Continental Reformed and Presbyterian Perspectives on the Lord's Supper

[Theoretical]

From my readings, and especially from the 3 Forms of Unity emphases, would I be correct in saying that confessional Continental Reformed churches will have a view of the Lord's Supper, the way it is a means of grace, and the emphasis on it that is slightly more Anglican or Lutheran than many Presbyterians would?

Basically my best friend, a monergistic, non-pietistic Lutheran (LCMS), was enquiring as to the churches and denominations closest to conservative Lutheranism he should next consider. I suggested Reformed Anglican and next in line, something like the URCNA, as he does agree with the Lutheran stance on the sacraments and wants something as close to that perspective as possible in the church he attends.

I say this as one who myself would attend a Reformed Anglican or Confessional Lutheran church first if there was no good Presbyterian/Reformed congregation around, and both of those groups tend to have a "higher" view of the sacraments.

 

[Theoretical]

*bump*

 

[AV1611]

I am an Anglican and agree with the 3FU on the sacraments...so you may be right.

 

[pilgrim3970]

I am an Anglican and agree with the 3FU on the sacraments...so you may be right.

In spite of what those of the tractarian persuasion say, the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles are decidedly in agreement with the Three Forms of Unity in regards to the sacraments.

 

[Theoretical]

Very intriguing. I showed a lifelong Lutheran friend the differences between the WCF and the 3FU and she definitely was much more comfortable with the 3FU statements on the Lord's Supper than she was with the ones in the WCF.

What would be the Anglican response to the statements in the WCF - too symbolic a view, or what?

And also, what do people think is the reason the WCF has a *lower* view of the Lord's supper, relative to the 39 Articles and 3FU?

 

[wsw201]

There is no difference between the 3FU and the Standards, with the exception of verbiage, on the Lord's Supper. The Lutheran view is completely different from the Reformed view and the 3FU along with the Standards, is the Reformed view.

If your friend is looking for a church that holds a Lutheran view of the Sacraments, he'll have to stay with the LCMS or look for a Wisconsin Synod church. An Episcopal Church that holds to the 39 Articles will not be close to a Lutheran view.

 

[Theoretical]

So would you say that the Reformed are closer to the Lutherans or the Zwinglians in terms of the different views (obviously rejecting the Catholic view), and where would the 39 Articles Anglicans fall in reference to Reformed and Lutherans, given Anglican references to the "Real Presence"?

 

[wsw201]

I would say that the Lutheran view (consubstantiation) and the Zwinglian view (or what is now considered the Zwinglian view) are completely different from the Reformed view. The Reformed view does not buy into the idea that Christ is "under, over and around" the elements as the Lutherans see it. Plus the Lutherans have a real problem with the issue of the ubiquity of Christ in the elements. As far as the Zwinglian view is concerned, it is considered simply as a "memorial" or rememberance.

Some commentators have argued that Calvin split the difference between Luther and Zwingli, but either way, the Reformed view is significantly differnent from the other views. Also note that in the Standards, it specifically addresses the issue of consubstantiation. Not sure if the 3FU does, but wouldn't be surprised if it did.

As far as the 39 Articles are concerned, they are much more aligned with the Reformed view as many at the time it was written were followers of Calvin's teaching.

 

[Theoretical]

I would say that the Lutheran view (consubstantiation) and the Zwinglian view (or what is now considered the Zwinglian view) are completely different from the Reformed view. The Reformed view does not buy into the idea that Christ is "under, over and around" the elements as the Lutherans see it. Plus the Lutherans have a real problem with the issue of the ubiquity of Christ in the elements. As far as the Zwinglian view is concerned, it is considered simply as a "memorial" or rememberance.

Some commentators have argued that Calvin split the difference between Luther and Zwingli, but either way, the Reformed view is significantly differnent from the other views. Also note that in the Standards, it specifically addresses the issue of consubstantiation. Not sure if the 3FU does, but wouldn't be surprised if it did.

As far as the 39 Articles are concerned, they are much more aligned with the Reformed view as many at the time it was written were followers of Calvin's teaching.

