Is the Lord's Supper merely symbolic?

[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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

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]

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]

Originally posted by DTK

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

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]

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

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]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

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]

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]

Great links, Dr. Clark!

Thank you!!!

r.

 

[yeutter]

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]

Originally posted by DTK

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

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]

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

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

 

[Poimen]

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]

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]

Originally posted by DTK

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

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Denny]

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]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

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.

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]

Originally posted by Denny

Originally posted by fredtgreco

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.

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!!!

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by DTK

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

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]

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.

Thanks,

Denny

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.

23. Of the Eating of the Body. When it is said that Christ, by our eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, which are here figured, feeds our souls through faith by the agency of the Holy Spirit, we are not to understand it as if any mingling or transfusion of substance took place, but that we draw life from the flesh once offered in sacrifice and the blood shed in expiation. 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.

25. The Body of Christ Locally in Heaven. And that no ambiguity may remain when we say that Christ is to be sought in heaven, the expression implies and is understood by us to intimate distance of place. For though philosophically speaking there is no place above the skies, yet as the body of Christ, bearing the nature and mode of a human body, is finite and is contained in heaven as its place, it is necessarily as distant from us in point of space as heaven is from earth. 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. 220.

Cheers,
DTK

 

[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.