Is the Lord's Supper merely symbolic?

[biblelighthouse]

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

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

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

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


in Christ,
Joseph

 

[RamistThomist]

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

 

[Me Died Blue]

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

 

[Arch2k]

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

 

[brymaes]

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

 

[Michael Butterfield]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
I hold that Christ is spiritually and covenantally presesnt in the Supper.

What is meant by 'Covenantally' present?

 

[Michael Butterfield]

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

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

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

 

[Michael Butterfield]

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

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

 

[Me Died Blue]

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

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

Originally posted by Michael Butterfield
Dabney says of Calvin's view, "it is not only incomprehensible, but impossible."

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

Interesting.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Michael Butterfield

Originally posted by Draught Horse
I hold that Christ is spiritually and covenantally presesnt in the Supper.

What is meant by 'Covenantally' present?

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

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

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

Originally posted by Michael Butterfield
Dabney says of Calvin's view, "it is not only incomprehensible, but impossible."

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

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

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

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

So ... what does this mean.

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

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

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

So ... what does this mean.

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

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

There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.[6]

[6] GEN 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. MAT 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. TIT 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

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

 

[RamistThomist]

This is taken from the Semi-Pelagian shorter catechism:

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

 

[Michael Butterfield]

Originally posted by Michael Butterfield

Originally posted by Draught Horse
I hold that Christ is spiritually and covenantally presesnt in the Supper.

What is meant by 'Covenantally' present?

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

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

 

[Michael Butterfield]

Originally posted by Michael Butterfield

Originally posted by Michael Butterfield

Originally posted by Draught Horse
I hold that Christ is spiritually and covenantally presesnt in the Supper.

What is meant by 'Covenantally' present?

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

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

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

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

Institutes, 4.17.10 [2:1370-71].

 

[Michael Butterfield]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

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

So ... what does this mean.

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

Once understood you will really like Calvin's view.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

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

 

[Michael Butterfield]

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

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

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

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

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

That is how Calvin saw the supper. I concur.

[Edited on 6-30-2005 by webmaster]

 

[Michael Butterfield]

Sursum corda

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

 

[BobVigneault]

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

 

[crhoades]

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

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

 

[biblelighthouse]

How about prepaid phone cards?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

How did Calvin know about cell phones?

 

[Arch2k]

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

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

Any takers?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
How about prepaid phone cards?

You guys are too much!

 

[raderag]

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

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

That is how Calvin saw the supper. I concur.

[Edited on 6-30-2005 by webmaster]

I sure hope it is a bit more reliable.

 

[Myshkin]

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

 

[raderag]

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

[Edited on 6-30-2005 by raderag]