If you have ever bothered to delve into the different stances that different theologies hold to regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you will find out a few interesting things as well as a wide spectrum of beliefs on the topic.
For instance, you don't have to look far to see that the Roman Catholic Church holds to a dogma called transubstantiation. In this dogma, it is held that the bread and wine is completely obliterated and that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ only. Clearly, Roman Catholicism, despite what we Lutherans see as a rationalistic error in going far beyond Holy Writ (i.e. St. Thomas Aquinas and transubstantiation), affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.
However, you will also find the opposite end of the spectrum represented as well. Baptists of all stripes completely reject the doctrine of the Real Presence in favor of the bread and wine (err...grape juice) being mere symbols of Christ's atoning death for us. As a former Baptist, I have been in communion services where the pastor actually states in the Words of Institution that Jesus said that "This is a symbol of My body." Far from ripping on Baptists here, I am simply relaying what was said. And to be sure, the pastor was doing nothing but being faithful to what that particular church believes about the Lord's Supper. Hence, as a symbols, the elements don't really matter much either, and oyster crackers and grape juice will do just fine.
There are, however, two other views of the Lord's Supper that are very common. One of them is the Lutheran view, which I am not going to delve into in too deep of a manner here. Simply put, we affirm the Real Presence. We receive Christ orally because He said so. This (the bread) is My body. To which we say 'Amen!'
The other big elephant in the room is the classical Calvinist stance on the Lord's Supper. To be fair, John Calvin attempted to resolve two different biblical teachings. First, he desired to uphold his view of the Ascension of Christ to the right hand of the Father. Second, he desired to hold to the Real Presence as well. Thus Calvinists will argue up and down that they hold to the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper. But do they? Well, not according to what has always been classified and defined as the Real Presence.
The Epitome of the Formula of Concord says this:
Epitome VII, 2-5
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
Chief Controversy between Our Doctrine and That of the Sacramentarians regarding This Article.
Whether in the Holy Supper the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are truly and essentially present, are distributed with the bread and wine, and received with the mouth by all those who use this Sacrament, whether they be worthy or unworthy, godly or ungodly, believing or unbelieving; by the believing for consolation and life, by the unbelieving for judgment? The Sacramentarians say, No; we say, Yes. For the explanation of this controversy it is to be noted in the beginning that there are two kinds of Sacramentarians. Some are gross Sacramentarians, who declare in plain (deutschen), clear words as they believe in their hearts, that in the Holy Supper nothing but bread and wine is present, and distributed and received with the mouth. Others, however, are subtle Sacramentarians, and the most injurious of all, who partly speak very speciously in our own words, and pretend that they also believe a true presence of the true, essential, living body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, however, that this occurs spiritually through faith. Nevertheless they retain under these specious words precisely the former gross opinion, namely, that in the Holy Supper nothing is present and received with the mouth except bread and wine. For with them the word spiritually means nothing else than the Spirit of Christ or the power of the absent body of Christ and His merit, which is present; but the body of Christ is in no mode or way present, except only above in the highest heaven, to which we should elevate ourselves into heaven by the thoughts of our faith, and there, not at all, however, in the bread and wine of the Holy Supper, should seek this body and blood [of Christ].
Let us phrase this as simply as possible. The Reformed Churches, following Calvin, affirm a spiritual presence by faith. This is to say that Christ, being ascended, does not actually come to us in the Lord's Supper, because He is in heaven. We feed on Christ only by our faith through the working of the Holy Spirit lifting us up to heaven to receive Christ's benefits.
Despite the very common Reformed efforts to claim that the Lutherans and the Reformed aren't all that different, they are simply wrong. Zwingli was the first to try that at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529. Luther would have none of it. Even Calvinists to this day try very hard to distance themselves from the Zwinglian stance on the Lord's Supper. But in reality, how much different are they? If Christ is not bodily present in the bread and wine, there is no Real Presence. And if you would like to see what the Lutherans think about this, just read the section from the Epitome I posted above. But please, don't tell us how much we have in common and how we both affirm the Real Presence. We are not in communion and will never be in communion this side of heaven.
Even Dr. Martin Luther himself said, "I would rather have pure blood with the Pope, than drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts." (Luther's Works, 37, 317)
Let us be even more clear. The Calvinist stance, while giving lip service to the term Real Presence, explicitly denies it.
The Real Presence means that Christ and all of His benefits are there for us in the bread and wine. The bread is the true body of Christ. Likewise, the wine. In Reformed Theology, following Calvin, even the believer only receives bread and wine orally, although the believer receives Christ's benefits by faith, being lifted to the Throne Room of God the Father.
This is not an affirmation of the Real Presence. This is a denial of it!
It's simple: If Christ is not received in the mouth by every single person receiving the Lord's Supper, there is no Real Presence. The Real Presence means Christ is actually really there, according to what He Himself said in the Words of Institution.
Ultimately, even Calvin recognized this as seen here in a document (Consensus Tigurinus 1549) of which Calvin was the author.
The Real Presence, far from being an early church and medieval superstition, is something that the Church has always believed, because it takes Christ's Words at face value. Jesus said "This is My body." To say "it's a symbol of His body" is essentially to say "This is not My body."
Let us be clear. Reformed Theology denies the Real Presence while trying to say that they affirm it by redefining what "Real Presence' means. When they employ that terminology, it certainly does not mean that Christ's body and blood are truly present and we receive them in our mouth. It's devious in one sense. I get it, the Reformed are trying to uphold their catholicity, and they see clearly that the entire Church affirmed the Real Presence. But to redefine it to mean something it is not while simultaneously denying what it actually is...That's a pretty dangerous stance to take, wouldn't you say?
Grace and Peace
No comments:
Post a Comment