Long Island Abundant Life Church 長島豐盛生命教會
  • Home
  • About Us 關於教會
    • Mission Statement - 使命宣言
    • Statement of Faith - 信仰立場
    • Biblical Marriage - 合乎聖經的婚姻
    • Church Leadership - 教會同工
    • Directions - 路線圖
    • Documents - 表格與文件下載
    • Contact Us - 聯絡我們
    • Ministry openings
  • Chinese Ministry 華語事工
    • 崇拜
    • 講道集 >
      • 主日信息
      • 特會 / 講座
    • 主日學
    • 門訓小組 >
      • 門訓小組介紹
    • 團契
    • 讀經
  • English Ministry 英文事工
  • Youth 少年事工
    • Worship
    • Sunday School
    • Youth Fellowship
    • Events
    • Our Vision
    • Connect with Us
    • Parent Resources
    • Youth Prayer Requests
  • Children's Ministry 兒童事工
    • Children's Worship - 兒童崇拜 >
      • Children's Songs - 歌曲
      • Junior Worship, Archive - 學習內容
      • Junior Worship, Current - 學習內容
      • Preschool Worship, Archive - 幼兒崇拜
    • Sunday School - 主日學 >
      • Preschool - 低年級
      • Middlers, Current - 高年級
      • Elementary, Archive - 高年級
    • VBS-特别暑期聖經班 >
      • EVENTS- 特別活動
    • Nursery - 幼兒照顧
    • Resources - 資源
  • Missions/Evangelism 宣教/佈道
    • Global Mission 全球宣教
    • Missions Ministry 宣教事工
  • Chinese School 中文學校
  • Church Activities / News / Calendar 教會活動 / 消息 / 行事曆
    • Special/urgent 特別/緊急
    • Calendar 教會行事曆
    • Bulletin 週報
    • Archive 檔案 >
      • Pray for Hindus 2018 為印度人禱告
      • Seek God 2019 尋求神
      • Misc. 其他
  • Chinese Student Ministry 学生事工
    • Campus Ministry 校园事工
    • CSF 衣
    • CSF 食
    • CSF 住
    • CSF 行
  • Links 资源鏈接
  Long Island Abundant Life Church 長島豐盛生命教會

Luke 22:1–23

5/5/2012

 
Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

The Lord's Supper
The passages on the Lord's Supper should be familiar by now.  Today I want to give some explanation as to what we do and do not believe in our church on this topic.  Below are the three main views on what the Lord's supper is.  The first is primarily a Roman Catholic belief, the second primarily a Lutheran belief (and some Orthodox churches), and the final is the belief of our church and the majority of evangelical churches.  Without further ado:

Transubstantiation
"The Roman Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine, used in the Lord's Supper or Eucharist, actually become the literal body and blood of Christ at the "consecration" by the ordained priest. This is based on a super-literal reading of Christ's words, "This is my body, which is broken for you" (1 Corinthians 11:24, KJV); and on His Johannine discourse, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53, KJV).  The substance of the bread and wine do not remain, but their accidents (superficial properties like appearance and taste) remain.  Roman Catholics believe that "by the words, Do this in commemoration of me (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24), Christ made the apostles priests. Moreover, He decreed that they and other priests should offer His Body and Blood." [1]

Consubstantiation
"Consubstantiation is a philosophical theory that, like the competing theory of transubstantiation, attempts to describe the nature of the Christian Eucharist in concrete metaphysical terms. It holds that during the sacrament the fundamental substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. Transubstantiation differs from consubstantiation in that it postulates that, through consecration by the priest, one set of substances (bread and wine) is exchanged for another (the Body and Blood of Christ) or that, according to some, the reality of the bread and wine become the reality of the body and blood of Christ." [2]

Memorialism
"A view of the Lord’s Supper that sees the rite as symbolic, as representing (or memorializing) Christ’s self-giving on the cross (together with his last supper with the disciples). In contrast to the idea of the real presence espoused both by the medieval theologians and by Luther (e.g., the theories of transubstantiation and consubstantiation), memorialists believe that Christ’s presence is not localized in the communion elements but within the gathered community of believers. Memorialists consider the word is in Christ’s words, “This is my body. . . . This is my blood” (Mk 14:22, 24) to be figurative, so that it means “signifies” or “represents.” Hence by this phrase Jesus was not referring literally to his physical body and blood but was indicating that the physical elements are symbols of his life that would be given for them." [3] (emphasis mine)

As I said, this final view is the view of our church and of the majority of protestant evangelical churches.  We'll go into more detail later on in the NT letters about what exactly this position means and how it works out practically, but hopefully this helps explain at least on a basic level what we do and do not believe about communion. 

