Calvinism and Communion

[skypair]

It comes to my attention from a yet unanswered post in "Moergism vs. Synergism" that perhaps Calvinism doesn't teach what is the clear, "I have a 'part' to play in salvation" meaning found in the Lord's Supper. We aren't saved by communion, but it does represent what we did on our 'part.'

I also understand that many Calvinists, like Catholics, believe that communion transfers some "grace" to the participant. Calvies call it "consubstantiation;" Catholics call it "transubstantiation." But the thought is that the communion is a) an observance that stands alone, b) a remembrance of Christ, but c) NOT in any way holding a remembrance of something the believer has done. It is this last view that teaches "synergistic" (as Calvies call it) salvation.

To free will, "synergist" believers, communion is also a remembrance of the day that Jesus said TO EACH OF THEM, "Take and drink. This is my life poured out for you." Christ, through the preaching of the gospel, offered His death in our place. Did you receive it? When you take communion, do you remember your decision to receive His death on your behalf?

Likewise, "take and eat." In salvation, having taken Christ's death for you, in your "remembrance" did YOU take up His life? You took that "bread" in communion -- did you take His "body, broken for you" by receiving HIS SPIRIT in "broken" flesh?

I believe that if you make this application that I and scripture suggests, you will see that we are only saved AFTER we have taken the cup of His death for ourselves and received the Spirit of His life in ourselves -- all per Acts 2:38.

Furthermore, I don't believe most "free will," "synergist" believers see anything of the of the "dispensing of grace" by the present drinking the wine and eating the bread. In fact, we do not find "Christ in" or "under" the elements at all. That is Catholicism's error extended down to Protestantism. And do you see that this error is just the old idea of grace being "given" rather than accepted or rejected?

skypair

 

[Jarthur001]

It comes to my attention from a yet unanswered post in "Moergism vs. Synergism" that perhaps Calvinism doesn't teach what is the clear, "I have a 'part' to play in salvation" meaning found in the Lord's Supper. We aren't saved by communion, but it does represent what we did on our 'part.'

I also understand that many Calvinists, like Catholics, believe that communion transfers some "grace" to the participant. Calvies call it "consubstantiation;" Catholics call it "transubstantiation." But the thought is that the communion is a) an observance that stands alone, b) a remembrance of Christ, but c) NOT in any way holding a remembrance of something the believer has done. It is this last view that teaches "synergistic" (as Calvies call it) salvation.

To free will, "synergist" believers, communion is also a remembrance of the day that Jesus said TO EACH OF THEM, "Take and drink. This is my life poured out for you." Christ, through the preaching of the gospel, offered His death in our place. Did you receive it? When you take communion, do you remember your decision to receive His death on your behalf?

Likewise, "take and eat." In salvation, having taken Christ's death for you, in your "remembrance" did YOU take up His life? You took that "bread" in communion -- did you take His "body, broken for you" by receiving HIS SPIRIT in "broken" flesh?

I believe that if you make this application that I and scripture suggests, you will see that we are only saved AFTER we have taken the cup of His death for ourselves and received the Spirit of His life in ourselves -- all per Acts 2:38.

Furthermore, I don't believe most "free will," "synergist" believers see anything of the of the "dispensing of grace" by the present drinking the wine and eating the bread. In fact, we do not find "Christ in" or "under" the elements at all. That is Catholicism's error extended down to Protestantism. And do you see that this error is just the old idea of grace being "given" rather than accepted or rejected?

skypair

Sky,

I have no idea where you get your info, but you may want to think about a new book of web page.

Consubstantiation has nothing to do with the doctrines of grace. Not even those that hold to this view would claim that. It seems like you are bent on finding some way or something to pin down those Calvinist that you post anything.

Consubstantiation is held by some Eastern Orthodox churches, and some Lutheran and Episcopal churches.


Please get a new hate book.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Sky,

I have no idea where you get your info, but you may want to think about a new book of web page.

