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?
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.
[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.
RSS Feed
