabney says of Calvin's view, "it is not only incomprehensible, but impossible."

Robert L. Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology, (1878, reprinted: Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), p. 811


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SharperSword_
> Christ is not locally present in the elements, but spritually present in the whole Sacrament. The words of institution are the "effectual" components of the sacrament, as it were.



Exactly - just as it is not simply the water that the Spirit works through in baptism, but the whole sacrament, especially the words. It is just like the preached Word as well - the physical elements (paper and ink) are absolutely necessary at one time or another (whether they are read or memorized) for the Word to be preached, yet they are not what the Spirit works through, which is the words themselves in the mind.



> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> Dabney says of Calvin's view, "it is not only incomprehensible, but impossible."
> 
> Robert L. Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology, (1878, reprinted: Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), p. 811



Interesting.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



I used the word "covenantally" because presbyterians love to use that word in front of other words. Seriously, I think using the word covenantally is a more scriptural category than spiritual/physical. If I say "spiritual" then how far to I follow Calvin's view? Honestly, I think Calvin was spot-on on the Supper (more on that later). If I say "physical" then I sound like a Romanist (a view that is logically incoherent--it is an Aristotelian nightmare). 

So, I think the word "covenantally" is a good attempt at a more biblical formulation. To be sure, it itself is not very clear--obviously I am throwing this out and many do not know what I mean. "In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "œThis cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:25). So how is Christ present?

I think we can still hang on to the category "spiritual" but I am wondering on how I would phrase it in covenantal terms. I will work on that later. 



> Originally posted by Michael Butterfield
> Dabney says of Calvin's view, "it is not only incomprehensible, but impossible."
> 
> Robert L. Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology, (1878, reprinted: Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), p. 811



This is one of the few times I will depart with my beloved mentor. Honestly, God becoming flesh is even more incomprehensible. Why stop with the supper?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 29, 2005)

> The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
> (1 Cor 10:16 ESV)



So ... what does _this_ mean.

I'm somewhere inbetween the Reformed view and Luther's view.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
> ...



I would interpret that verse and its relation to the sacrament as the Confession does in XXVII.II:



> There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.[6]
> 
> [6] GEN 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. MAT 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. TIT 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.



In the Supper, "the sign" is the bread and wine, and "the thing signified" is the body and blood. So in light of verses like Matthew 26:28, which was spoken before His blood had even been poured out for the forgiveness of sins, the classic Reformed position on the Supper makes perfect sense out of 1 Corinthians 10:16.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 29, 2005)

This is taken from the Semi-Pelagian shorter catechism:

31. Q: What is the Lord's Supper? 
A: The Lord's Supper is a dispensing of saltines and grape juice, in the which we remember Christ's command to pretend that they are His body and 
blood.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...





> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I used the word "covenantally" because presbyterians love to use that word in front of other words.




 LOL, your reason given above is exactly why I asked. It is the presbyterian catch all phrase when we do not know what else to say.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> ...



In all seriousness, I will accept for the time your use of the word "˜covenantally,´ but only for a time, especially in the light of Calvin's own words.

In this manner the apostle said, "˜The bread which we break is a participation in the body of Christ; the cup which we consecrate to this by word and prayers is a participation in his blood´ [1 Cor. 10:16p., order changed]. There is no reason for anyone to object that this is a figurative expression by which the name of the thing signified is given to the sign. I indeed admit that the breaking of bread is a symbol; it is not the thing itself. But, having admitted this we shall nevertheless duly infer that by the showing of the symbol the thing itself is also shown. For unless a man means to call God a deceiver, he would never dare assert that an empty symbol is set forth by him. Therefore, if the Lord truly represents the participation in his body through the breaking of bread, there ought not to be the least doubt that he truly presents and shows his body. And the godly ought by all means to keep this rule: Whenever they see symbols appointed by the Lord, to think and be persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is surely present there. For why should the Lord put in your hand the symbol of his body, except to assure you of a true participation in it? but if it is true that a visible sign is given us to seal the gift of a thing invisible, when we have received the symbol of the body, let us no less surely trust that the body itself is also given to us.

_Institutes_, 4.17.10 [2:1370-71].


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
> ...



Once understood you will really like Calvin's view.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 30, 2005)

Yeah, I just haven't gotten there in _Institutes_ yet.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 30, 2005)

The consensus of Reformed teaching on the way in which Christ is present in the Lord's Supper may be summarized as follows: there is absolutely no corporeal presence of Christ whatsoever in the Lord's Supper. Christ is not elementally, spatially or locally present in the Supper in any way. There is no change or conversion of the elements in the Supper. The believer does indeed receive Christ in the Supper, but not by the mouth, rather by faith. Nor does Christ's humanity come down to the believer, but by the Spirit the believer is raised in heart to receive Christ in his ascended glory.

Ligon Duncan, editor, The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century: Volume 2 (Mentor, July 2004), p. 441, in the article "True Communion with Christ in the Lord's Supper" by Ligon Duncan.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 30, 2005)

Calvin's view, in my estimation, is the best. Dabney did not understand it to say its impossible.

Let me make it simple: taking communion is like using a cell phone to call your friend. Are they _really_ there? That depends on what you mean. Are you _really_ speaking with them? That depends on what you mean. Are you actually edified by your fellowship with them? Again, same. The bread and wine act like a cell phone to commune with Christ person through the Mediator's actual body and blood. The bread and wine connect us to Him. Faith is like the cell phone service (Sprint, Verizon, whoever.)

That is how Calvin saw the supper. I concur.

[Edited on 6-30-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 30, 2005)

_Sursum corda_

"œ_lift up (your) hearts;"¦It is especially important to the Reformed as an explanation of the union"¦between the participant in the Lord´s Supper and the resurrected Christ." Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 292._


----------



## BobVigneault (Jun 30, 2005)

That's an interesting illustration Matthew. So if I can't, for whatever reason, be in church on Communion Sunday can I carry over my minutes (grace) from the service the previous month.


----------



## crhoades (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> That's an interesting illustration Matthew. So if I can't, for whatever reason, be in church on Communion Sunday can I carry over my minutes (grace) from the service the previous month.



And do some congregations have 5 bars of signal strength whereas others have none?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 30, 2005)

How about prepaid phone cards?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 30, 2005)

How did Calvin know about cell phones?


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 30, 2005)

Ok....my view is that Christ is spiritually present in the sacrament, but not in the elements of bread and wine themselves. He is present in the word that is spoken. The elements themselves point to the gospel, the shed blood and broken body of our Lord on the cross.

It would be interesting to get people's opinion on what they MEAN by the phrase "Christ is spiritually present." I'm afraid that for many reformed folk, this simply means that Christ is "mystically" present in some weird or unknown fashion that is just too deep for us. I have my own take of course....but I would be interested to hear other people's views.

Any takers?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> How about prepaid phone cards?



You guys are too much!


----------



## raderag (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Calvin's view, in my estimation, is the best. Dabney did not understand it to say its impossible.
> 
> Let me make it simple: taking communion is like using a cell phone to call your friend. Are they _really_ there? That depends on what you mean. Are you _really_ speaking with them? That depends on what you mean. Are you actually edified by your fellowship with them? Again, same. The bread and wine act like a cell phone to commune with Christ person through the Mediator's actual body and blood. The bread and wine connect us to Him. Faith is like the cell phone service (Sprint, Verizon, whoever.)
> ...



I sure hope it is a bit more reliable.


----------



## Myshkin (Jun 30, 2005)

What does "merely symbolic" mean? Doesn't a symbol point to a reality? This seems to be a part of the spiritual presence view of Calvin, to me. I chose this option in disctinction from the merely "memorial" view. I am confused as to how the first two options of the poll are different.


----------



## raderag (Jun 30, 2005)

I really buy into the idea that grace is imparted in some mysterious way, but when I try to explain it to someone the best I can do is to say that the Lord's Supper is like the rainbow that God gave to Noah. It is a real sign of the covenant that God made to us, and a reminder of how he saved us. This is the primary way in which grace is conferred. From there, the mystery of the supper being efficacious is spiritual, mystical, and not really possible to explain. Just my opinion.

[Edited on 6-30-2005 by raderag]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> What does "merely symbolic" mean? Doesn't a symbol point to a reality? This seems to be a part of the spiritual presence view of Calvin, to me. I chose this option in disctinction from the merely "memorial" view. I am confused as to how the first two options of the poll are different.



I have pictures of my wife and kids in my wallet. They _merely_ represent them, and they _merely_ remind me of them. This is certainly a good thing, but there is no actual communion going on between my family and me when I am at work looking at their pictures.

But when I talk to my wife and kids on the phone, I am *actually* communing with them, even though they are not physcially present with me.