Questions? Comments?

[1] http://www.theopedia.com/Transubstantiation
[2] http://www.theopedia.com/Consubstantiation
[3] Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 76.

Andrei
5/5/2012 11:09:36 pm

A question regarding the passage... I was wondering if Judas has any free will in his deceiving Jesus? It struck me that Satan 'entered Judas.' If this was God's plan all along, does Judas have free will in making his decision? If he does, then what happens if he chooses to not betray Jesus? Sorry if this has been asked already.

Regarding the views on the Lord's Supper... in saying that this church believes in Memorialism, does that mean that this church believes that the other views listed are wrong? I've always been curious as to what it means for us as any denomination of Christian to declare a certain other Christian teaching as valid or invalid? First off, if those other views are invalid, (Trans and Consubstantiation) would they still be classified as 'Christian' views? This also made me think about this church's position on Catholics; I've heard conflicting opinions in the church about their salvation. In addition to that thought, what would be the position of our church on Catholic teachings then? Where would it fall under the continuum of 'wrong', 'deviant', 'dangerous', 'heresy,'? Or are those terms taking it too far? It's so confusing to me and brings up the question as to what extent we have to grill someone when they say that they're Christian?

Greg
5/6/2012 08:29:22 am

Wow. A couple of difficult questions. As for Judas, I don't think that Satan would have entered Judas unwillingly. Free will is a difficult topic, and the answer to your question in some degree depends on what you mean by "free will". That's a whole other discussion that we don't have time for here. Suffice to say that the Bible says that God is all-knowing and totally sovereign, but also affirms that we made choices, are held accountable for those choices, and are judged. The Bible both affirms that "Satan entered" Judas, but that he also has choice in his actions. I don't think it's Biblical or supportable to say that Satan is acting independently of Judas' actions and choices.

Your second question is also complicated and I'm not sure I can fully answer it here. There are a lot of definitions involved, and just dealing with those would take quite a while. In short, we would say that yes, we believe that the other views are "wrong". If we believe that our position is correct, that is the only option left for us to believe about the other ones, since they are views that are mutually exclusive. As for Catholic teaching, there is no simple, quick answer. There are many good and true things that the Catholic Church believes and teaches - they read the same Bible we do. The main difference is that we believe that the Bible is the ONLY INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY in the lives of Christians, whereas the Catholic Church believes that Church Tradition and the Magisterium (including the Pope) are also infallible authorities. This is what leads to a lot of what I would say are "sub-Biblical" and in some cases "un-Biblical" beliefs. Each belief must be taken on it's own and examined in light of the Bible. In reference to the communion issue, all views could be classified as "Christian" in that they are not the beliefs of a cult, but we would not agree that they are all correct. The difficulty here is in how you define the meaning of "Christian" in this case.

I don't think that LIALC has a "view" on the salvation of Catholics that's "official", but I can tell you what I think. I believe that there are Catholics that are saved, but that it is very difficult to understand the Gospel and thrive as a Christian when experiencing only that Catholic Church. The Gospel is obscured by a lot of things: traditions, requirements, etc., but God's Word is powerful and still brings fruit in spite of that. I've known A LOT of Catholics in my life and I think that some of them were "saved", but the vast majority were not. For a lot of Catholics, being Catholic is not so much about knowing Jesus or spiritual life: it's a cultural thing. It's how they grew up and it's what they do and are. This of course happens in non-Catholic churches as well, but the emphasis on tradition and the church as an institutional entity makes it more prevalent in the Catholic Church I think.

I don't think we need to grill anyone when they say that they're a Christian. People are known by their fruit and words, so I say to just give it time. People reveal their hearts through words and actions over time, and I think in most cases salvation become relatively clear as you come to know someone well. I guess it depends on the reason you need to know, but I think the best way to know is just to give it time and get to know someone well. People's hearts have a way of revealing themselves.


Comments are closed.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.