Thanks for the descriptions - those are very helpful summaries.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

It is worth reading the Consensus Tigurinus, which was prepared by Calvin and Bullinger to unite Geneva and Zurich in their understanding of the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper.

 

[wsw201]

I KNEW ANDREW WOULD HAVE A LINK TO SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP!! If I remember right, it was also suppose to bridge the gap with Melanchton. But once Melanchton died, the whole thing fell apart as the more staunch consubstantiation Lutherans would not accept it.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

It's also worth noting that an attempt to bridge the Lutheran and Reformed views on the Lord's Supper resulted in the 1536 Wittenberg Concord. It was signed by Luther and Melanchthon on the Lutheran side, among others, and Bucer, on the Reformed side, among others. I noted Calvin's opinion of it previously here.

 

[pilgrim3970]

As far as the 39 Articles are concerned, they are much more aligned with the Reformed view as many at the time it was written were followers of Calvin's teaching.

Bingo.

This is also reflected in our liturgy:

When delivering the bread:

THE Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was 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.

and at the delivery of the cup:

THE Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.

in addition in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer in place of the statement made after the consecration "Behold the lamb of God,etc." The minister said

Christ our Paschal lamb is offered up for us, once for all, when he bare our sins on his body upon the cross, for he is the very lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world: wherefore let us keep a joyful and holy feast with the Lord.

It should also be noted that the rubrics also stated that the sacraments were not to be elevated.

 

[jtbusfield]

Wine

Actually, the 1930 REC BCP stated it better (before the Neo-Oxfordian revisions of the last edition) when it stated, "Take and drink this WINE in remembrance . . " and "Take and eat this BREAD in remembrance. . . ". Thus all ambiguity about what the communicant was taking removed. No room for transubstantiation or consubstantiation.

IFOTL,

JTB

 

[pilgrim3970]

Actually, the 1930 REC BCP stated it better (before the Neo-Oxfordian revisions of the last edition) when it stated, "Take and drink this WINE in remembrance . . " and "Take and eat this BREAD in remembrance. . . ". Thus all ambiguity about what the communicant was taking removed. No room for transubstantiation or consubstantiation.

However, the last edition does include the "black rubric". The following leaves little doubt in mind:

It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians) and the natural Body and Blood of our
Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the
truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.

That being said, I would have preffered to see the last edition based squarely on the 1662 rather than being a 1928/1662 hybrid.

 

[Kaalvenist]

I have no problem with the Three Forms; I actually came over to the Reformed faith through a CRC friend, and probably would have begun attending that church, but was providentially hindered. The sacramental positions of the Reformed cannot be distinguished between Continental and British Reformed. Both 3FU and Westminster maintain the same understanding of sacramental efficacy; both maintain the Calvinist "spiritual" view of the Lord's Supper, as contrasted with the Zwinglian "memorial" view on the one hand, or the Popish/Lutheran "corporal" views on the other.

I would especially recommed Dr. Clark's Theses Theologicae on this subject, items 25-31 under "Ecclesiology." Very clear, very succinct.

 

[jtbusfield]

REC Communion

Steve,

The new BCP of the REC includes the following prayer:

WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O
merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but
in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so
much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou
art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy:
Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of
thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our
sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls
washed through his most precious blood, and that we may
evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

I know of no evangelical churchman who would accept this, disclaimer in the footnote or rubric not withstanding. Why would one pray something and then have to recite a rubric saying "I really didn't mean it Lord"?

Better yet, the abuse of the Black Rubric as it is applied in the new BCP where those who oppose Baptismal Regeneration are called names, e.g.

The word regenerate in this Office of Baptism is well meant for a signification
of our grafting and incorporation into Christ’s flock and
a grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given
to all who receive Baptism rightly (Note Article XXVII Of Baptism).
Yet, lest the same word should by any persons, out of ignorance,
malice, or obstinacy, be misconstrued: It is hereby declared that
the use of this word is not intended to denote an essential alteration
in nature, nor a passing, as by some mysterious process, into
that fullness of religious life marked by faith, repentance, incipient
holiness, ardent desires after God, and elevated affections.