The Lord's Supper is *both* a "picture" * and * a "phone call". The bread and wine are symbolic, but not _merely_ symbolic. The bread and wine symbolize His body and blood, *and* I actually feast on Christ, communing with Him spiritually while I partake of His Supper. 

It's kind of like looking at pictures of my family while I talk to them on the phone. (Although I would say that the Lord's Supper is even deeper and more meaningful than the "picture" and "phone" similes can convey.)


----------



## raderag (Jun 30, 2005)

*Lutheran Ubiquity*

The Real Presence , according to Lutheran doctrine is based on some major fallacies in my view.




> *Negative Theses.*
> Contrary, Condemned Doctrines of the Sacramentarians.
> 34] 13. That God, according to all His omnipotence (which is dreadful to hear), *is not able to cause His body to be essentially present in more than one place at one time. *
> 
> -Epitome of the Formula of Concord



Maybe I am wrong, but isn't Christ's body the essence of his human nature? Doesn't this seek to mix the divine and human, instead of them being united? Or maybe they just try to change the human into divine?


If you applied the Lutheran hermeneutic of wooden literalness on John 6 to the rest of Scripture, you would have many other problems. Thankfully, Lutheran's don't. 

I also do wonder if the distinction between the natures of Christ is present in Lutheran theology enough though.





> *Negative Theses.
> Contrary False Doctrine concerning the Person of Christ.*
> 30] 11. That because of the property of the human nature it is impossible for Christ to be able to be at the same time in more than one place, much less everywhere, with His body.
> "¦
> ...



The correct understanding is that Christ has two distinct natures. His human nature is not divine, and his divine nature is not human, but qualities of each nature are communicated. 





> Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in *two natures, without confusion, without change,* without division, without separation; *the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union,* but rather the *characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence,* not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
> 
> -The Definition of the
> Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D)



[Edited on 6-30-2005 by raderag]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 30, 2005)

I personally think Calvin nailed this one.

But I've always had a question regarding the Lutheran view concerning how Christ is present. It bothers me because so much great came from Luther and I've profitted much from his insightful sermons on Law & Gospel and Justification. It bother me even more because the view of the Sacrament is more like Calvin in the communication of Gospel, means of grace, heaven to earth so to speak - as opposed to others.

This may be a stupid question because I've simply not studied the Lutheran view in-depth. But what, concerning Christ's presence, is the difference between the RC view on that Vs. the Lutheran. I'm not meaning what the Sacrament communicates as a means of grace but the technical difference between the elements becoming and "in, under and through".

Like I said it may be dumb question but it has never "clicked" with me.

Thanks in advance,

Larry


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> It would be interesting to get people's opinion on what they MEAN by the phrase "Christ is spiritually present." I'm afraid that for many reformed folk, this simply means that Christ is "mystically" present in some weird or unknown fashion that is just too deep for us. I have my own take of course....but I would be interested to hear other people's views.
> 
> Any takers?



It means that the Spirit actively applies Christ and His benefits to our hearts and minds when we biblically partake. Just as the Spirit actively uses the Word itself to bring about regeneration, He uses the whole sacrament to bring about further sanctification by conforming our minds and hearts to Christ. Sanctification through the Supper is only of a "mystical" nature to the very same extent as is regeneration through the Word.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 30, 2005)

Chris,

I've always understood it that way. And to remove the "mystical" as in superstition - that the Gospel itself is communicated to us, condscending to our weakness, via the senses. Similar to when Abraham asked Yaweh, "How can I know..." And God gave Him a tangible sign/sacarment to connect the spiritual unseen. Though there still is the Holy Spirit's secret work that we call mystical - not in the same sense as say a gnostic.

Is that what you've understood?

Larry


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Chris,
> 
> I've always understood it that way. And to remove the "mystical" as in superstition - that the Gospel itself is communicated to us, condscending to our weakness, via the senses. Similar to when Abraham asked Yaweh, "How can I know..." And God gave Him a tangible sign/sacarment to connect the spiritual unseen. Though there still is the Holy Spirit's secret work that we call mystical - not in the same sense as say a gnostic.
> ...



Exactly. It has nothing to do with the mysterious "higher realm" in the gnostic sense, since the thing signified is key, as is our realization of it. Even so, that does not of course mean that our benefit from the sacrament simply comes from our own effort to understand, since the Spirit is actively _using_ it to _cause_ us to understand. It is the exact same way with the Word in regeneration - a clear understanding is key to the Word's ultimate efficacy, and yet at the same time it is that Word itself that the Spirit uses to sovereignly bring about that understanding that was previously not there.


----------



## raderag (Jun 30, 2005)

The real pressence is not the same as the Lutheran Ubiquity or bodily pressence. We can say that Christ is present in a spiritual way, but not that his body is actually present.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> The real pressence is not the same as the Lutheran Ubiquity or bodily pressence. We can say that Christ is present in a spiritual way, but not that his body is actually present.



Just a little warning about the use of the language of Christ´s presence at the supper.

"œCalvin did not disagree with the Roman Catholics or with the Lutherans over the fact of Christ´s presence in the Supper. This is something the church had always taught"¦."(1)

According to Calvin, "œNone of us denies that the body and blood of Christ are communicated to us. But the question is, what is the nature of this communication of our Lord´s body and blood?"(2)

Keith A. Mathison, Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin´s Doctrine of the Lord´s Supper, (Phillipsburg, NJ.: R&R Publishing, 2002), p. 276.

John Calvin, Calvin´s Tracts and Treatises. Translated by Henry Beveridge. 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), vol. 2: On the Doctrine and Worship of the Church, p. 2:239.

It is not just a straight forward definition of Christ's presence at the supper, but what is really being said by Calvin. As noted earlier Dabney disagreed with Calvin as did Hodge and Cunningham. Can we even use the language of real presence in the supper? I add that we cannot use that language and using the idea of covenantal is not really that helpful. It is certain that Calvin believed we communicated with the ture and living Christ not just in an elemental way or a spiritual way. The question is still _how_ is Christ present? Calvin would even say that we are lifted up to where he is and actually commune with the risen Christ. According to Calvin, "œNone of us denies that the body and blood of Christ are communicated to us. But the question is, what is the nature of this communication of our Lord´s body and blood?"(3)

(3) John Calvin, Calvin´s Tracts and Treatises. Translated by Henry Beveridge. 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), vol. 2: On the Doctrine and Worship of the Church, p. 2:239.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> The Real Presence , according to Lutheran doctrine is based on some major fallacies in my view.
> 
> 
> ...



The Lutheran´s do, however, believe in a ubiquitous presence. They even state in "˜The Formula of Concord,´ Article VII, that those called "œastute and crafty, "¦ the most harmful of sacramentarians""”which is a reference to Calvin"”"œthink that the body of Christ itself is in no way whatever present, but is contained above in the highest heaven and they affirm that it behooves us by the meditations of faith to rise on high and ascend into heaven, and that this body and blood of Christ are to be sought there and in nowise in union with the bread and wine of the Holy Supper. Clearly, the Lutherans´ of Calvin´s day believed him to deny the local and physical presence of Christ in the elements of the bread and blood. In other words, they understood the Calvinian position to be a denial of the local, elemental, and corporal presence of Christ, which Calvin would say they understood correctly. The contention, then, is that Calvin could not be said to believe in such a real presence even if we acknowledge that his language is at times hard to understand. It is important to recognize, however, that yes, "œCalvin´s language is much more realistic than evangelical teaching on the Lord´s Supper has been accustomed to be; and, consequently, his exposition is read as being excessively material. But, then, the same could surely be said of the language of John 6:51-58 and, for that matter, of 1 Corinthians 10:16;"¦."(1)

(1) Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Holy Spirit, gen. ed. Gerald Bray (Downers Gorve, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p. 203


----------



## raderag (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Isn't that what I said? Did I contradict that in some way?


----------



## yeutter (Jun 30, 2005)

I have been thinking about this question a little recently. Warfield and Gerstner both seem to be zwinglian in the answer they give to Roman Catholics on the Sacraments.

The understanding presented in the Heidelberg matches my understanding of Scriptures teaching on the Lord's Supper. I only have a minor quibble with what the 39 Articles says about the sacrament.

The bread and wine are the visible element God uses to fully declare and seal unto us the promice of the Gospel; that he freely grants us remission of sin and life eternal for the sake of the one finished sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. When we partake of these elements we feed on the body and blood of Christ in our hearts by faith.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> ...



 Apologies, I misread your post. I thought you were posting something from the Formula. What is the epitome or what do you mean by it?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 30, 2005)

Michael,

Thanks much. That gives me some food for thought.

Larry


----------



## raderag (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



I am posting from the formula, but so that I can show the fallacies of it.