Consubstantiation has nothing to do with the doctrines of grace. Not even those that hold to this view would claim that. It seems like you are bent on finding some way or something to pin down those Calvinist that you post anything.

Consubstantiation is held by some Eastern Orthodox churches, and some Lutheran and Episcopal churches.


Please get a new hate book.

I agree Jarthur, how one goes from Calvinsim to Consubstantiation is beyond me. It seems that some people just want to find something to attack the doctrine with, even if it doesn't make sense.

 

[rsr]

We aren't saved by communion, but it does represent what we did on our 'part.'

... To free will, "synergist" believers, communion is also a remembrance of the day that Jesus said TO EACH OF THEM, "Take and drink. This is my life poured out for you." Christ, through the preaching of the gospel, offered His death in our place. Did you receive it? When you take communion, do you remember your decision to receive His death on your behalf?

I have never, even in my most Arminian moments, thought of my decision during the Lord's Supper. Unless, of course, it might be to wonder if I'd really made a decision.

Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me," not "Do this is remembrance of you."

And the other posters are correct in pointing out that Calvin did not endorse either transubstantiation or consubstantiation, although he also did not endorse Zwingli's concept of the Lord's Supper as strictly memorial, a position that Baptists have (in my opinion wrongly) generally followed.

 

[skypair]

Consubstantiation has nothing to do with the doctrines of grace. Not even those that hold to this view would claim that. ...

Consubstantiation is held by some Eastern Orthodox churches, and some Lutheran and Episcopal churches.

And Lutheranism has nothing to do with the "doctrines of grace" either, right? In defense of my OP, I have had Lutherans tell me that grace is conferred through communion and support consubstantiation. Are they not Reform in their theology?

Sir, I've even seen a METHODIST minister claim "grace thru communion!" "Consubstantiation" is NOT the point! "Free grace" is what I'm talkin' about! Or, in the case of Catholics, "earning" grace by taking communion.

Do you believe that "grace" is "conferred" through the celebration of the "Lord's Supper?"

Poor jdl would not answer whether their was a "remembrance" of his own coming to salvation in communion. I believe there is. Lacking that, I believe he (or you) are taking communion in the spirit of Calvinism and not in the Spirit that Christ meant it.

skypair

 

[skypair]

I have never, even in my most Arminian moments, thought of my decision during the Lord's Supper. Unless, of course, it might be to wonder if I'd really made a decision.

Sad but true, then. Cause when I take communion, I ALWAYS consider taking the wine as testimony that it was ME personally that received salvation at the cross and ME personally who is partaking of His life, His ministry, His suffering in this life, etc. through the Holy Spirit Who empowers my life. I am so sorry you do not share this view. :tear:

skypair

 

[rsr]

That, of course, is not what you originally said, which was:

When you take communion, do you remember your decision to receive His death on your behalf?

Your second version is a far different – and less narcissistic – thing.

 

[Jarthur001]

And Lutheranism has nothing to do with the "doctrines of grace" either, right?

If you are asking if Lutherans are Calvinist, the answer is no. But even if they were your point still hold no water.

You said in the OP..

I also understand that many Calvinists, like Catholics, believe that communion transfers some "grace" to the participant. Calvies call it "consubstantiation;"

Calvinist do not call it consubstantiation. That is like saying all white people like apple pie just because you saw a white person eat apple pie. The doctrines are not link in any way shape or form. Its just something else you want to pin on the people you hate. Sorry....its not working for you.

In defense of my OP, I have had Lutherans tell me that grace is conferred through communion and support consubstantiation.

so? Like the apple pie it matters not.

Are they not Reform in their theology?

They are reformed, but they are not Calvinist. And if they were it still would not matter.

Sir, I've even seen a METHODIST minister claim "grace thru communion!" "Consubstantiation" is NOT the point! "Free grace" is what I'm talkin' about! Or, in the case of Catholics, "earning" grace by taking communion.

This is about as clear as mud.