Of course this name calling would apply to the founders of the REC who very pointedly removed the word "regenerate", lest ungodly men abuse it.

IFOTL,

JTB

 

[dannyhyde]

JTB (could you supply us with your name and church...isn't that required on the Puritan Board?),

You said the following:

The new BCP of the REC includes the following prayer:

WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O
merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but
in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so
much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou
art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy:
Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of
thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our
sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls
washed through his most precious blood, and that we may
evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

I know of no evangelical churchman who would accept this, disclaimer in the footnote or rubric not withstanding. Why would one pray something and then have to recite a rubric saying "I really didn't mean it Lord"?

I am not an Anglican, although I have benefited from the works of Cranmer, Jewel, and others. To my point, though: first, the "Prayer of Humble Access" is not something that the Reformed Episcopal Church inserted into their revised BCP, and, second, this prayer, in fact, comes from the 1549 BCP. Cranmer, "an evangelical churchman," wrote this prayer. Then, when the BCP was republished in 1552, this prayer was kept after "evangelical churchman" such as Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and John Hooper gave critical comments to Cranmer about the '49 BCP in order to move it in a more Reformed direction.

This prayer wonderfully expresses not only the Reformed doctrine of Holy Communion, but the hope of the faithful as they partake.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but why is this prayer seemingly objectionable?

 

[jtbusfield]

Reformed Lord's Supper

Danny,

My profile does list the name of my home church and other information. And it was completed when I joined. Thus I did not understand your comment, "could you supply us with your name and church...isn't that required on the Puritan Board?". I have since seen the requirements for a "signature" and have created one, though deriving my name from my log-in name is not too difficult. JTBusfield stands for Joseph T. Busfield.

Second. Perhaps some do not find "eating the flesh and drinking the blood of our Lord" objectionable phrases, but Cranmer, whom you accurately portrayed, was martyred by Bloody Mary (as a heretic, BTW, not a traitor as were others) because he ultimately denied the corporal presence of the Lord in the Supper. He was killed before he finished his work and the oft speculated third BCP was not to be. He was a true hero of the faith, but he was a man with all the sinful foibles common to man. He grew in the faith and was ever growing. You can certainly find earlier writings of the good Thomas that he would find uncomfortable - In my humble opinion. All the Reformers in England knew they were walking a fine line. Ever moving toward Reform, but not with the luxury to make as drastic changes as Calvin and Luther could.

Ultimately, the Scripture must guide our prayers, not the tradition of the Anglican Church - which is often very sullied or incompletely reformed.

Being raised as a traditional RE, I am very sensitive to "Romanizing Germs" in the BCP. The wording of the Anglican Prayer of Humble Access is such a germ. And the founders of the REC saw it as such and changed it to the more evangelical and Reformed:

WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful LORD trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same LORD, whose property is always to have mercy. Grant us, therefore, gracious LORD, so to commemorate in this breaking of bread the death of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, that we may feed on him in our hearts by faith, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen

The new REC BCP is a Neo-Oxfordian work, designed to return the REC to that which it left, sacerdotalism and priestcraft. It includes prayers for the dead, baptismal regeneration, etc., all positions abhorrent to the Founders of the REC. It even makes veiled disparaging remarks about the Founders in the Order for Infant Baptism rubic - implying they were ignorant, etc.

No, the old REC BCP was Reformed and evangelical. The new BCP is a return to Romish errors or the past and an indication of the mindset of the current leaders.

IFOTL,

Joe Busfield
Bishop's Commissary for North America
Free Church of England - Evangelical Connexion
worshipping at Redemption Church
Quakertown, PA 18951

 

[tcalbrecht]

Steve,

The new BCP of the REC includes the following prayer:

WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O
merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but
in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so
much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou
art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy:
Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of
thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our
sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls
washed through his most precious blood, and that we may
evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

I know of no evangelical churchman who would accept this, disclaimer in the footnote or rubric not withstanding. Why would one pray something and then have to recite a rubric saying "I really didn't mean it Lord"?