----------



## Scott (Jul 5, 2005)

Joseph: I like your analogy about the photograph / telephone call distinction quite a bit.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Joseph: I like your analogy about the photograph / telephone call distinction quite a bit.



Thank you, brother!


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 5, 2005)

If the assessment by Joseph C. McLelland, in his book The Visible Words of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli A.D. 1500-1562 that "œBucer, Calvin and Martyr, must be considered as holding an essentially identical doctrine of the Eucharist, (McLelland, 281)" is true, then we can gain some clearer understanding of Calvin through Martyr. Martyr, according to McLelland, believed that "œthe "˜things themselves´ of the sacrament are received according to the mode of faith. The fountainhead of this profound and complex doctrine is this: _the virtue of the risen Body descends from heaven_. Time and again he emphasizes the "˜force and power´ of Christ´s Body and Blood, their "˜virtue and efficacy´" (McLelland, 165). Martyr, in his own words could not be more unambiguous on the subject of the power of the Holy Spirit being the mode of Christ´s presence, by saying, "œThe Lord´s Supper is a thing heavenly and spiritual, not human and carnal. Therefore the faithful, while they communicate, by the power of the Holy Spirit who is operative in them through the Word and symbol of this mystery, are carried upwards in mind above all heavens, where they delight in Christ himself, particularly in what pertains to his humanity, which they behold and contemplate, inasmuch as this Man was delivered to the cross for their salvation, a price most acceptable to God. Now you see on what grounds we claim the presence of the body of Christ in the sacred Meal. (130E)" (McLelland, 217).


----------



## street preacher (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> How did Calvin know about cell phones?



No kidding!


----------



## street preacher (Jul 6, 2005)

Jesus and Paul did not at any time ever separate Jesus from the Lord's Supper. It has a direct correlation between the elements of the Lord's supper and Christ Himself. I personally see this in 1 Corinthians 10:16. 1 Corinthians 11 teaches that because the Corinthians did not rightly discern the body and blood of the Lord that some of them were sickly and some have died because they profaned the sacrifice itself. Am I saying that I believe in transubstantiation? Absolutely not! I am saying that the Lord's supper, by faith, is a spiritual experience of oneness and communion with the Lord Himself. It is the body and blood of the Lord but in a spiritual sense. It is made up of the physical elements of the bread and wine to remind us and to cause us to realize the actual spiritual reality that the Lord is truly with us by His Spirit, His Word, and in this Sacrament.

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by street preacher]

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by street preacher]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 6, 2005)




----------



## Scott (Jul 6, 2005)

Michael: Thanks for the quote. It is good.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Michael: Thanks for the quote. It is good.



You are welcome.


----------



## Denny (Sep 8, 2005)

I meant to pick the last one,but accidentally picked the second one,because I cannot say that Christ is just spiritually present 
and I have a portion from A.A.Hodges work titled "the Presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper". 

*If he is not present really and truly, then the sacrament can have no interest or real value to us. It does not do to say that this presence is only spiritual, because that phrase is ambiguous. If it means that the presence of Christ is not something objective to us, but simply a mental apprehension or idea of him subjectively present to our consciousness, then the phrase is false. Christ as an objective fact is as really present and active in the sacrament as are the bread and wine, or the minister or our fellow-communicants by our side. If it means that Christ is present only as he is represented by the Holy Ghost, it is not wholly true, because Christ is one person and the Holy Ghost another, and it is Christ who is personally present. The Holy Ghost doubtless is coactive in that presence and in all Christ's mediatorial work, but this leads into depths beyond our possible understanding. It does not do to say that the divinity of Christ is present while his humanity is absent, because it is the entire indivisible divine-human Person of Christ which is present. *


Hodge disagrees with a spiritual presense,in the sense that only His Spirit is present,but that Christ is "wholly present". I have always embraced the fact that the broken bread,and the cup of blessing,ARE the very body and blood of the Lord. Zwingli's views on the Supper were very a novel idea,not many before him held this view.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott (Sep 8, 2005)

Very interesting Denny. Where can this work be found? Is it in his systematic theology?

Here is Westminster Confession 29.7:



> Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.



[Edited on 9-8-2005 by Scott]


----------



## DTK (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Very interesting Denny. Where can this work be found? Is it in his systematic theology?



Actually Scott, it is a snippert from A. A. Hodge's _Evangelical Theology, Lectures on Doctrine_ (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, reprnited 1976), p. 355. A fuller and more contextual representation of Hodge's comments can be viewed here...

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=52||358

(Be sure to copy and paste the entire URL into your browser)

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## DTK (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Denny_
> Hodge disagrees with a spiritual presense,in the sense that only His Spirit is present,but that Christ is "wholly present". I have always embraced the fact that the broken bread,and the cup of blessing,ARE the very body and blood of the Lord. Zwingli's views on the Supper were very a novel idea,not many before him held this view.


I'm not a Zwinglian, but I'm wondering if you can tell us precisely what "Zwingli's views on the Supper" actually were. I encourage you to be cautious in describing his position. 

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## turmeric (Sep 8, 2005)

I'm still confused. So, we partake of Christ spiritually, I get that, but what about Christ do we partake of? The benefits of his death? So, since I am a very concrete thinker at times, can someone unpack this? I'm at the front of the church, I'm partiaking, I'm remembering Christ's death, or am I supposed to be going over in my mind what the crucifixion did for me, or am I supposed to be speaking to Christ in my heart, or what? I came from a "memorialist" background and can't quite see the difference between "remembering Christ's death" and "appropriating his death." I get the cell phone thing, but I don't know exactly what I'm supposed to be thinking, or praying, or what.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I'm still confused. So, we partake of Christ spiritually, I get that, but what about Christ do we partake of? The benefits of his death? So, since I am a very concrete thinker at times, can someone unpack this? I'm at the front of the church, I'm partiaking, I'm remembering Christ's death, or am I supposed to be going over in my mind what the crucifixion did for me, or am I supposed to be speaking to Christ in my heart, or what? I came from a "memorialist" background and can't quite see the difference between "remembering Christ's death" and "appropriating his death." I get the cell phone thing, but I don't know exactly what I'm supposed to be thinking, or praying, or what.



You can (and should) think about Christ and pray _anytime_. So I personally don't think a difference in thought/prayer is the core of our spiritual partaking of Christ in the Supper.

I think there are a couple aspects:

1) In the Eucharist, instead of the Gospel just being preached to your ears, it is being preached to your other senses as well: sight, touch, smell, taste . . . I like to call the Lord's Supper the "edible Gospel" and the "liquid Gospel". --- Your humanity is not just bound up in your mind; your humanity comprises ALL that you are, including all of your physical senses . . . those senses are what feed your mind, emotions, etc. You read, hear, & think about the Gospel a lot. But the Lord's Supper gives the rest of your senses - the rest of YOU - the opportunity to revel in the Gospel.

2) I also believe there is really something mystical going on in the Supper, by which grace is actually imparted. Consider Paul's analogy in 1 Corinthians 10. He compares the evil spiritual partaking of idol feasts to the holy spiritual partaking of Communion. Now, do you know of anyone who truly believes that _nothing_ spiritual is going on at demon/idol feasts? Would anyone say, "that's just a memorial of demons, but there is no actual demonic presence"? No, I think we would both agree that there is a real, evil, demonic spiritual presence at demon/idol feasts. There is nothing innocuous about that type of thing. Well, on the flip side, at a holy feast such as the Lord's Supper, there is the genuine, holy, spiritual presence of Jesus, in a way that He is not present in other settings. Paul himself says that the Lord's supper is a "partaking" in the blood and body of Christ, not just a memorial of it. Do I understand how all this works? Of course not! It is holy, mysterious, and way above me. But I nevertheless believe it and love it!


----------



## Denny (Sep 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Denny_
> ...



It is my understanding that Luther and Zwingli had a major disagreement on this very thing. Luther was the literalist and of course Zwingli the exact opposite,Luther was very close to Roman Catholics in his substantiative view,Zwingli may have believed in some spiritual presence,but in his understanding of the words of institution,"This is my body",He understood it to be "This represents my body". Luther of course sees this as a clear division,or separation of the human and the divine,in other words Christ cannot be divided.

Zwingli's theology was influenced by Platonism,and Rationalism, in seeking to try to understand the Sacrament, plain reason tells you to reject it as a Sacrament altogether.

I've tried to explain His position as cautiously as I could. I am sure I have missed something,I always do.

