Lutheran argument for Lord's Supper?

Status
Not open for further replies.
human nature, particularly in its embodiment, is circumscribed. That means my body is here, not there.
Does circumscribed mean incapable of being used as part of a miracle?
Let me lay all my cards on the table, I know some people don't like poker but I love it (so forgive the analogy).
It seems to me that arguing from Christology primarily can lead one into the problems I've laid out. Now we're not discussing the comunicoto idiomodum, for that I recommend Rev. Winzer's response to that in the thread on this subject in this subforum. Christ's human nature is subject to all the things any other finite created thing is. But God can do what he wills with whatever he created, including multiplying a finite thing beyond its circumscribed location.
As long as we don't confess that this multiplying creates new nature's, Nestorianism, than we are ok. Unless one could show that any multiplication of Christ's human nature in any way shape or form results in said problem.
Now the miracle of the fish and the loaves is, at least prima facie, biblical evidence of this multiplying of a finite created thing. Provided we don't speculate as to what went on, seeing the bible isn't clear there. We must confess a mystery.
Now perhaps there is something in Christology that destroys the argument that I'm unaware of.
Perhaps it is possible to argue that the glorified body of Christ can't be made to do that, I don't see why?
So any appeal, without proper explanation, to Christology will fall back into my original problems. Hence taking the suggestion I read ( in I believe "Four views on the Lord's Supper") that there is an eschatological problem with the Lutheran position, they want dessert too early.
Just as in biblical theology in earlier times (as all earthly times) there is an already/not yet paradigm. In these last days we have an already, spiritual feeding/communion with Christ's body and blood but one day, not yet, we'll have a physical communion with Christ (face to unworthy face). So to put the whole meal off for the future (memorial view) is wrong.
To have our meal and dessert early (Lutheran view) is wrong. But to have our meal and dessert early and get an unlimited amounts of seconds (Catholic/EO view) is wrong, and glutinous.
We are left with the Reformed view. Already our appetizers here and now. Later our full feast with dessert in physical communion with our Lord.
This follows redemptive historical theology as well., and biblical theology. Adam and Eve sinned so physical sacrifice had to happen for us. The sacrifices continued in a more restricted fashion, Mosaic covenant, which involved physical eating of the sacrifice.
Than the Messiah comes and the physical eating is set aside, death is being set aside. Now we have spiritual eating and drinking (and communion). Then at the consummation we will have no more eating and drinking spiritually but both physical and spiritual communion with our Lord, the great wedding feast of the lamb.
I'm probably wrong somewhere, so don't be gentle I can take it. Thanks.
 
It seems to me that arguing from Christology primarily can lead one into the problems I've laid out. Now we're not discussing the comunicoto idiomodum, for that I recommend Rev. Winzer's response to that in the thread on this subject in this subforum. Christ's human nature is subject to all the things any other finite created thing is. But God can do what he wills with whatever he created, including multiplying a finite thing beyond its circumscribed location.

Neither Lutheran nor Reformed will divorce Christology from Eucharist.
 
Ok. I think I have pretty good arguments for why it may not be primary. And an eschatological argument I think is good. It is certainly secondary.
 
What about Regirmed Baptists views regarding just how Jesus is seen in the communion?

What does your confession say? In 30.2 it says "it is only a memorial" although it does use correct language on "feeding on him by faith" (though I doubt that phrase is univocally understood).
 
So our view regarding this would involve a somewhat different Christological position than either Reformed or Lutheryns?
 
So our view regarding this would involve a somewhat different Christological position than either Reformed or Lutheryns?

Not necessarily a different Christological position than Reformed, since you guys copied us. It's just that you don't have all the rich underpinnings on the Supper that we have.
 
Not necessarily a different Christological position than Reformed, since you guys copied us. It's just that you don't have all the rich underpinnings on the Supper that we have.
Not going into our differences here, but do we not come to this from a different Christology in some regards?
 
Not going into our differences here, but do we not come to this from a different Christology in some regards?
One can hold a memorial view of the supper and still hold a Reformed Christology.
The debate between Lutherans and Reformed came down to disagreements on Christology.
 
The Spiritual presense of Jesus will be among his people regardless on one views the Communion element, correct?

That's not elaborating the differences. You said there were differences. In any case, "spiritual" means different things in Evangelicalism. In can mean "powered by the Holy Spirit" or it can mean merely "thinking pious thoughts piously."
 
One can hold a memorial view of the supper and still hold a Reformed Christology.
The debate between Lutherans and Reformed came down to disagreements on Christology.
Yes, for how can one see the physical presence of Jesus within the elements if hold to a standard Christology viewpoint?
 
That's not elaborating the differences. You said there were differences. In any case, "spiritual" means different things in Evangelicalism. In can mean "powered by the Holy Spirit" or it can mean merely "thinking pious thoughts piously."
Jesus is with us by and through the Holy Spirit when we gather in His name, regardless on how we view the Communion, correct?
 
Jesus is with us by and through the Holy Spirit when we gather in His name, regardless on how we view the Communion, correct?

Yes, but that's not your question. You said that Reformed and Baptists differed on Christology but you still haven't said how.
 
Yes, but that's not your question. You said that Reformed and Baptists differed on Christology but you still haven't said how.
holding to a memorial view regarding Communion would seem to have a different understanding on Jesus means to be present in the elements themselves, correct?
 
holding to a memorial view regarding Communion would seem to have a different understanding on Jesus means to be present in the elements themselves, correct?

That's for you to tell me. You said there were Christological differences between Reformed and baptist. Tell me what they are.
 
What does your confession say? In 30.2 it says "it is only a memorial" although it does use correct language on "feeding on him by faith" (though I doubt that phrase is univocally understood).

Don't make the mistake of believing that the 2LBCF promotes the "memorial" view. The 2 LBCF view of the Lord's Supper is 100% wholly Reformed.

This wording of the London Baptist Confession means exactly the same thing that the Westminster Confession of Faith means.

WCF:

"In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same:"

2 LBCF:

"In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same."
 
Don't make the mistake of believing that the 2LBCF promotes the "memorial" view. The 2 LBCF view of the Lord's Supper is 100% wholly Reformed.

This wording of the London Baptist Confession means exactly the same thing that the Westminster Confession of Faith means.

WCF:

"In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same:"

2 LBCF:

"In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same."

That's fair.
 
Yes, for how can one see the physical presence of Jesus within the elements if hold to a standard Christology viewpoint?
I believe that's the point. Both claim to hold the orthodox view on the subject. I personally don't think there's enough disagreement to separate over.
 
I believe that's the point. Both claim to hold the orthodox view on the subject. I personally don't think there's enough disagreement to separate over.

They believe that the properties of the divine nature are communicated to the human, which we think is Eutychian. They believe we are Nestorians. Both claims make the other heretical. I am not saying I am on board with such charges
 
They believe that the properties of the divine nature are communicated to the human, which we think is Eutychian. They believe we are Nestorians. Both claims make the other heretical. I am not saying I am on board with such charges
I agree. I'm not on board either. I never truly got it, which is why I started the thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top