Open Thread: Union with Christ/Real Presence of Christ
April 30th, 2008 by iMonk
UPDATE: I’m still holding firm on the indulgence granted to those who want to convert me to their version of Christianity, but let me say two things: 1) The thread is a discussion of a question, not a discussion of my errant views of whatever you believe and 2) I can’t respond to all of these posts. I simply don’t have time. If I have misrepresented any of you personally, I will apologize. If you are upset that I don’t get your view of things, we’ll all just have to learn to live with it.
Here’s a key question in my own theological evolution. I’ll lift the usual moderation rule on seeking to convert others to your point of view if you will make a substantial contribution to the discussion.
All Christians are united with Christ by the sovereign, gracious work of God himself. All the benefits of salvation come to us because of union with Christ.
So how does union with Christ relate to your understanding of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?
I won’t rehearse where the tension is for me, but if you tell me that Christ is “really present” in the eucharist at your church, I’d like you to distinguish how Christ’s person and benefits are available to you in the Eucharist in a way they are not available to me by virtue of union with Christ.
I’m the guy who prepares the Communion for our Bible Church. I’ve been filling up those little plastic cups and crumbling the matzo bread for some 30 years! And I’m glad to do it.
A few years ago I began to read early Christian writers like Ignatius, Justin Martyr and others. I just can’t deny that these people believed that this sacrament involved the actual body and blood. I would also suppose that Ignatius certainly would have picked this up from the Apostle John himself.
At any rate, every so often I go to an Episcopalian service, and the Eucharist is so much more powerful to me than the way we do it (I know Catholics don’t believe Episcopalians are doing the real thing). I definitely feel more united with Christ than with a symbolic remembrance type service. However, both practices are good; and at the risk of being vague, they basically represent two different kinds of spirituality.
They are not different benefits in the Sacrament, nor is it a different body and blood. It is the same body and blood which is preached in the Gospel. It is the same benefits which Christ gives to those who believe on Him which is declared in John 3:16.
Jesus, in instituting the Sacrament, said, “This is my body, which is given for you. … This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for you.” The key being “given for you” and “shed for you”. That is the Sacrament. It’s not the presence itself. That is a wondrous miracle, but it is not, of itself, anything more than a miracle, if it did not have the words “for you” attached to it.
It is here that the Papacy makes a mockery of the Sacrament. For them, it is nothing but the body and blood of Christ, stripped of all comfort. It is a mystical experience, but an empty one, for the certain knowledge and faith that their sins are forgiven, entirely and completely, by this body and this blood, is robbed from them.
Here is the great treasure of the Sacrament: That here, in the bread and wine, is the very body and blood which Jesus gave on the cross for me. Here, in the bread and wine, He personally gives them to me, to show that, yes, even for me, for my sins, His body was given and His blood shed. Here is the proof. I cannot deny it. It’s right there. The Sacrament is absolution. It is Jesus Himself saying, “Be of good cheer, for I forgive you all your sins.”
Taking your question a bit further, you could just as well ask, “Why do you need the Gospel of Mark, when you already have the Gospel of Matthew? If you didn’t have Mark, could you still believe and be saved? What do you get in Mark, that you do not already get in Matthew?
Perhaps the difficulty, Michael, is that because you do not believe that the words “is” means “is” (this is an assumption on my part - forgive me if I have assumed wrongly), you likewise do not find there to be any real comfort to be had, anything cogent to be gained.
But there is something else here as well, that I have been hearing again and again lately. The idea that the union with Christ is the source of all that we receive from God, rather than the consequence. In other words, that we are justified because we are united to Christ. This, I believe, is the fountainhead of your grappling with the doctrine of the real presence.
I do not believe this at all. Justification, and all else that comes from the grace of God, comes from His grace in Christ first. That is the first cause, and that is given to us even while we were yet sinners. It is an external fact that Christ is our Savior. It is true whether we believe it or not. By faith we appropriate what Christ already is, the grace that already exists, the declaration of righteousness that has already been pronounced. That is why the Scriptures do not say, “Being united to Christ, we are justified.” They say rather, “A man is justified by faith.” Even those who reject Jesus, were already bought and paid for by His blood. Yes, Jesus even made atonement for the sins of the damned in hell - though in vain, for refusing His atonement, they bear the wrath that is due their sins. If it were not so that the atonement of Christ is both universal and external to us, we could never be certain that our sins were also forgiven.