Denny


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 9, 2005)

Belgic Confession Art. 35



> To represent to us this spiritual and heavenly bread Christ has instituted an earthly and visible bread as the sacrament of his body and wine as the sacrament of his blood. He did this to testify to us that just as truly as we take and hold the sacraments in our hands and eat and drink it in our mouths, by which our life is then sustained, so truly we receive into our souls, for our spiritual life, the true body and true blood of Christ, our only Savior. We receive these by faith, which is the hand and mouth of our souls.
> 
> ...Yet we do not go wrong when we say that what is eaten is Christ's own natural body and what is drunk is his own blood-- but the manner in which we eat it is not by the mouth but by the Spirit, through faith.



Heidelberg Catechism Q. 75:



> 75. How is it signified and sealed to you in the Holy Supper, that you do partake of the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross and all His benefits?
> 
> Thus: that Christ has commanded me and all believers to eat of this broken bread and to drink of this cup in remembrance of Him, and has joined therewith these promises:1 First, that His body was offered and broken on the cross for me and His blood shed for me, as certainly as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me and the cup communicated to me; and further, that with His crucified body and shed blood He Himself feeds and nourishes my soul to everlasting life, as certainly as I receive from the hand of the minister and taste with my mouth the bread and cup of the Lord, which are given me as certain tokens of the body and blood of Christ.



Question 79:



> 79. Why then does Christ call the bread His body, and the cup His blood, or the new testament in His blood, and St. Paul, the communion of the body and the blood of Christ?
> 
> Christ speaks thus not without great cause, namely, not only to teach us thereby, that like as the bread and wine sustain this temporal life, so also His crucified body and shed blood are the true meat and drink of our souls unto life eternal;1 but much more, by this visible sign and pledge to assure us, that we are as really partakers of His true body and blood by the working of the Holy Spirit , as we receive by the mouth of the body these holy tokens in remembrance of Him;2 and that all His sufferings and obedience are as certainly our own, as if we ourselves had suffered and done all in our own person.



[Edited on 9-9-2005 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Robin (Sep 9, 2005)

What a wonder and awesome contemplation the Confessions offer us, Dr. Clark!!

Meg....if you're trying to get those thoughts going....do some studying about Christ's doing & dying. This would include the story if His whole life, death. Think eschatological and covenentally. That's how to unpack it. 

A helpful study guide is: "A Firm Foundation; an aid to interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism" by Caspar Olevianus. 

Dr. Clark, what other study sources could help the laity, who are fairly new to the Reformation?



Robin


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 9, 2005)

Martin Luther taught consubstantion; that Christ is present "in, with, and under" the elements, rather than that the elements of the bread and wine were the blood and body of Christ.


----------



## Robin (Sep 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I'm still confused. So, we partake of Christ spiritually, I get that, but what about Christ do we partake of? The benefits of his death? So, since I am a very concrete thinker at times, can someone unpack this? I'm at the front of the church, I'm partiaking, I'm remembering Christ's death, or am I supposed to be going over in my mind what the crucifixion did for me, or am I supposed to be speaking to Christ in my heart, or what? I came from a "memorialist" background and can't quite see the difference between "remembering Christ's death" and "appropriating his death." I get the cell phone thing, but I don't know exactly what I'm supposed to be thinking, or praying, or what.



I share your background, Meg, and went through similar queries.

Focusing upon the knowledge of Christ - (outside of me), and what all that entails, is the key, I think. This would mean studying, accumulating deeper knowledge of the "knowledge of Christ." In doing so, personal thoughts will change and have an appropriate focus. 

Cautiously realize though, our tendency is to feel as if we must do or bring something - including "sincere memories." We can only bring our sin - as beggars, reaching out for food from the Master. The Supper is an utter gift TO us. The sacraments (baptism & the Supper) are true "signs and seals" of God's promise to save us.

How Christ can REALLY be in the Supper spiritually, is a great mystery! There is nothing spiritual about ordinary elements (bread & wine). Yet, God truly strengthens and sustains our (weak) Faith through them as we "lift up our hearts to the Lord." 


Robin


----------



## turmeric (Sep 9, 2005)

How does Christ's _body_ feed my _soul_? Or is it a metonym(?) for the atonement & imputation? If it's that, how is Christ present? When is someone gonna call me a heretic?


----------



## Robin (Sep 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> How does Christ's _body_ feed my _soul_? Or is it a metonym(?) for the atonement & imputation? If it's that, how is Christ present? When is someone gonna call me a heretic?



Well, Meg....I suppose you get to be a heretic if you think the bread is actually physically turned-into Christ's flesh. ??? The Roman church thinks this -- but it's not that, that makes them heretics; it's actually their thinking Christ must be re-sacrificed. In other words, if our view of the atonement goes awry, it's critical.

Meanwhile....

Here's what we do know: Christ is risen in a real physical body; He currently "sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven, interceding for the saints." OK now while that is true, HOW can He also be in the Supper? We don't know - and should not go further than Scripture tells. Side-by-side, there are two statements: the risen Christ is in heaven; and Christ saying "this *IS* my body..." Jesus does not say, "this represents my body" btw. Feel the tension and see the mystery?

But...we can apprehend the how's of Christ's promise to us.. here is what Calvin thought:

What exactly did Calvin mean when he said that the sacraments are "œanother aid to our faith?" G.C. Velthuysen rightly observes that Calvin declares:

Of course the sacrament has nothing to add to the Word, but it seals and confirms it. It makes the Word clearer, in that it offers clearer evidence "” clearer in the sense that they "˜represent promises to the life, as if painted in a picture´ (XIV, 5). In this sense they underline and emphasize the promises of the Word. 

In his sermon upon Titus 1:1-5 he says the word helps our faith, but he then says: 

Yet the Supper is a special witness to us, that our God helps us, when we are as it were in the middle way, it is to make us go on forward, to drive us still to our God. Let us mark also that the Supper is to correct and make an end of such things as are yet out of frame. For it were nothing to begin in us, unless God continued to make us feel his grace, and we have good certainty of it in the Supper. 

Spirit-Empowered Seals (4.14.9)

In this section of the Institutes, he says the sacraments are seals, not because they have inherent power to do so, but because God has instituted them as such. And the means by which they accomplish this is by Spirit. As he says, the "œSpirit, that inward teacher, comes to them, by whose power alone hearts are penetrated and affections moved and our souls opened for the sacraments to enter in." Without the Holy Spirit the sacraments do not profit one bit. Thus the Word, the Spirit, and the sacraments are inseparably linked. If this were not the case, the Word would "œbeat your ears in vain," and the sacraments would "œstrike your eyes in vain." Thus the Spirit "œshows us that in them it is God speaking to us, softening the stubbornness of our heart, and composing it to that obedience which it owes the Word of the Lord. Finally, the Spirit transmits those outward words and sacraments from our ears to our soul." 

Thus, the Spirit-empowered seals become "œpillars of our faith," as he says: 

For as a building stands and rests upon its own foundation but is more surely established by columns placed underneath, so faith rests upon the Word of God as a foundation; but when the sacraments are added, it rests more firmly upon them as upon them as upon pillars. 

Thus Geneva´s pastor instructed his congregation on the sacraments as accommodation. Because of man´s feeble state, tendency to doubt, and inability to grasp the clear promises of God´s Word, it is necessary for the Lord of the covenant to condescend to our needs, for "œcondescension is the hallmark of all the dealings that God the transcendent has had with humanity."



This excerpt is from Rev. Hyde's article here:

http://www.oceansideurc.org/sections/articles/visible_words.htm


r.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> What a wonder and awesome contemplation the Confessions offer us, Dr. Clark!!
> 
> Meg....if you're trying to get those thoughts going....do some studying about Christ's doing & dying. This would include the story if His whole life, death. Think eschatological and covenentally. That's how to unpack it.
> ...



Robin,

Here is a link to an essay I published in The Compromised Church: 
http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/supper.html

Here are others by the Rev Danny Hyde:
http://www.oceansideurc.org/sections/articles/visible_words.htm

Another by Pastor Hyde: http://www.oceansideurc.org/sections/articles/weekly_communion.htm

There is a lot of good material here: http://www.modernreformation.org/authorindex.htm

Blessings,

rsc


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> Well, Meg....I suppose you get to be a heretic if you think the bread is actually physically turned-into Christ's flesh. ??? The Roman church thinks this -- but it's not that, that makes them heretics; it's actually their thinking Christ must be re-sacrificed. In other words, if our view of the atonement goes awry, it's critical.



As a side note, I just wanted to offer a reminder that not all Catholics believe that mass is a re-sacrifice of Christ.

It is true that Roman Catholicism officially does . . . I realize that.

But the RC church is not all that good (in fact it's terrible) at getting all of its views indoctrinated into its members. I personally know various Catholics who were not taught that Jesus is re-sacrificed at mass. Rather, they believe as we do that there is a memorial aspect to it.

(This is not to say that what I just typed is the _majority_ view, by any means. I'm just reminding everyone that not all Catholics believe as Rome says they should. . . . and thank the Lord for that!)

