ERK
Puritan Board Freshman
I was reading an article earlier that was comparing the different views of "real" presence in the Lord's Supper from various traditions. They claimed that, whatever sense Christ is really present, He is only objectively present in the Lutheran view. I believe the argument was that the other traditions make the real presence of Christ subject to either a miracle performed by a priest (Roman Catholic), or the faith of the recipient (Reformed), rather than the promise of God in His word.
This was confusing to me because it was claiming that Christ's real presence is dependent on the faith in the recipient in the Reformed view. They then argued that the promises associated with the Supper cannot be really made unless Christ is really present regardless of the faith in the hearers, and that the condemnation received through unworthy participation could not be possible unless Christ was really present in some sense in the Supper.
I was under the impression that the words of institution conveyed the real presence (spiritually) of Christ in the sacrament, and that faith was the instrumental cause of truly receiving the thing signified. Not that faith was what made Christ really present in the Supper in a subjective sense.
Also to the point of unworthy participation... does Christ need to be really received (somehow) without faith in the recipient in order for it to be condemnation on themselves? I don't think that unbelievers are able to receive Christ in the Supper in a real sense, but is a real reception of Christs real presence what makes the participation lead to condemnation? Or is it simply remaining under condemnation on the basis of rejecting Christ because of the absence of faith?
This was confusing to me because it was claiming that Christ's real presence is dependent on the faith in the recipient in the Reformed view. They then argued that the promises associated with the Supper cannot be really made unless Christ is really present regardless of the faith in the hearers, and that the condemnation received through unworthy participation could not be possible unless Christ was really present in some sense in the Supper.
I was under the impression that the words of institution conveyed the real presence (spiritually) of Christ in the sacrament, and that faith was the instrumental cause of truly receiving the thing signified. Not that faith was what made Christ really present in the Supper in a subjective sense.
Also to the point of unworthy participation... does Christ need to be really received (somehow) without faith in the recipient in order for it to be condemnation on themselves? I don't think that unbelievers are able to receive Christ in the Supper in a real sense, but is a real reception of Christs real presence what makes the participation lead to condemnation? Or is it simply remaining under condemnation on the basis of rejecting Christ because of the absence of faith?