Which Reformer's interpretation of the Lord's Supper do you hold to?

[Mikey]

The Reformed/Calvin view: Christ is not present literally in the elements, but he is spiritually present. Those who receive the elements with faith can receive the actual body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit which works through the sacrament, a view sometimes known as Receptionism.

Calvin explained his view of the Eucharist in his Institutes:
"The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us."

Zwingli/ Memorial: Many other groups (e.g. the Baptists) refer to the Eucharist as the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion and deny any form of physical or spiritual presence of Christ in the bread and wine. Rather, the Lord's supper is a remembrance of Christ's suffering and a reminder of his power to overcome sin and death.

Lutheran: Sacramental Union of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ. In other words, Christ's body and blood are present "in, with and under " the forms of bread and wine. This is sometimes known as Consubstantiation. Luther explained his view by using an analogy of an iron rod placed into a fire: both are united in the red-hot iron, yet both are also distinct.

Which view of the Lord's Supper do you hold? Why?

I doubt anyone here holds the Lutheran view, since i'm asking Baptists, but you never know especially with the people we have on the forum. .

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I held the Zwinglian view until a few years ago, but I am now persuaded of the Reformed understanding which is also that of the 1689 Baptist Confession. My change of heart came after a contemplation of 1 Corinthians 10:16-17.

From the 1689 Confession, Chapter XXX
7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. ( 1Cor 10:16; 11:23-26)

 

[Ready to Harvest]

Zwinglian here. Though I dont much like Zwingli, seeing his personal involvement in murdering anabaptists, like Felix Manz.

 

[Yeshua1]

I held the Zwinglian view until a few years ago, but I am now persuaded of the Reformed understanding which is also that of the 1689 Baptist Confession. My change of heart came after a contemplation of 1 Corinthians 10:16-17.

From the 1689 Confession, Chapter XXX
7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. ( 1Cor 10:16; 11:23-26)

I think that where some Baptists get concerned is when at times it seems to be stating that somehow either additional or saving Grace is being bestowed upon us while partaking of the elements. I see it as mainly being given to us as the symbolic outward sign of the reality of new life in Christ in us now, but that we also are abiding in a unique sense of the presence of Jesus while taking them...

 

[37818]

". . . The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. . . ."
". . . for we are all partakers of that one bread . . ." referring to our faith by which we are as stated in he boldened text we making up the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13; Matthew 3:11-12; Acts 1:6).
The supper being a remembrance of Christ's death (1 Corinthians 11:26).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

". . . The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. . . ."
". . . for we are all partakers of that one bread . . ." referring to our faith by which we are as stated in he boldened text we making up the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13; Matthew 3:11-12; Acts 1:6).
The supper being a remembrance of Christ's death (1 Corinthians 11:26).

The supper is certainly an act of remembrance (also Luke 22:19), and we always need to stress that against the beliefs of the Roman Catholics. However, I have come to believe that it is more than that. We are to feed (spiritually, of course) upon Christ crucified; John 6:32-40 makes little sense otherwise. And whilst we can do that at any time when we contemplate His sufferings and death, the Lord's Supper is the obviously appropriate time to do it.

 

[JonC]

I think most Baptists hold the memorial view (based primarily on the overall make up of Baptist denominations).

I lean towards Christ being present spiritually in a unique way (He is always present spiritually in the lives of believers) as I believe the Supper is both a memorial and our covenant expression (or, perhaps, affirmation) of being "in Christ".

The reason I believe this is Scripture seems (to me) to treat the Supper more severely than I would expect if it were only a memorial (make amends with your brother prior to participating; some have died for partaking in an unworthy manner).

I see baptism along the same lines (the Supper a perpetual memorial of the covenant expressed in baptism.

 

[37818]

The supper is certainly an act of remembrance (also Luke 22:19), and we always need to stress that against the beliefs of the Roman Catholics. However, I have come to believe that it is more than that. We are to feed (spiritually, of course) upon Christ crucified; John 6:32-40 makes little sense otherwise. And whilst we can do that at any time when we contemplate His sufferings and death, the Lord's Supper is the obviously appropriate time to do it.

". . . And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. . . ." -- John 6:35. The eating is metaphor for coming to Jesus and the drinking is metaphor for believing in Him. Jesus had explained this, John 6:63, ". . . It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. . . ."

 

[JonC]

Who was it that explained these (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) were symbols but not “merely” or “mere” symbols? Anyone know?

I’m getting old and can’t call to mind who it was, but he presented baptism in Paul’s theology as incorporating conversion as a whole. Likewise, the Lord’s Supper would be symbolic but also incorporate salvation as a whole.

I'm thinking Enns or Carson....but I am not sure.

 

[Yeshua1]

Who was it that explained these (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) were symbols but not “merely” or “mere” symbols? Anyone know?

I’m getting old and can’t call to mind who it was, but he presented baptism in Paul’s theology as incorporating conversion as a whole. Likewise, the Lord’s Supper would be symbolic but also incorporate salvation as a whole.

I'm thinking Enns or Carson....but I am not sure.

Ironic that while Calvin seems to have understood Communion well, he erred so much on Baptism!