[Edited on 9-10-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## DTK (Sep 9, 2005)

What most Roman apologists and theologians will say about the mass today is that it is a re-presentation of the *same* sacrifice of Calvary. But they also insist that it is bloodless in nature. My response to them has always been the following, namely, if it is indeed a re-presentation of the *same* sacrifice, then why is it bloodless. Because Calvary was very bloody.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## Denny (Sep 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> What most Roman apologists and theologians will say about the mass today is that it is a re-presentation of the *same* sacrifice of Calvary. But they also insist that it is bloodless in nature. My response to them has always been the following, namely, if it is indeed a re-presentation of the *same* sacrifice, then why is it bloodless. Because Calvary was very bloody.
> 
> Cheers,
> DTK




I don't want to sound like I support RC'ism,but if you read Paul,and I reference Galatians 2:20 (KJV),which says "I am crucified with Christ",the present participle is very apparent in the King James,"I am" and "with" all form the sentence to indicate the past and the present coming together in one event. 

It is this "Living Sacrifice" that Paul points us to in Romans 12:1 which is our spiritual worship,or our liturgy for and to the Lord. RC's aren't the only ones that have the Mass,If your liturgy has both Word and Sacrament,then you have some form of the Mass. The Mass goes back to the very infancy of the Church.

I think there is a Eucharistic renewal,maybe at the grassroots level, within the Reformed Community to return to this basic understanding of the Sacrament of the Lord's table. I have had round table disscussions with guys who graduated from RTS,so I know this is happening even in the most conservative of our Seminaries.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> What most Roman apologists and theologians will say about the mass today is that it is a re-presentation of the *same* sacrifice of Calvary. But they also insist that it is bloodless in nature. My response to them has always been the following, namely, if it is indeed a re-presentation of the *same* sacrifice, then why is it bloodless. Because Calvary was very bloody.
> 
> Cheers,
> DTK



Just curious: If they say it is just a _representation_ of the sacrifice at Calvary, then what is the big deal? What is heretical about that?

In fact, I'm not even sure I would disagree with someone who said that. After all, why do we call the Eucharist the "body and blood of the Lord", unless we are assuming that the bread and wine actually represent the body and blood of Jesus, which were sacrificed for us?

There is a world of difference between saying that the mass IS a true re-sacrificing of Christ, and saying that the mass merely _represents_ Christ's sacrifice.

[Edited on 9-10-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## DTK (Sep 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by DTK_
> ...


Yes, there is a difference between the two, but I'm not sure that you've understood what I was trying to say. I'll try to say it different, because the word _represents_ is not what I meant when I used the hyphen in the word, _re-presentation_ or _re-presenting_. What I meant was they believe that in the mass they are *presenting again the same sacrifice as calvary*. In other words, Christ is being offered in a propiatory way when they *"present again"* the same sacrifice as Calvary, i.e., so it is claimed.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



Kind of like the difference between cooking a meal and putting it on the table, and then either (1) showing someone a picture of the meal (or describing it) and (2) cooking the same meal again and putting it on the table again.

Right?


----------



## Robin (Sep 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by DTK_
> ...



Good points, Joseph.

Jesus said "this IS my body." Having witnessed many RC masses, I assure you they DO teach the mass is a re-sacrifice; have audacity to tell God that we bring "our sacrifice..." (!) to express worthiness; all to emphasize that Christ's sacrifice is incomplete. It's self-righteous and damnable.

However, while the mass is stated by the priest, it can be true that many congregants think differently as they partake. This means that though the administration of the E is heretical (as declared by the priest) it is possible that some that partake can be in right reception of the means of grace IN SPITE of the wrong presentation of it. !!

The benefits of the Supper are not dependent upon the one who presents it. It is the heart of the recipient that matters.

Not to  but services like Calvary Chapel's are not so different from Roman Catholic. The pastor acts as a priest in the sense during the alter call (an Evangellyfish sacrament) he pronounces the "means" of forgiveness (walking the aisle; praying the prayer); he mediates the means of grace when you re-dedicate your life to Jesus (even though you are already a Christian.) You had a terrible, sinning week, so you got to get more "grace" (re-dedicate) to make sure you're really saved; or that you won't lose salvation.

If groups like Calvary had a Biblical view of communion, things like emotional alter-call rededications would go "bye-bye." 

r.

[Edited on 9-10-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Robin (Sep 10, 2005)

Great links, Dr. Clark!

Thank you!!!  

r.


----------



## yeutter (Sep 10, 2005)

Mrs. VanHalsma in a short history of the Heidelberg Catechism, entitled Three Men Went to Heidelberg, argues the purpose of the catechism was to provide a Reformed explation of the sacramental that was compatable with the revised Augsburg Confession. If this explanation is a correct explanation then the Heidelberg was intended to set forth a position at variance with Zwingli. That is not true of the Westminster.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...




Ok, I understand you now. I didn't pay attention to the hyphen. Thank you for the clarification!


----------



## Poimen (Sep 11, 2005)

For the record, this is how the continental Reformed have viewed the Mass (in regards to the issue of re-sacrifice):

*Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 80*

What difference is there between the Lord's Supper and the Pope's Mass?

The Lord's Supper testifies to us that we have full forgiveness of all our sins by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He Himself once accomplished on the cross; and that by the Holy Ghost we are ingrafted into Christ, who, with His true body, is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father, and is there to be worshiped. But the Mass teaches that the living and the dead do not have forgiveness of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is still daily offered for them by the priests, and that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and is therefore to be worshiped in them. And thus the Mass at bottom is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.


[Edited on 9-11-2005 by poimen]


----------



## DTK (Sep 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Denny_
> I don't want to sound like I support RC'ism,but if you read Paul,and I reference Galatians 2:20 (KJV),which says "I am crucified with Christ",the present participle is very apparent in the King James,"I am" and "with" all form the sentence to indicate the past and the present coming together in one event.


Well, what isn't apparent at all is that this pericope in Galatians has anything to do with the mass. Moreover, the verb in the Greek,  sunestau,rwmai , is a perfect passive indicative (not a participle) indicating a past completed action, the effects of which are continuing. But there is nothing here to support any notion that this verb is indicative of any on-going present action. It refers rather to a person's (in this instance, Paul's) objective position in Christ.


> It is this "Living Sacrifice" that Paul points us to in Romans 12:1 which is our spiritual worship,or our liturgy for and to the Lord. RC's aren't the only ones that have the Mass,If your liturgy has both Word and Sacrament,then you have some form of the Mass. The Mass goes back to the very infancy of the Church.


Once again, what exegetical basis, beside your own assertion, is there for suggesting that the pericope of Romans 12:1 has anything to do with a public mass? The mere use of the word  latrei,a does not necessitate the meaning of a public worship service. The context itself suggests a mode of life which is offered continually in sacrificial service to Christ, i.e., a life of personal and practical holiness devoted to Christ.


> I think there is a Eucharistic renewal,maybe at the grassroots level, within the Reformed Community to return to this basic understanding of the Sacrament of the Lord's table. I have had round table disscussions with guys who graduated from RTS,so I know this is happening even in the most conservative of our Seminaries.


Well, if so, let's hope and pray it's not based on this kind of exegesis as its scriptural foundation. I know of no patristic or Reformed exegete who ever connected these passages with the Lord's table; and there is nothing in either passage you've cited to connect them with the sacrament of the Lord's table.

As for what you suggest---"this basic understanding of the Sacrament of the Lord's table"---is, you'll have to tell me, because I don't know what presupposition you have in mind. After what you said earlier about Zwingli, I'm not convinced you've understood what his position was, how it was developed, and what it came to be. It leaves me wondering, in contrast to that, what you have in mind here.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## Denny (Sep 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Denny_
> ...



Stand corrected,but obviously the Translators of other versions of the text may have rendered it grammatically correct by using "Have been",but the King James caputures the ontological meaning of Paul. "I am" is indicitive of something that is ONGOING.


* You: It refers rather to a person's (in this instance, Paul's) objective position in Christ.*

How can a past event(that no longer exsists) bear any significance on one's present existance,unless ontologically there exists something,that connects these two events together,and thereby effecting the state of one's present existance.

Otherwise we are dealing with a non-objective event effecting One's objective existance. The only objective reality now is Jesus role as High Priest, He will no longer be the victim,but His role as High Priest is forever,and as High Priest,will always have something to offer? And we are participants in that offering. Because we are of a Royal Priesthood.

This really comes down to your opinion,verses my opinion,but I can live with that.

