Mark 14:22-25
And as they were eating, [Jesus] took the bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."1 Corinthians 11:23-26
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.As the title of this post indicates, I am trying to figure out my views on the Eucharist / the Lord's Supper / Communion. Obviously, not my views as to what we are to do in participating in it. We have WHAT we are to do listed clearly in the gospel accounts and in Paul's letter to Corinth Christians. No, I am rather curious as to WHAT is HAPPENING in the Eucharist.
I do call it Eucharist, as it is a beautiful term for the Lord's Supper. I know when most people hear "Eucharist" that term carries a LOT of Roman Catholic baggage and the terribly unbiblical view of "transubstantiation" -- the bread and wine is miraculously/magically transformed into Christ's body and blood, though they still look like just bread and wine. This is not the time or place for me to go into the various problems with this Romanistic reading of the Holy Scriptures. That may come about later... but not now. However i wanted to make clear that while I use the term "Eucharist," I neither mean the doctrine of transubstantiation NOR am I considering this as a valid option for Christians to believe.
However, I have basically just said "not Rome's view of the Eucharist." However, there are various other views that Protestants have held that do not involve the mostly Baptist understanding now days. By this, I mean that the Lord's Supper is to be seen as a commemoration of Christ's death. This is the view that Zwingli, the Protestant Reformer, had of Communion. That there is nothing special about the act -- it is just symbolic only.
However, in the tradition of the Reformation, there are OTHER valid views of the Lord's Supper. You have Luther's view of "consubstantiation" as it was to be called -- the elements are still bread and wine, yet Christ's body and blood are present "in, with, and under," the elements. Still other groups believe in a "real presence" of Christ in the sacrament... though HOW this is worked out differs from denomination to denomination. The Methodists see it as a kind of MYSTERY. For the Anglican, this "real presence" has a very wide range of options. John Calvin taught that while the elements of bread and wine remain as bread and wine, and Christ's physical nature CANNOT be present on earth while he is in heaven... Christ's nature of divinity is somehow really THERE in the partaking of the Lord's Supper... somehow.
As I become more and more on-the-verge-of-Presbyterian every day... I am starting to "toy with" the ideas of baptism as a sign and seal of the covenant... the idea of sacraments as "means of grace" God uses... and also of the Lord's Supper as being MORE than what Zwingli said - just a symbolic representation. I am starting to think there CAN be an argument made for a KIND of real presence of Christ's divine nature in Communion.
...
again... something I am just toying with the idea. your thoughts??
Comments (4)
Why do you need all the answers?
Just leave it as a mystery.
Go Anglican.
@bondslave777 - LOL! I can't have ALL the answers... but that which is revealed in God's Word is for us to know and understand. it isn't putting God in a box... God put himself in the box with what we can know and understand about Him through his breathing out Scripture.
Anglican? no way. lol. too few Calvinist Anglicans... say for J.I. Packer... who was kicked out of his own denomination because of his biblical stance on gay "marriage"
@JesusFreakRKG - I did say Anglican. Not Episcopal. And there are a lot of Calvinists. Even the Thirty-Nine Articles are Calvinistic.
@bondslave777 - fair enough.