Poor jdl would not answer whether their was a "remembrance" of his own coming to salvation in communion. I believe there is. Lacking that, I believe he (or you) are taking communion in the spirit of Calvinism and not in the Spirit that Christ meant it.

Then it is clear you believe WRONG.

JDL does not reply to you because he has no answer. He does not reply to you because of silly threads like this, is but a waste of time for most.

Stop trying to hate so much and try more to understand

 

[jcjordan]

Not all grace given us is saving grace. Does taking communion benefit us in any way?

 

[skypair]

That, of course, is not what you originally said, which was:



Your second version is a far different – and less narcissistic – thing.

I apologize. I was trying to "set up" the scenario of "grace given" vs. "grace accepted."

skypair

 

[skypair]

James,

Apparently I need to narrow it down a little for you. When you take communion,...

A) Are you remembering how YOU partook of/accepted Christ's sacrifice and life unto salvation OR...

B) are you remembering how He offered it for YOU and to YOU by "grace" OR...

C) are you saying that He offers you some little "slice" there it when you take communion OR...

D) all (but I doubt it could be) of the above?

IOW, did you have to consent/cooperate in some way (say by a "sinner's prayer") to being saved or did you simply have it "foisted" on you or are you receiving grace and salvation as often as you take communion? Which is being pictured by communion, in your opinion?

skypair

 

[skypair]

Not all grace given us is saving grace. Does taking communion benefit us in any way?

Hi, jcj. :wavey:

I believe that it benefits us in that we are to wash one another's feet before we partake. That is, we should be helping others to a) see their sins and b) correct themselves of illness-causing and "sleep"-causing sin. That is the idea of "unworthily" --- that some are not strengthening the body of Christ but are causing it pain and disrepute. It is important that only those who are saved partake because only they share the life of Christ (His "body") through salvation of Christ by His "blood."

This gets into the theological aspects of communion wherein Baptists usually partake on Sunday nights when only members are expected but Reformers (correct me if you believe otherwise) partake on Sunday morning not wanting to withold 'grace'/'salvation' from anyone for whom God meant it. And, of course, Catholics hold it every day taking it to be a "cleansing-saving" ritual.

skypair

 

[jdlongmire]

Poor jdl would not answer whether their was a "remembrance" of his own coming to salvation in communion. I believe there is. Lacking that, I believe he (or you) are taking communion in the spirit of Calvinism and not in the Spirit that Christ meant it.

skypair

Since I am referred to and this certainly falls into the profile of my standard response link to skypair, I thought I'd respond.

 

[skypair]

Since I am referred to and this certainly falls into the profile of my standard response link to skypair, I thought I'd respond.

Read enough that you are under conviction again, eh? :laugh:

skypair

 

[jcjordan]

Hi, jcj. :wavey:

I believe that it benefits us in that we are to wash one another's feet before we partake. That is, we should be helping others to a) see their sins and b) correct themselves of illness-causing and "sleep"-causing sin. That is the idea of "unworthily" --- that some are not strengthening the body of Christ but are causing it pain and disrepute. It is important that only those who are saved partake because only they share the life of Christ (His "body") through salvation of Christ by His "blood."

This gets into the theological aspects of communion wherein Baptists usually partake on Sunday nights when only members are expected but Reformers (correct me if you believe otherwise) partake on Sunday morning not wanting to withold 'grace'/'salvation' from anyone for whom God meant it. And, of course, Catholics hold it every day taking it to be a "cleansing-saving" ritual.

skypair

So it sounds to me, that since you do believe that communion is to our benefit, then it would be a means of grace (not saving grace, of course). At the same time, i've never heard this explanation on sunday morning vs. sunday night. I don't know of any reformed person that believes communion is a means of saving grace.

 

[jcjordan]

sp...I attened a PCA church for more than year, until I realized I was more of a baptist. They had communion weekly (something I miss), but I can remember the pastor emphasizing that the Lord's table was only for believers. He's also the one who explained to me what they believe when they say that communion is a "means of grace", which I questioned at first too.