Sacramental Union of the Elements and the Unbeliever

[Justified]

I had a question in regards to the Lord's Supper. The Westminster speaks of us spiritually feeding on the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Table. We receive these things by way of a sacramental with the elements. The Westminster also states that we receive these blessings by faith.

My question is, do unbelievers, who in taking unworthily eat and drink condemnation to themselves, actually feast on Christ spiritually? The reason I ask is because 1 Corinthians 11:29 states: "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself." The verse seems to be implying that the Lord's body-- at least by way of a sacramental union-- is present to be discerned even for the unbeliever.

The Westminster just felt a little unclear to me, so I'm soliciting the PB's help!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

No, the unbelievers do not have faith, which is the only way to actually partake of Christ himself in the supper.

They do not partake of blessing, but they do partake of damnation. They do not need to have put their unholy hands (or mouths) upon Christ himself in order to "eat and drink condemnation to themselves."

Consider the case of the person who despises the government of his native land. He does not have to curse it aloud to be its enemy. He does not have to burn its flag or formally renounce his citizenship--though that might be the honest thing to do. He may be a traitor when he vigorously waves that flag, and sings the national anthem louder than anyone around him. He intentionally sends a lying message about his true feelings. Furthermore, what about the person who fancies himself a good citizen, while he flouts laws, exempts himself from duties, and otherwise ignores the substance of belonging?

Have either of these men succeeded in corrupting the ideals of the nation? When the one actually burned the flag, was the nation itself singed, literally harmed? No. But, that act of expressing animosity was blameworthy, assuming (for the sake of the illustration) the state's power of and interest in censuring that expression.

In terms of the Christian sacrament, there is more to participating in the Table for strengthening the existential union the believer has with Christ, than waving a symbol of national pride has to do with strengthening one's sense of civic pride and belonging. But if there is more to it in the first case, that still does not mean that a detractor, a profaner manages to deface or corrupt the spiritual reality that he (by virtue of his faithless condition) cannot touch, other than through the appointed sign.

The greater significance of a Christian sacrament (than a flag, being a mere symbol) makes the religious profanity vastly more significant, as an assault on holy things, given with divine intention for connecting us more surely with spiritual reality. But if we can recognize the power of the symbolic act of abusing a national symbol and take offense at it (though the reality was not touched), surely we can recognize the offense to Christ, his church, to the Godhead when the Supper is profaned (though the thing signified remains unsullied).

Words have significance. Oaths are important. We enter into and renew our covenant with God by profession of faith. The false-believer can participate in the public profession, while he lacks the inward reality, never touching it. But this does not make him less guilty but more, for only having interest in the sign and not also in the thing signified. He eats and drinks profaning the signs to his real condemnation.

 

[Justified]

No, the unbelievers do not have faith, which is the only way to actually partake of Christ himself in the supper.

They do not partake of blessing, but they do partake of damnation. They do not need to have put their unholy hands (or mouths) upon Christ himself in order to "eat and drink condemnation to themselves."

Consider the case of the person who despises the government of his native land. He does not have to curse it aloud to be its enemy. He does not have to burn its flag or formally renounce his citizenship--though that might be the honest thing to do. He may be a traitor when he vigorously waves that flag, and sings the national anthem louder than anyone around him. He intentionally sends a lying message about his true feelings. Furthermore, what about the person who fancies himself a good citizen, while he flouts laws, exempts himself from duties, and otherwise ignores the substance of belonging?

Have either of these men succeeded in corrupting the ideals of the nation? When the one actually burned the flag, was the nation itself singed, literally harmed? No. But, that act of expressing animosity was blameworthy, assuming (for the sake of the illustration) the state's power of and interest in censuring that expression.

In terms of the Christian sacrament, there is more to participating in the Table for strengthening the existential union the believer has with Christ, than waving a symbol of national pride has to do with strengthening one's sense of civic pride and belonging. But if there is more to it in the first case, that still does not mean that a detractor, a profaner manages to deface or corrupt the spiritual reality that he (by virtue of his faithless condition) cannot touch, other than through the appointed sign.

The greater significance of a Christian sacrament (than a flag, being a mere symbol) makes the religious profanity vastly more significant, as an assault on holy things, given with divine intention for connecting us more surely with spiritual reality. But if we can recognize the power of the symbolic act of abusing a national symbol and take offense at it (though the reality was not touched), surely we can recognize the offense to Christ, his church, to the Godhead when the Supper is profaned (though the thing signified remains unsullied).