I do not deny the mystical union of the Body of Christ. It is a treasure to me. But it is a consequence of the grace which God gave me while I was yet a sinner.
His Supper confirms that grace to me every time I receive it. I may, in my heart, tell myself that “When Jesus said that - he couldn’t mean me because of this or that that I have done.” But in the Sacrament, there is Jesus saying, “This is my body and blood, given and shed for your sins.” How can I deny that?
For me, the Lord’s supper is a physical remembrance of a once-for-all work. It acknowledges an already present spiritual reality and communion. I don’t believe Jesus is any more present at communion than he is at any other time in my life.
I am united with Christ through his death by faith and communion is an illustrative expression of His death. I do it in remembrance of Him. I do it to proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. It is both an act of obedience and an expression of my thanks for his sacrifice.
I locate the significance of the Eucharist in the first part of your formula. The Eucharist doesn’t add something not found in our union with Christ: it creates our union with Christ, along with Baptism and the other sacraments. If by “the sovereign, gracious work of God himself” you mean to exclude sacramental action, then that’s the point of disagreement. But I could agree with your first bolded paragraph if we understood that the sacraments are God’s gracious work.
I’m not really interested in getting into a long argument about this right now. So instead I’ll just throw out John 6:53-57 as evidence for this view:
“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.”
Martin:
I refuse to believe that the parsing of a verb determines whether Jesus is really present to me or not.
And I would join you in saying that as I look at the table, I say “The body and blood of Christ, given for me” because in the supper Jesus says in the super we remember and participate in the same.
peace
MS
What about those to whom the properly ordered denominational sacraments are not available?
Are they in union with Christ?
Is it less union than those with the properly ordered denominational sacraments enjoy?
All sides of this question cite and interpret John 6, as you certainly know.
I’d like to hear it put simply: Is there union with Christ apart from the sacraments of a denomination?
imonk, I would never want to be in a Church that you are not part of. I know that God gives grace to whomever and however he sees fit, but here’s my experience for what it’s worth.
I became a Christian and a RC about 8 years ago. I was amazed when I studied the RC doctrine on the “real presence”. I had grown up in a Catholic town around Catholic friends my whole life, but no one ever told me the big secret (you actually believe that’s Jesus in that little cracker!). I fell in love with all the Catholic moral teachings and realized something beautiful that I could build a life and a family on, so I made a public profession and acceptance of the faith. First Communion and first confession (though painful) were beautiful emotional moments for me. They set me on a path of studying scripture and theology that I hope never ends.
But something unexpected happened a few years ago. I actually stopped trying to understand, explain, and wonder how I should feel about the Eucharist; and He actually gave me the grace to believe in it. Over the years of reading scripture, praying, sinning, marriage, joy, sinning, kids, pain, sinning, laughing, crying, (did I mention sinning), I have experienced the sacraments in a way that uniquely changed and strengthen who I am. I don’t always feel a certain way about receiving communion, but it is not a crutch or an empty ritual. When I celebrate Eucharist I know that I was created by God for a reason, and I know that I am part of something REAL that is much bigger than me.
What the “early Christians” believed is immaterial. The embryonic church had many superstituous beliefs, some of which they carried over from Moses.
“Is there union with Christ apart from the sacraments of a denomination?”
That is the ONLY way to have union with Christ. A more piercing question is:
Is there union with Christ WITHIN the “sacraments” of a denomination?
The answer is still of course. Grace covers all kinds of different and unbiblical beliefs about how people commune and interact with their Savior. The only substantive teaching that Paul rebuked in serious terms was salvation by works. That, he says in Galations, can separate one from Christ.
The Lord’s Supper is a New Testament feast that cannot add to an already perfect grace imputed to the believer. But it is still glorious and should be observed at least weekly!
There is union with Christ in Baptism, which isn’t restricted to a particular communion except by a very few (Campbellites and some splinter Catholic and Orthodox groups, I think).
But aside from that, I don’t drink the inclusivity kool-aid. Baptists, Evangelicals, and other non-sacrmental Christians really are missing out on something. Who does have a valid Eucharist is a thorny question that I’m not even going to try to answer here.