[Edited on 9-12-2005 by Denny]

[Edited on 9-12-2005 by Denny]

[Edited on 9-12-2005 by Denny]

[Edited on 9-12-2005 by Denny]


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Denny_
> 
> How can a past event(that no longer exsists) bear any significance on one's present existance,unless ontologically there exists something,that connects these two events together,and thereby effecting the state of one's present existance.



Simple example: a man has been married to a woman. That past event affects and bears a significance on his present existence.


----------



## DTK (Sep 12, 2005)

> How can a past event(that no longer exsists) bear any significance on one's present existance,unless ontologically there exists something,that connects these two events together,and thereby effecting the state of one's present existance.


If you are married, I willing to wager that your wife can explain that to you far more eloquently than I can.

But since you've asked concerning the blood-letting, sin-bearing, life-giving death of the Lord Jesus Christ, the glory of God's provision is that the giving of His Son for His Church in all ages, as a completed past event, continues to secure the salvation of His people today. In my prior answer, I didn't say there wasn't any on-going significance and I didn't say there weren't any on-going results. In fact I affirmed that. What I said was there is no on-going action implied by Galatians 2:20. But, all of this aside, the writer to the Hebrews explains this far more eloquently than I ever could...

Hebrews 9:24-26
24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 
25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another"” 
26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## Scott (Sep 12, 2005)

Denny: You are not saying that Christ is re-sacrificed in the Lord's Supper are you?


----------



## Denny (Sep 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Denny: You are not saying that Christ is re-sacrificed in the Lord's Supper are you?



No I'm not saying He is,because,I said He was a victum once!!!He is forever High Priest.


----------



## Denny (Sep 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Denny_
> ...



Sounds good,but My wife and I were not separated by almost 2000 years of existence,we were BOTH physically present at the ceremony.

Apart from any objective concrete connection,we are separtated from Christ by this gap in time,this is were the Sacrament of the Eucharist comes in. This bridges the gap,and joins us to Christ,not only in his crucifiction,by participation in his body and blood,but in his priestly role,as WE offer up our sacrifices to him,everyday life is an extention of Divine Liturgy!!!


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Denny_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Denny,

I'm going to be honest here. You are avoiding the clear and obvious in favor of (apparently) mystic Eastern Orthodox mumbo jumbo.

The point is not that your wife and you were both present - but that the ACT of marriage effects you today. One could just as easily say that you are affected today by the ACT of the founding of America, it makes you an American. You were not present then, and John Adams and company are not alive now. Yet there is a present result from a past action.

This is the STANDARD description of the perfect tense in Greek - even in pagan grammars and textbooks. Yet you seem to avoid the actual language of the Biblical text and its grammar in favor of odd mystical comments.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 12, 2005)

Denny, another thing that is crucial to every facet of our present connection to Christ and His past work, and the central reason the time gap does not affect that connection is the _judicial_ nature of the atonement, the objective nature of which is realized in the _imputation_ of Christ's righteousness to us at the one-time event of the Cross. That, in turn, informs one's understanding of the Spirit's application of His righteousness to us in a subjective way through such continuous events as the Supper (as well as the preached Word, baptism and providencial experience).

So what are your thoughts on the extent to which our connection to Christ is a _judicial_ one in nature? What is your understanding of the concept of imputation and its relevance both to our connection to Christ as a whole and to the application of that connection in subjective events like the Supper?


----------



## DTK (Sep 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I'm still confused. So, we partake of Christ spiritually, I get that, but what about Christ do we partake of? The benefits of his death? So, since I am a very concrete thinker at times, can someone unpack this? I'm at the front of the church, I'm partiaking, I'm remembering Christ's death, or am I supposed to be going over in my mind what the crucifixion did for me, or am I supposed to be speaking to Christ in my heart, or what? I came from a "memorialist" background and can't quite see the difference between "remembering Christ's death" and "appropriating his death." I get the cell phone thing, but I don't know exactly what I'm supposed to be thinking, or praying, or what.


Dear Meg,

In addition to Dr. Clark's excellent post , we have a number of excellent and rich answers to your question in our own Westminster Standards....

WCF 29:1 Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord´s Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, *for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body.*

WLC Question 168: What is the Lord's Supper?
Answer: The Lord's Supper is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine according to the appointment of Jesus Christ, his death is showed forth; *and they that worthily communicate feed upon his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace; have their union and communion with him confirmed; testify and renew their thankfulness, and engagement to God, and their mutual love and fellowship each with other, as members of the same mystical body. *

WLC Question 170: How do they that worthily communicate in the Lord's Supper feed upon the body and blood of Christ therein?
Answer: As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, *and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses; so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death.* 

WLC Question 171: How are they that receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to prepare themselves before they come unto it?
Answer: *They that receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper are, before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves of their being in Christ, of their sins and wants; of the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, repentance; love to God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have done them wrong; of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience; and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation, and fervent prayer. *

WLC Question 172: May one who doubts of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord's Supper?
Answer: One who doubts of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God's account has it, *if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity: in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved; and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord's Supper, that he may be further strengthened. *

WLC Question 174: What is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper in the time of the administration of it?
Answer: *It is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, that, during the time of the administration of it, with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God in that ordinance, diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions, heedfully discern the Lord's body, and affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings, and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces; in judging themselves, and sorrowing for sin; in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on him by faith, receiving of his fulness, trusting in his merits, rejoicing in his love, giving thanks for his grace; in renewing of their covenant with God, and love to all the saints.*

WLC Question 175: What is the duty of Christians, after they have received the sacrament of the Lord's Supper?
Answer: *The duty of Christians, after they have received the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, is seriously to consider: How they have behaved themselves therein, and with: What success; if they find quickening and comfort, to bless God for it, beg the continuance of it, watch against relapses, fulfil their vows, and encourage themselves to a frequent attendance on that ordinance: but if they find no present benefit, more exactly to review their preparation to, and carriage at, the sacrament; in both which, if they can approve themselves to God and their own consciences, they are to wait for the fruit of it in due time: but, if they see they have failed in either, they are to be humbled, and to attend upon it afterwards with more care and diligence. *

Dear sister, we have a rich heritage of directives for this blessed sacrament; which if we neglect, we do so to the impoverishment of our souls.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Denny (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by turmeric_
> ...



WLC Question 170: How do they that worthily communicate in the Lord's Supper feed upon the body and blood of Christ therein?
Answer: As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, *and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses; so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death.* 


In my process of being reformed,I am looking less and less Reformed,this part of the Catachism must have slipped my mind,but I cannot agree with this,if it is just in a spiritual manner,than it can't be "truly and really". 

I must therefore withdraw myself from this board for rule violations. I'm Sorry.

Thanks,

Denny


----------



## DTK (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Denny_
> In my process of being reformed,I am looking less and less Reformed,this part of the Catachism must have slipped my mind,but I cannot agree with this,if it is just in a spiritual manner,than it can't be "truly and really".
> 
> I must therefore withdraw myself from this board for rule violations. I'm Sorry.
> ...


I am sorry to hear that you find yourself outside of the Westminster Standards, even though I suspected as much. But the Reformed, beginning with Calvin, have always denied a local presence...



> * 21. No Local Presence Must be Imagined.* We must guard particularly against the idea of any local presence. For while the signs are present in this world, are seen by the eyes and handled by the hands, Christ, regarded as man, must be sought nowhere else than in heaven, and not otherwise than with the mind and eye of faith. Wherefore it is a perverse and impious superstition to inclose him under the elements of this world. John Calvin, _Treatises on the Sacraments: Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Forms of Prayer, and Confessions of Faith_, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand rapids: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), pp 218-219.
> 
> *22. Explanation of the Words"”"œThis is My Body."* Those who insist that the formal words of the supper"”"œThis is my body; this is my blood," are to be taken in what they call precisely literal sense, we repudiate as preposterous interpreters. For we hold it out of controversy that they are to be taken figuratively"”the bread and the wine receiving the name of that which they signify. Nor should it be thought a new or unwonted thing to transfer the name of things figured by metonomy [metonymy] to the sign, as similar modes of expression occur throughout the Scriptures, and we by so saying assert nothing but what is found in the most ancient and most approved writers of the Church. John Calvin, _Treatises on the Sacraments: Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Forms of Prayer, and Confessions of Faith_, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand rapids: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), p. 219.
> 
> ...


Cheers,
DTK


----------



## Scott (Sep 13, 2005)

"if it is just in a spiritual manner,than it can't be "truly and really""

Why not? Spirit is as real as flesh.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "if it is just in a spiritual manner,than it can't be "truly and really""
> 
> Why not? Spirit is as real as flesh.



Exactly - God _is_ Spirit (John 4:24), and He was true and real before anything.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott_
> ...






I like the picture given by C.S. Lewis in "The Great Divorce". He says that the spiritual is actually "more solid" than the physical. In comparison to the spiritual world, the physical world is made up of phantasms.