I don't believe that anyone who subscribes to the WS or 3FU should have a problem with this statement.

In the Belgic Confession we read:

Again, this Supper is a meal of the Spirit, in the midst of Whom Christ brings His self forth to us for partaking with all of His works, and makes it so that, in this, just as which we enjoy His very self, so too do we enjoy the merits of His suffering and death. For He nourishes, reinforces, and consoles our miserable afflicted souls that are destitute of all consolation by the eating of His very own flesh; likewise He sustains and recreates them by the drinking of His blood. (Article 35)

From the Heidelberg Catechism:

76. What does it mean to eat the crucified body and drink the shed blood of Christ?

It means not only to embrace with a believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ, and thereby to obtain the forgiveness of sins and life eternal; but moreover, also, to be so united more and more to His sacred body by the Holy Spirit, who dwells both in Christ and in us, that, although He is in heaven and we on earth, we are nevertheless flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone, and live and are governed forever by one Spirit, as members of the same body are governed by one soul.

In similar fashion, the WCF reads:

The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before. (29:5)

So, for Reformed folk is it quite appropriate to speak of the sacramental union which exists between the physical elements as the actual body and blood of Christ.

 

[jtbusfield]

Real Presence

Thanks for the references. I certainly have no problems with the Heidelberg words. The WCF and Belgic wording is less than ideal In my humble opinion. To allow or endorse wording that can lead to one of the very errors that precipitated the Reformation seems dangerous to me. But then I have always said I am too Reformed to be a Presbyterian . Sounds much like the rubrics that have to explain away the plain meaning of the words in the BCP. I much prefer the attitude of the Founders of the REC as a careful understanding of the Lord's Supper, to wit:

We acknowledge but one altar, the Cross of Calvary. We know but one priest, even the “Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” We restore the simple table of the Lord. We proclaim the elements of bread and wine to be only symbols, tokens, “pledges of His love.” We commemorate the one perfect, finished sacrifice. We adore Him with unmeasured love. We feed on Him only in our hearts, by faith.

Bishop George D. Cummins
First Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church
​

or

We framed our whole liturgy on the principles laid down in this declaration. [Declaration of Principles] From cover to cover you will nowhere find a minister of the gospel called a "priest". We require that the minister in delivering the bread to the communicant should call it "bread", and when delivering the cup should call it "wine". Thus our Church bears perpetual witness to the fact that no change takes place in these emblems through the prayer of consecration.

Bishop Charles Edward Cheney,
First Bishop Consecrated in the REC
​

Just my "lower-than-a-snake's-belly, gung-ho Calvinist, liturgy-loving, English Reformation advocate" opinion, of course.

IFOTL,

 

[tcalbrecht]

Thanks for the references. I certainly have no problems with the Heidelberg words. The WCF and Belgic wording is less than ideal In my humble opinion. To allow or endorse wording that can lead to one of the very errors that precipitated the Reformation seems dangerous to me. But then I have always said I am too Reformed to be a Presbyterian . Sounds much like the rubrics that have to explain away the plain meaning of the words in the BCP. I much prefer the attitude of the Founders of the REC as a careful understanding of the Lord's Supper, to wit:

We acknowledge but one altar, the Cross of Calvary. We know but one priest, even the “Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” We restore the simple table of the Lord. We proclaim the elements of bread and wine to be only symbols, tokens, “pledges of His love.” We commemorate the one perfect, finished sacrifice. We adore Him with unmeasured love. We feed on Him only in our hearts, by faith.

Bishop George D. Cummins
First Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church
​

or

We framed our whole liturgy on the principles laid down in this declaration. [Declaration of Principles] From cover to cover you will nowhere find a minister of the gospel called a "priest". We require that the minister in delivering the bread to the communicant should call it "bread", and when delivering the cup should call it "wine". Thus our Church bears perpetual witness to the fact that no change takes place in these emblems through the prayer of consecration.