Words have significance. Oaths are important. We enter into and renew our covenant with God by profession of faith. The false-believer can participate in the public profession, while he lacks the inward reality, never touching it. But this does not make him less guilty but more, for only having interest in the sign and not also in the thing signified. He eats and drinks profaning the signs to his real condemnation.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I just had lunch the other day with a friend who is a Lutheran pastor. I had him explain to me the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper to me, as I was thoroughly confused with what they mean by "the real presence." He explained to me the Lutheran view is not consubstantiation, which they are often accused of.

Afterwards, I found that the main problems I had with the Lutheran view were first the emphasis (they don't place enough value in the covenant aspect), and also that the difference between the Westminster and the Lutheran confessions is that the Westminster (as you confirmed) seemed to be stating that unbelievers do not spiritually feast on the thing signified (Christ's body), while the Lutherans believe that, regardless of spiritual status, the one receiving the sacrament actually feasts on the body of Christ.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

100% correct, the Lutheran view is not ours, and ours is not the Lutheran. Lutherans believe in a spiritual presence as we do; but going further than us, also in a bodily/fleshy presence. Perhaps it would be better to say that on our part we drew back decisively from those claims of a bodily presence that had come to be a part of medieval piety, with roots in the patristic era. But if we withdrew, it was to come back to a position more akin to St. Augustin's than some other ancient fathers, and (as we see it) more biblical.

Lutherans believe in the ubiquity (everywhere-ness) of the exalted Christ's physical body, as extensive as the omnipresence of his divinity; which permits his corporeal presence "in with an under" the bread and wine, on every Lutheran sacramental altar/table in the world as needed, at the same moment if necessary. For us, with all possible peace and understanding granted, that strikes too close to "confusion" of Christ's two distinct natures.

Calvin taught that in his Ascension, Christ's physical presence had moved beyond the possibility of any abuse ever being visited upon him again. He is done with suffering in his flesh, 1Pet.4:1. The Father will permit it no more, Php.2:9. That is what his coming to earth in the Incarnation was about. We, as his Body, "fill up what is left of Christ's sufferings," Col.1:24.

If anything but faith could touch him, it would be the same as if these profane did succeed in assaulting heaven itself, that they might work him additional harm. As it is, they must content themselves with harming his saints for a while, Rev.12:17; and impotently beating their fists against his signs and seals.

 

[jwright82]

Also to throw a wrench in this discussion the FV has a more Lutheran view on these things. The WCF and the TFU, both solidly Reformed, assume our union with Christ which means no unbeliever can partake of the benefits of that union.

 

[Peairtach]

The most helpful thing on the Lord's Supper, in helping me to understand and appreciate the sacrament, is B.B. Warfield's article "The Fundamental Significance of the Lord's Supper", which can be read at Monergism.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolical and spiritual sacrificial meal, but the sacrifice it relates to was completed almost 2,000 years ago.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Cymro]

It is the teeth and mouth of faith alone that can partake and digest the truth
signified in the elements.

 

[Justified]

100% correct, the Lutheran view is not ours, and ours is not the Lutheran. Lutherans believe in a spiritual presence as we do; but going further than us, also in a bodily/fleshy presence. Perhaps it would be better to say that on our part we drew back decisively from those claims of a bodily presence that had come to be a part of medieval piety, with roots in the patristic era. But if we withdrew, it was to come back to a position more akin to St. Augustin's than some other ancient fathers, and (as we see it) more biblical.

Lutherans believe in the ubiquity (everywhere-ness) of the exalted Christ's physical body, as extensive as the omnipresence of his divinity; which permits his corporeal presence "in with an under" the bread and wine, on every Lutheran sacramental altar/table in the world as needed, at the same moment if necessary. For us, with all possible peace and understanding granted, that strikes too close to "confusion" of Christ's two distinct natures.

Calvin taught that in his Ascension, Christ's physical presence had moved beyond the possibility of any abuse ever being visited upon him again. He is done with suffering in his flesh, 1Pet.4:1. The Father will permit it no more, Php.2:9. That is what his coming to earth in the Incarnation was about. We, as his Body, "fill up what is left of Christ's sufferings," Col.1:24.

If anything but faith could touch him, it would be the same as if these profane did succeed in assaulting heaven itself, that they might work him additional harm. As it is, they must content themselves with harming his saints for a while, Rev.12:17; and impotently beating their fists against his signs and seals.

The Lutheran pastor I talked to, who is a hard-cored confessional, emphatically denies that Christ's real presence is a natural one that is extended in space. Christ is really present, he says, in the elements supernaturally.