----------



## DTK (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "if it is just in a spiritual manner,than it can't be "truly and really""
> 
> Why not? Spirit is as real as flesh.


Scott,

This is an excellent point. For some reason we moderns sometimes tend to think of spiritual realities as less substantial than physical realities to our detriment. Thanks for your very pertinent observation.

Blessings,
DTK

[Edited on 9-13-2005 by DTK]


----------



## DTK (Sep 13, 2005)

> I like the picture given by C.S. Lewis in "The Great Divorce". He says that the spiritual is actually "more solid" than the physical. In comparison to the spiritual world, the physical world is made up of phantasms.


I think that the best expression of this in Holy Scripture is Paul's treatment of this question at the close of 2 Corinthians 4 and the beginning of chapter 5...


> 16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.
> 
> Chapter 5
> 
> 1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, 3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. 4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.


Herein the Apostle speaks of two sets of realities, those things that are seen and those things that are not seen, those things that are temporal and those things that are eternal. And he goes on to argue that the set of things which are not seen have more substance & more reality than the set of things that are seen, because the former set is composed of those realities made of the substance of eternity, whereas the things of this world are passing away.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



I think that C.S. Lewis's views on reality were neo-Platonic, but I would  the idea that the spiritual is just as real as the physical (and eternal as opposed to temporal). We are called to walk by faith not by sight (2 Cor. 5.7). Elisha prayed that his servant would be given eyes to see the invisible host which was prepared to destroy the army of Syria (2 Kings 6.17). Jesus after his resurrection had a very real spiritual body. As Paul said, "There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor. 15.44) and "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor. 4.18).

[Edited on 9-13-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 13, 2005)

Agreed. 

Please understand: I was just quoting something I like from Lewis. I was not making a blanket-endorsement for all of his theology, by any means.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Agreed.
> 
> Please understand: I was just quoting something I like from Lewis. I was not making a blanket-endorsement for all of his theology, by any means.



Understood. 

I quote him often too! 

"The most valuable thing the Psalms do for me is to express the same delight in God which made David dance." -- C.S. Lewis, _Reflections on the Psalms_


----------



## Denny (Sep 14, 2005)

Thanks for letting me in on some very civil discussions,and one more note,the whole debate I think hinges on what we can ALL agree Jesus'current body is like,Yes it is a spiritual body,but one is this Physical? I would say,Yes. It is one that has taken on the divine attributes of the Spirit,this brings up the issue,well is his spiritual body omnipresent,it may very well be,if it is indeed a spiritual body.

Jesus was able to do many things in his body,post-ressurection,than He was in his pre-ressurection body. Something to think about. Luther may be more right than the Reformed give him credit!!

[Edited on 9-14-2005 by Denny]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Sep 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Denny_
> Thanks for letting me in on some very civil discussions,and one more note,the whole debate I think hinges on what we can ALL agree Jesus'current body is like,Yes it is a spiritual body,but one is this Physical? I would say,Yes. It is one that has taken on the divine attributes of the Spirit,this brings up the issue,well * is his spiritual body omnipresent*,it may very well be,if it is indeed a spiritual body.
> 
> Jesus was able to do many things in his body,post-ressurection,than He was in his pre-ressurection body. Something to think about. Luther may be more right than the Reformed give him credit!!



Denny, that is an excellent question. Is Christ's resurrected body omnipresent? 

The answer is no. Take a look in Scripture at Christ after the resurrection. He comes and goes, but you still never see Him in more than one place at once. He visits his disciples, but also leaves them. He ascends into Heaven, and then angels say that He will return again some day. All of this coming, going, leaving, returning, etc. doesn't fit well with omnipresence.

How about this: 
Can you demonstrate anywhere in Scripture that gives a _positive_ argument for the omnipresence of Christ's body? Do you ever see His body in more than one place at a time?

Christ's spirit, on the other hand, *is* omnipresent. I believe Jesus was telling us the truth when He said, "_where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them_" (Matthew 18:20). And I believe He was honest when He said, "_I am with you always, even to the end of the age_" (Matthew 28:20). So when Jesus departed in Acts 1:9, was it His body that departed, or His spirit? It must have been His body. And when Jesus returns according to Acts 1:11, will it be His body that returns, or His spirit? It must be His body.

Of course, this whole discussion hearkens back to the age old opposing dangers of Nestorianism on the one hand, and Eutychianism on the other. The argument existed way back in the early church, but still exists today in a subdued form. Lutherans sometimes accuse Calvinists of being too "Nestorian", because they think we are dividing up Christ too much, making too stark a dichotomy between the physical and spiritual aspects of Christ, instead of just focusing on the entire unity of His Person. Calvinists, on the other hand, sometimes accuse Lutherans of being too "Eutychian", because they think Lutherans mix up the two natures of Christ too much, forgetting that there are aspects of Christ's deity that do not apply to His humanity, and aspects of His humanity that do not apply to His deity, even though both natures are inextricably, hypostatically bound together.

I believe the Calvinist approach is correct. Christ's human body is not omnipresent. However, I commend the Lutherans for warning us against the opposite error. Let us never "merely" think about Christ's spirit, to the exclusion of remembering that He is 100% human too, with a real physical body. Thankfully, God Himself has guarded us against that error, by instituting the Lord's Supper. Christ's Spirit is always with us. But while His body is absent from us, we have the communion bread to remind us that He has one!

Thank you for your comments, Denny.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## DTK (Sep 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Denny_
> Thanks for letting me in on some very civil discussions,and one more note,the whole debate I think hinges on what we can ALL agree Jesus'current body is like,Yes it is a spiritual body,but one is this Physical? I would say,Yes. It is one that has taken on the divine attributes of the Spirit,this brings up the issue,well is his spiritual body omnipresent,it may very well be,if it is indeed a spiritual body.
> 
> Jesus was able to do many things in his body,post-ressurection,than He was in his pre-ressurection body. Something to think about. Luther may be more right than the Reformed give him credit!!


Denny,

I want to propose to you a question, with which (at least I think) you need to wrestle. At first, it may not appear overtly connected with the issue at hand over the nature of Christ's presence in the Lord's supper, but if you give it careful considerration, perhaps it might help you to further your thoughts along on this matter.

Here's the question: How can Paul be *"in Christ"*, which he posits repeatedly throughout his epistles for himself and all Christians, and yet at the same time long to depart and be with Christ?

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## Denny (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Denny_
> ...



Here is the way I understand it, We always have the fellowship and communion of God the Holy Spirit with us,no matter where we are,even if we are alone. The same can't be said about Jesus Christ ,the God-Man. His Presense is only at the Right Hand of the Father,but through the Sacrament of the Eucharist,this presence can be enjoyed by the Saints(The Body of Christ) gathered around the Table,where we enjoy and celebrate this union with our Head,Christ Himself,much in the same way as it was in the Upper Room,it is only at this time that we can come together,until the Ressurection,in which will will continually be in the Presense of Christ.

This encourages faithfulness to Christ,Do you think a bride who is separated from Her husband for years on end,would remain faithful,especially if she feels he has desserted Her. Calvin always emphasised Union with Christ,we are in a sense,ONE FLESH with Christ,this is what is meant by KNOWING Christ,or to know Christ.
Paul is simply stating that His desire is to be Present with Christ always.

Thanks Denny


----------



## DTK (Sep 15, 2005)

> Here is the way I understand it, We always have the fellowship and communion of God the Holy Spirit with us,no matter where we are,even if we are alone. The same can't be said about Jesus Christ ,the God-Man. His Presense is only at the Right Hand of the Father,but through the Sacrament of the Eucharist,this presence can be enjoyed by the Saints(The Body of Christ) gathered around the Table,where we enjoy and celebrate this union with our Head,Christ Himself,much in the same way as it was in the Upper Room,it is only at this time that we can come together,until the Ressurection,in which will will continually be in the Presense of Christ.


Denny, all of this would be rather plausible were it not for the explicit, often repeated language of the Apostle Paul throughout his epistles that stand in stark contrast to your understanding. In Ephesians 2:6 he is even bold by the Spirit to state that we are presently seated in the heavenly places in Christ. Your response doesn´t even begin to address such biblical language as this. Moreover, we have the testimony of a greater than Paul, even the Lord Jesus himself who said, "œand lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt 28:20). Your presupposition seems to be that unless it is a physical presence of Christ, there can be no genuine presence of Christ. The witness of the New Testament is against your presupposition.


> This encourages faithfulness to Christ,Do you think a bride who is separated from Her husband for years on end,would remain faithful,especially if she feels he has desserted Her. Calvin always emphasised Union with Christ,we are in a sense,ONE FLESH with Christ,this is what is meant by KNOWING Christ,or to know Christ.