Bishop Charles Edward Cheney,
First Bishop Consecrated in the REC
​

Just my "lower-than-a-snake's-belly, gung-ho Calvinist, liturgy-loving, English Reformation advocate" opinion, of course.

IFOTL,

With all due respect, this sounds more Zwinglian than Reformed. I'm sure the good bishop would need to add a number of caveats to get this into a Reformed/sacramental view of the Lord's Supper. E.g., would the good bishop affirm or deny the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament?

This is my body. I shall not recount the unhappy contests that have tried the Church in our times as to the meaning of these words. Nay rather, would to God that we could bury the remembrance of them in perpetual oblivion! I shall state, first of all, sincerely and without disguise, and then farther, I shall state freely (as I am wont to do) what my views are. Christ calls the bread his body; for I set aside, without any disputation, that absurd contrivance, that our Lord did not exhibit the bread to the Apostles, but his body, which they beheld with their eyes, for it immediately follows -- This cup is the New Testament in my blood. Let us regard it then as beyond all controversy that Christ is here speaking of the bread. Now the question is -- "In what sense?" That we may elicit the true meaning, we must hold that the expression is figurative; for, assuredly, to deny this is exceedingly dishonest. Why then is the term body applied to the bread? All, I think, will allow that it is for the same reason that John calls the Holy Spirit a dove. (John 1:32.) Thus far we are agreed. Now the reason why the Spirit was so called was this -- that he had appeared in the form of a dove. Hence the name of the Spirit is transferred to the visible sign. Why should we not maintain that there is here a similar instance of metonymy, and that the term body is applied to the bread, as being the sign and symbol of it? If any are of a different opinion they will forgive me; but it appears to me to be an evidence of a contentious spirit, to dispute pertinaciously on this point. I lay it down, then, as a settled point, that there is here a sacramental form of expression, in which the Lord gives to the sign the name of the thing signified. (Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Cor 11:24)

There is sufficient explanation as to the meaning of these words in the Reformed Confessions that any erroneous understanding is avoided. Otherwise we would be forced to throw out all sorts of perfectly sound theological terms and concepts because they might appear too "Catholic". (E.g., see Charle Hodge's comments on the subject of Mary as the mother of God.)

 

[jtbusfield]

With all due respect, this sounds more Zwinglian than Reformed. I'm sure the good bishop would need to add a number of caveats to get this into a Reformed/sacramental view of the Lord's Supper. E.g., would the good bishop affirm or deny the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament?

There is sufficient explanation as to the meaning of these words in the Reformed Confessions that any erroneous understanding is avoided. Otherwise we would be forced to throw out all sorts of perfectly sound theological terms and concepts because they might appear too "Catholic". (E.g., see Charle Hodge's comments on the subject of Mary as the mother of God.)

Interesing. I would think, with all due respect, that the concept of a spiritual presence in the elements is Lutheran not Reformed (Consubstantiation). I cannot answer for the Founders of the REC other than their words, however Reformed folks I know believe there is a Real Presence, but it is limited to the believer, not the elements of the Communion.

BTW, One would never (D.V.) catch this person calling Mary "Mother of God". Hodge notwithstanding. Theologically inaccurate and a precursor to Patrapassionist heresy.

And,from your Calvin quote:

"That we may elicit the true meaning, we must hold that the expression is figurative; for, assuredly, to deny this is exceedingly dishonest."

Amen!

IFOTL,

 

[tcalbrecht]

Interesing. I would think, with all due respect, that the concept of a spiritual presence in the elements is Lutheran not Reformed (Consubstantiation).

Consubstantiation is the view that the "substance" of the body and blood Christ is present "in, with, and under" the elements of bread and wine. It is transubstantiation-lite.

There is no such co-location of the physical substance of Christ's person within the Reformed understanding of the Supper. Christ is truly, albeit spiritually, present with those who worthily receive the elements by faith.

I cannot answer for the Founders of the REC other than their words, however Reformed folks I know believe there is a Real Presence, but it is limited to the believer, not the elements of the Communion.

BTW, One would never (D.V.) catch this person calling Mary "Mother of God". Hodge notwithstanding. Theologically inaccurate and a precursor to Patrapassionist heresy.