Read this: Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - Christian Cyclopedia

In the article above they quote Luther, explaining the three modes of the Body of Christ: "Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode of presence according to which he neither occupies nor vacates space but penetrates every creature, wherever he wills. … He employed this mode of presence … in the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper."

So the second mode according to Luther, as applies to the Lord's supper, is a spiritual mode. So I think your charge of them believing in a physical presence of the Lord's body is wrong. However, I think that many lay-Lutherans and many pastors, for that matter, probably don't understand this. The way it is often represented usually sounds like they believe in a physical presence, but actually I don't think that it is the case.

 

[Justified]

100% correct, the Lutheran view is not ours, and ours is not the Lutheran. Lutherans believe in a spiritual presence as we do; but going further than us, also in a bodily/fleshy presence. Perhaps it would be better to say that on our part we drew back decisively from those claims of a bodily presence that had come to be a part of medieval piety, with roots in the patristic era. But if we withdrew, it was to come back to a position more akin to St. Augustin's than some other ancient fathers, and (as we see it) more biblical.

Lutherans believe in the ubiquity (everywhere-ness) of the exalted Christ's physical body, as extensive as the omnipresence of his divinity; which permits his corporeal presence "in with an under" the bread and wine, on every Lutheran sacramental altar/table in the world as needed, at the same moment if necessary. For us, with all possible peace and understanding granted, that strikes too close to "confusion" of Christ's two distinct natures.

Calvin taught that in his Ascension, Christ's physical presence had moved beyond the possibility of any abuse ever being visited upon him again. He is done with suffering in his flesh, 1Pet.4:1. The Father will permit it no more, Php.2:9. That is what his coming to earth in the Incarnation was about. We, as his Body, "fill up what is left of Christ's sufferings," Col.1:24.

If anything but faith could touch him, it would be the same as if these profane did succeed in assaulting heaven itself, that they might work him additional harm. As it is, they must content themselves with harming his saints for a while, Rev.12:17; and impotently beating their fists against his signs and seals.

The Lutheran pastor I talked to, who is a hard-cored confessional, emphatically denies that Christ's real presence is a natural one that is extended in space. Christ is really present, he says, in the elements supernaturally.

Read this: Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - Christian Cyclopedia

In the article above they quote Luther, explaining the three modes of the Body of Christ: "Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode of presence according to which he neither occupies nor vacates space but penetrates every creature, wherever he wills. … He employed this mode of presence … in the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper."

So the second mode according to Luther, as applies to the Lord's supper, is a spiritual mode. So I think your charge of them believing in a physical presence of the Lord's body is wrong. However, I think that many lay-Lutherans and many pastors, for that matter, probably don't understand this. The way it is often represented usually sounds like they believe in a physical presence, but actually I don't think that it is the case.

I retract slighty from what I last said. Now I'm a bit confused. I some Lutherans, such as Gene Veith, arguing for corporeal presence, but then they refuse what they mean by it. They give no defense of it, but differ to mystery. I'm having a hard time putting my finger on the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The Lutheran pastor I talked to, who is a hard-cored confessional, emphatically denies that Christ's real presence is a natural one

I didn't say Lutherans believe in a "natural" presence, but a "bodily" or "corporeal" one, which is undoubtedly supernatural just as your pastor friend avers.

Christ's actual body, "in with and under" the elements is standard Lutheran doctrine. I've spent a fair amount of time over the past decade getting acquainted with Lutheran distinctives, so I suppose I'm modestly qualified to speak. The previous decade I spent getting acquainted with Baptist distinctives, because I want to be able to articulate people's beliefs in a way that they might actually agree I understand what they mean. I can and do err; but I don't think I'm too far off here.

You might read the 1580 Book of Concord in all the parts touching this point, and there are several; including the appendix of the Saxon Articles, 1592, which plainly oppose Reformed doctrines.

The WCF declares our opinion distinct from the Lutheran in 29.6 in three different ways: 1) insisting on the presence of Christ only for believers, who alone can worthily receive the sacrament; 2) in allowing for only one method of sacramental reception: really and indeed spiritually, "yet not carnally and corporally;" which is a general denial of all those opinions that allow/insist on it; and 3) as a particular separation from the Lutheran (albeit, Protestant) view, in allowing for the real but only spiritual presence of the body and blood of Christ in that ordinance, and "not corporally or carnally in, with, and under the bread and wine."

"What is in the mouth?" is a good diagnostic question (I take it from a Lutheran). The Reformed view, consistent with Calvin et al, is "Bread in my mouth; Christ in my heart." The Lutheran avows, "Christ in my mouth." Zwinglians, or those who hold to a simple memorial view do not understand the imparting of any spiritual gift in virtue of the meal; it is a mere commemorative occasion. For them all that is present is bread, period.