Actually, brides have remained faithful to husbands, even when they´ve been deserted by them. But leaving that analogy aside, I reject your presupposition for for better reasons... 

1) Christ hasn´t abandoned us even when we feel deserted, and
2) He has granted us the assurance of his own word that this will never happen as per Matt 20:28, and that is what encourages faithfulness to Christ.
3) And yes, Calvin did emphasize union with Christ, and did so as a present reality. It is union with Christ by his Spirit, for the Apostle Paul states again in Romans 8:9, "œBut you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." Calvin states explicitly the very contrary of your presupposition...


> *John Calvin:* There is a commonplace distinction of the schools to which I am not ashamed to refer: although the whole Christ is everywhere, still the whole of that which is in him is not everywhere. And would that the Schoolmen themselves had honestly weighed the force of this statement. For thus would the absurd fiction of Christ´s carnal presence have been obviated. *Therefore, since the whole Christ is everywhere, our Mediator is ever present with his own people, and in the Supper reveals himself in a special way, yet in such a way that the whole Christ is present, but not in his wholeness.* _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), IV.17.30, p. 1403.



I could enter into the technical language regarding Christ's presence in the supper, but I don't think that would be helpful to you at this point. I have the distinct impression that your thinking isn´t properly informed either biblically or historically with Calvin´s position. I hope this encourages you to further study.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Scott (Sep 16, 2005)

"it is only at this time that we can come together,until the Ressurection,in which will will continually be in the Presense of Christ."

Denny: Do you believe the person of Christ is present in the preaching of the Word? I would encourage you to remember that Christ _is_ the Word. Christ has always existed and before the incarnation he existed without a human body. He was no less real and active prior to the incarnation. He was and is the Word. He is really present in the Word, especially in the preaching of the Word by his lawfully called ministers. 

I agree with you that He is also present in the sacrament, even though it sounds like we differ in our understandings of what that real presence means.


----------



## Denny (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > Here is the way I understand it, We always have the fellowship and communion of God the Holy Spirit with us,no matter where we are,even if we are alone. The same can't be said about Jesus Christ ,the God-Man. His Presense is only at the Right Hand of the Father,but through the Sacrament of the Eucharist,this presence can be enjoyed by the Saints(The Body of Christ) gathered around the Table,where we enjoy and celebrate this union with our Head,Christ Himself,much in the same way as it was in the Upper Room,it is only at this time that we can come together,until the Ressurection,in which will will continually be in the Presense of Christ.
> ...



*"Therefore, since the whole Christ is everywhere, our Mediator is ever present with his own people, and in the Supper reveals himself in a special way, yet in such a way that the whole Christ is present, but not in his wholeness"*

You quoted Calvin,and even He contradicts himself "the WHOLE Christ is present,but NOT in his WHOLENESS" What does this mean,don't you think this is contradictory? 

Calvin quotes Augustine and Chrysostom often,but is not faithful to Them entirely,and to the witness of the other Patristics. We have to understand that while they were not representitive of Roman Catholicism,that they were Catholic and Orthodox none the less.

And Did you Read my A.A. Hodge post,regarding the Presence of Christ in the Supper? He seems to agree with me.

[Edited on 9-17-2005 by Denny]

[Edited on 9-17-2005 by Denny]


----------



## Denny (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "it is only at this time that we can come together,until the Ressurection,in which will will continually be in the Presense of Christ."
> 
> Denny: Do you believe the person of Christ is present in the preaching of the Word? I would encourage you to remember that Christ _is_ the Word. Christ has always existed and before the incarnation he existed without a human body. He was no less real and active prior to the incarnation. He was and is the Word. He is really present in the Word, especially in the preaching of the Word by his lawfully called ministers.
> ...



It would be my observation that since in eternity,there is no past,present or future,that Christ has always existed as the God-Man,doersn't it say in the Most Holy Scriptures that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,today,and forever".

In the Incarnation Christ becomes for us,what He has always been from OUR beginning.


----------



## DTK (Sep 17, 2005)

Denny,

I've read your posts carefully, and given some of your ideas, and how either unwilling or unable you are to look at things differently from the way to which you've become accustomed (judging by your responses to Scott and myself), I don't think I can be of any help to you.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 17, 2005)

> I'm not a Zwinglian, but I'm wondering if you can tell us precisely what "Zwingli's views on the Supper" actually were. I encourage you to be cautious in describing his position.



The traditional understanding of Zwinglian is that he held a memorialist view, i.e., the supper is purely a remembrance of Christ and that we do not feed on him "really." 

Peter Stephens and others have encouraged a revision of this view suggesting that Zwingli has been misunderstood. They suggest that Zwingli had an earlier and later view and that the later view was not far from Calvin's.

I was briefly swayed by Peter and others, but upon re-reading Zwingli's mature writings on the supper, I find that Zwingli never really moved. The only way he talks about Christ being present is in psychological categories. The supper is to be an intense psychological and perhaps emotional experience, but there's no sense in Zwingli that in the supper Christ feeds us with his body and blood by the mystical operation of the Holy Spirit (Calvin's view and that of the Belgic, Heidelberg and Westm. standards as I read them).

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 17, 2005)

> It would be my observation that since in eternity,there is no past,present or future,that Christ has always existed as the God-Man,doersn't it say in the Most Holy Scriptures that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,today,and forever".
> 
> In the Incarnation Christ becomes for us,what He has always been from OUR beginning.



Do you really mean to say that God the Son took on flesh before the Spirit conceived Jesus' humanity in the womb of the virgin? 

Such a claim would seem to be contrary to the Christology of the Creeds (Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian, Definition of Chalcedon).

The Apostles' Creed says that he took his humanity "from the virigin Mary" (ex Maria virgine). This is the catholic (universal; not particular to either Lutheran or Reformed or even Roman view) Christology. 

The Reformed have always taught that the Son operated beyond the humanity in that he was working, saving, and revealing before he became incarnate and after. 

They typically took most of the theopanies in the Hebrew Scriptures to be the pre-incarnate Son, esp. the some of the Angel of the Lord passages; see Gen 16; Zech 3. 

This is the force of the prologue to John's gospel, which teaches that the same pre-incarnate Logos/Word (revelation?) of God, who became flesh, whom we know in the incarnation, is the God the Son, the "only begotten God" (John 1:18). He "became flesh" (sarx egeneto) in 1:14. It was in the incarnation, ironically, that we beheld his glory (Luther called this the theology of the cross).

The Reformed describe this operation of God the Son before and during the incarnation (he remains incarnate, contra some Pentecostals) as the "etiam extra carnem" (also beyond the flesh) and it was described by the Lutheran critics of the Reformed as the "extra Calvinisticum" (the Calvinistic extra, i.e., "beyond"). The point being that there never was when the Son was not (Athanasius contra mundum!) but there was when the Son was not incarnate. This would seem to be the point of Phil 2. He was "en morphe tou theou" ("in the form of God," i.e., he was consubstantial with the Father) but "poured himself out," not that he shed his deity (contra the Kenotic Christology) but, Paul is speak ing metaphorically saying that Jesus gave himself totally for our salvation, "being born in the likeness of sinful flesh" (he is true man but not sinful). In other words, his humiliation which continued to the cross and death, began in his incarnation.

The reason Hebrews speaks as it does is that we know God the Son in the incarnation. The Trinity is progressively revealed in Scripture. The God who thundered (through Angels) at Sinai is God the Son incarnate (Heb 12), Jesus Christ. Tthus it speaks by metonomy (one thing for another). 

Hebrews is not intending to impute the incarnation to all eternity. 

We must distinguish between the decree, which is from all eternity and its actuation which occurs in time and space. This is why the Reformed taught in the doctrine of the pactum salutis (the covenant of redemption) that the Father would and did prepare a body for the Son (Heb 10:5; Ps 40:6-8). 

rsc


----------



## Denny (Sep 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> Denny,
> 
> I've read your posts carefully, and given some of your ideas, and how either unwilling or unable you are to look at things differently from the way to which you've become accustomed (judging by your responses to Scott and myself), I don't think I can be of any help to you.
> ...



Well you are probably right,we are obviously not on the same page theologically.

Take Care,

Denny


----------



## Scott (Sep 19, 2005)

Denny: I am not sure if your position on the incarnation is consistent with any major school of theology, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic.


----------



## Denny (Sep 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Denny: I am not sure if your position on the incarnation is consistent with any major school of theology, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic.



It could be the explanation of my position regarding the incarnation, that I am having trouble with, I Have been reading Athanasius,and other Greek Fathers to get a better grasp on their incarnational theology,I have to read over things several times to get a handle on what they are trying to say.


----------