It is not theologically inaccurate. To deny the phrase "mother of God" wrt Mary is to deny the essence of the historic formulation of the Church wrt the person of Christ. See Creed of Chalcedon.

born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;

And,from your Calvin quote:

"That we may elicit the true meaning, we must hold that the expression is figurative; for, assuredly, to deny this is exceedingly dishonest."

Amen!

IFOTL,

Figurative but accurate. We eat the body and blood of Christ in the true spiritual sense at the Lord's Supper. No Reformer would deny this. Nor would they run from the phrase "body of Christ" wrt to the bread or "the blood of Christ" wrt the cup of wine.

 

[jtbusfield]

Consubstantiation is the view that the "substance" of the body and blood Christ is present "in, with, and under" the elements of bread and wine. It is transubstantiation-lite.

There is no such co-location of the physical substance of Christ's person within the Reformed understanding of the Supper. Christ is truly, albeit spiritually, present with those who worthily receive the elements by faith.

Hmm. . . I had said that (the last sentence), but thought you disagreed. "I know there is a Real Presence, but it is limited to the believer, not the elements of the Communion."
Oh well, human fraility on my part I guess.

It is not theologically inaccurate. To deny the phrase "mother of God" wrt Mary is to deny the essence of the historic formulation of the Church wrt the person of Christ. See Creed of Chalcedon.

Actually, I am too biblically based to consider any creed superior to the Scripture - where Christ Himself exclaimed "Who is my mother?" (St. Matthew 12:48) Certainly I can recognize the figurative nature of the comment, but I can also recognize the relative importance He assigned to Mary. Next we will have to accept the immaculate conception of Mary and her perpetual viriginity to allow her to be the "Mother of God". And of course, this can (and has) lead to the erroneous doctrine that God died on the cross.



Figurative but accurate. We eat the body and blood of Christ in the true spiritual sense at the Lord's Supper. No Reformer would deny this. Nor would they run from the phrase "body of Christ" wrt to the bread or "the blood of Christ" wrt the cup of wine.

In my humble opinion this discouse is dangerously close to the Tractarian arguments of the 19th century that did so much damage to the evangelical witness in the Anglican Church - and is revisited in the Neo-Oxfordian movement of the new REC. Not a good use of time to rehash the ground the REC founders had struggled with and has since been lost (to a large part) by Neo-RECs. I am and always will be a traditional Reformed Episcopalian following the path set out by the founders and maintained by Howard-Smith, Gallagher, Peach, Bp. Rudolph, Dr. Rudolph, Bp. Higgins, Bp. Herter, Dr. Fisher, etc. Men more learned and godly than I could hope for myself, but sound, biblical and Reformed men of God.

 

[spicedparrot]

Yes the 3FU and Lutheran views are similar in some ways

I've been a lurker for many moons on this board but am finally jumping in - probably to my detriment as most on here are errudite than me. But here goes:

As a Lutheran who came from a Continental Reformed tradition I think that there are greater similarities there than some would like to admit. Admittedly most reformed/presbyterian practice is Zwinglian in theology and almost certainly in practice. That said, I do think the distinctions of the actual Lutheran position are more pronounced when compared with American Presbyterian tradition (Nevin excepted of course).

Also, in my experience you can ask a number of lutherans, or a number of reformed as to what is the confessional position and receive a wide variety of answers, some more accurate than others. Thus, my first suggestion would be to go to www.bookofconcord.org and read what the Lutheran Confessions state on the supper. From there you should be able to deduce the similarities and differences. (I do think you'll find a clearer exposition of Lutheran Theology in the Epitome and Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. The Augsburg Confession and Luther's Catechisms are short and trite for good reason).