 

[Justified]

The Lutheran pastor I talked to, who is a hard-cored confessional, emphatically denies that Christ's real presence is a natural one

I didn't say Lutherans believe in a "natural" presence, but a "bodily" or "corporeal" one, which is undoubtedly supernatural just as your pastor friend avers.

Christ's actual body, "in with and under" the elements is standard Lutheran doctrine. I've spent a fair amount of time over the past decade getting acquainted with Lutheran distinctives, so I suppose I'm modestly qualified to speak. The previous decade I spent getting acquainted with Baptist distinctives, because I want to be able to articulate people's beliefs in a way that they might actually agree I understand what they mean. I can and do err; but I don't think I'm too far off here.

You might read the 1580 Book of Concord in all the parts touching this point, and there are several; including the appendix of the Saxon Articles, 1592, which plainly oppose Reformed doctrines.

The WCF declares our opinion distinct from the Lutheran in 29.6 in three different ways: 1) insisting on the presence of Christ only for believers, who alone can worthily receive the sacrament; 2) in allowing for only one method of sacramental reception: really and indeed spiritually, "yet not carnally and corporally;" which is a general denial of all those opinions that allow/insist on it; and 3) as a particular separation from the Lutheran (albeit, Protestant) view, in allowing for the real but only spiritual presence of the body and blood of Christ in that ordinance, and "not corporally or carnally in, with, and under the bread and wine."

"What is in the mouth?" is a good diagnostic question (I take it from a Lutheran). The Reformed view, consistent with Calvin et al, is "Bread in my mouth; Christ in my heart." The Lutheran avows, "Christ in my mouth." Zwinglians, or those who hold to a simple memorial view do not understand the imparting of any spiritual gift in virtue of the meal; it is a mere commemorative occasion. For them all that is present is bread, period.

Thank you for that post. It makes sense now. It just seems strange to say that the corporeal body is supernaturally present. I probably was confused when I heard the pastor say "supernatural" and thought that he meant spiritual, like us Reformed

 

[yeutter]

You might read the 1580 Book of Concord in all the parts touching this point, and there are several; including the appendix of the Saxon Articles, 1592, which plainly oppose Reformed doctrines.



"What is in the mouth?" is a good diagnostic question (I take it from a Lutheran). The Reformed view, consistent with Calvin et al, is "Bread in my mouth; Christ in my heart." The Lutheran avows, "Christ in my mouth." Zwinglians, or those who hold to a simple memorial view do not understand the imparting of any spiritual gift in virtue of the meal; it is a mere commemorative occasion. For them all that is present is bread, period.

Bruce is spot on in his description of the Lutheran understanding of the Lord's Supper. When Anglicans distribute the bread in the Lord's Supper, the rector says these words, "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving." Lutherans object to the words "feed on Him in thy heart."

 

[Justified]

You might read the 1580 Book of Concord in all the parts touching this point, and there are several; including the appendix of the Saxon Articles, 1592, which plainly oppose Reformed doctrines.



"What is in the mouth?" is a good diagnostic question (I take it from a Lutheran). The Reformed view, consistent with Calvin et al, is "Bread in my mouth; Christ in my heart." The Lutheran avows, "Christ in my mouth." Zwinglians, or those who hold to a simple memorial view do not understand the imparting of any spiritual gift in virtue of the meal; it is a mere commemorative occasion. For them all that is present is bread, period.

Bruce is spot on in his description of the Lutheran understanding of the Lord's Supper. When Anglicans distribute the bread in the Lord's Supper, the rector says these words, "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving." Lutherans object to the words "feed on Him in thy heart."

Yeah, I think I understand. I'm just not sure how cogent it is to say that Christ is corporeally present in a supernatural way.

 

[Elizabeth]

"I'm just not sure how cogent it is to say that Christ is corporeally present in a supernatural way"

That right there is the 'mystery'. Lutheran's don't try to figure out the mechanics. It's neat and tidy, I guess.

I remember going through confirmation class, and getting to the section in the SC on the Supper. I thought to myself, "This will be an interesting discussion". But it wasn't...we read the SC section, the Pastor just said, "It (the how) was a mystery". That was that.

 

[Elizabeth]

I should add, because I hope that last didn't come across as snide: I deeply appreciate the reverence with which the Lutherans treat the Lord's Supper. And I am fine with leaving it as a mystery.