To illustrate my point on the similarities take a guess which of the following is Lutheran and which is from a Reformed Stalwart. Both were written at roughly the same time (give or take 10 years or so):
--------------------
Quote 1:
"We begin now to enter on the questions so much debated, both anciently and at the present time--how we are to understand the words in which the bread is called the body of Christ, and the wine his blood. This may be disposed of without much difficulty, if we carefully observe the principle which I lately laid down, viz., that all the benefit which we should seek in the Supper is annihilated if Jesus Christ be not there given to us as the substance and foundation of all. That being fixed, we will confess, without doubt, that to deny that a true communication of Jesus Christ is presented to us in the Supper, is to render this holy sacrament frivolous and useless--an execrable blasphemy unfit to be listened to."

" Meanwhile it should satisfy us, that there is fraternity and communion among the churches, and that all agree in so far as is necessary for meeting together, according to the commandment of God. We all then confess with one mouth, that on receiving the sacrament in faith, according to the ordinance of the Lord, we are truly made partakers of the proper substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. How that is done some may deduce better, and explain more clearly than others."
-----------------
Quote 2:
21. Hence we hereby utterly [reject and] condemn the Capernaitic eating of the body of Christ, as though [we taught that] His flesh were rent with the teeth, and digested like other food, which the Sacramentarians, against the testimony of their conscience, after all our frequent protests, wilfully force upon us, and in this way make our doctrine odious to their hearers; and on the other hand, we maintain and believe, according to the simple words of the testament of Christ, the true, yet supernatural eating of the body of Christ, as also the drinking of His blood, which human senses and reason do not comprehend, but as in all other articles of faith our reason is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and this mystery is not apprehended otherwise than by faith alone, and revealed in the Word alone.
-----------

Of course, the first is from Calvin's Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper and the second from the Lutheran Formula of Concord (Epitome). BTW, lest I get pounded on the head Calvin at other times sounds more Zwinglian (see for example the document he signed to unify with the Zurich magistrates, however, Calvin also signed a revised Lutheran Augsburg Confession that was pretty clear on the "real presence" in the Supper). However, as the Short Treatise was written for the sole purpose to flesh out his position I'll rely on that as being a more accurate (and less politically motivated) reflection of his position.

Simply put, I think the difference between the Calvinians and the Lutherans really is smaller that those in both camps would like to make of it. I think Michael Horton (whose work on the Lord's Supper is a supurb example of the true confessionally reformed position) says it best when he points out the distinction between the two is really one of Christology - and whether we are carried up to heaven to feast on Christ or whether he condescends to our level . Naturally, this thread could degenerate into a detailed discussion of Chalecedon, Nestorianism, etc. etc. etc.

I do think that some Reformed systematic theologians though have done a good job by also tying the Lord's Supper to the covenant (agan, see Horton's God of Promise).

In summary, I do think there are more similarities to those of continental tradition (after all Ursinus was actually a student of Melanchthon) than those in the Presbyterian confession - but both are effectively in large part Zwinglian in their American churches (I think one can except many in the URCNA from that characterization).

Anyway, here is Horton's quote from http://www.modernreformation.org/mh97means.htm His article here is a great exposition on the Supper and the differences and similarities between the two traditions:

"Zwinglians and Roman Catholics are the only ones who deny mystery: the former, by reducing the Sacraments to mere signs and symbols; the latter, by arguing that the sign is no longer united to the thing signified, but replaces it! Lutherans and Calvinists embrace mystery, though at different points. While Calvinists ask Lutherans how Christ can be physically present at every altar and still be said in any sense to have a human body, Lutherans ask Calvinists how they can honestly say that they are really feeding on the true body and blood of Christ in heaven, without identifying this with a physical mode of eating. For centuries, the difficult business here for both parties has been accepting each other's claim to be truly feeding on Christ according to his institution. But at least they are both claiming the same act and effect, even if they differ on the mode of eating. Here, both concede mystery, a wonderful exercise of the miracle-working Savior still at work in our world, and this is at least a good place to start."

P.S. Personally I think the "locality" issue is moot when one considers the extra-dimensionality of God. At that point, whether here or there, it doesn't matters so much as what is actually being conveyed in the supper. Both Calvinians and Lutherans would agree that what is conveyed is "Christ and All His Benefits"

Chad Hamilton
Peace With Christ (LCMS)
Fort Collins, Colorado