(I said I don’t want to have a big argument, so I’m done now.)
Hoo boy, you don’t ask the easy ones, do you? Here is my best answer/meditation on your question, “How does union with Christ relate to your understanding of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?”
First, I agree somewhat with the columnist Spengler at Asia Times, that we come to salvation as individuals. Therefore, at that moment my “union with Christ” is as an individual. However, once I make that unity, I find I am in community, a New Israel, part of the Body of Christ. Therefore the emphasis of the Sacraments is to embrace me in that new community; in a union with Christ that is plural rather than singular.
Baptism, represents that transition. I “die” to my old community–as an individual–and am raised to live in a New Community–again as an individual. (This may be a Baptistic view, but don’t even Paedo-Baptists baptize their individual children?)
However, after that point the sacraments move me in community. I hear the words of Christ in community, led by a preacher and evaluated as a congregation. In this instance, the sacrament of the “Word” represents “Life” to me. Indeed, it gives me “life.” Witness Peter’s words to Christ, “Lord, who will we go to? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68)
However, the baptism unites me not to life, but to death–the death of the Lord. “26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” (I Cor 11:26).
So my unity in the Supper is my unity with my Lord as a community–lost admittedly a bit when it is not a communal meal. It is also my unity with Christ that emphasizes the sacrifice of his death and reminds me that my own death and indeed all of our deaths somehow share in His own. His Word emphasizes Life, and that my Life and all of our lives will also share in his own Life.
Best I can do.
>Baptists, Evangelicals, and other non-sacrmental Christians really are missing out on something.
JS: Thanks for the honesty. Few Christians will be consistent and say that there’s more of God available in their communion.
As long as I’m missing out on something and not someone, it’s of no concern to me.
And for the record, I believe in an entire universe of sacramental reality, as do millions of other Christians.”
Try Promise and Presence by John E. Colwell, a robust sacramental theology for the rest of us.
I believe there is union with Christ (for believers) apart from the sacraments of a denomination.
But I also believe that we should receive the sacrament because Christ commanded that we do so.
He never commanded us to do anything where He would not be present, therefore…He is there. And when He is there He is not just twiddling His thumbs…He is doing something…for us… to us. In the Supper we receive the forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.
He gives us this tangible way that we can know (touch, smell, taste)that He is there, so we won’t have to muster up some sort of ethereal spirituality (feelings that cannot be trusted)to know that we really belong to Him.
Thanks!
- Steve
I’ve only been a member of a Baptist church, and that for only a decade and a half or so, though my intersection with many expressions of Christianity (and non-Christian spiritualities and religions) growing up was pretty broad. However, I have long been interested in history, especially ancient history, and the claims of a faith rooted intimately in historical claims for two thousand years naturally led me to explore them.
I can find no evidence that anyone even vaguely within the realm of orthodox Christian belief ever believed that the Eucharist was simply a memorial, as Baptists teach, until Zwingli roughly 400 years ago. Even today, that’s a distinctly minority perspective. If I have decided to make the Christian story my own story, I find it difficult and somewhat arrogant to hold that the overwhelming majority of believers, many of them martyrs, misunderstood this central aspect of Christian worship which we enlightened few have finally gotten right. That’s really the flip side, Michael.
On the infrequent times they celebrate the “Lord’s Supper”, my Church typically reads from 1 Corinthians. Yet I find they always skip the part where Paul tells them their abuse of the Eucharist is why some of them are sick and others have fallen asleep. I don’t see that it’s the responsibility of those who hold a view of the Eucharist which is consistently held (though details vary) from the apostolic age to the present to justify their perspective to those who hold a schismatic view which is only four centuries old.
There is something out of proportion with that idea.
Michael,
The sacraments do not belong to any one denomination. Christ gave them to the church. In so far as a particular denomination has them it is part of Christ’s Church. But insofar as they don’t have them they are not church. Christ’s Church listens to Christ and uses the sacraments accordingly.
But don’t pit Christ’s gifts off one another. The benefits we receive in the Lord’s Supper are received by faith, as are all the benefits given to Christians are received by faith. However, we as Lutherans believe that even those who do not believe Christ’s word’s were they to commune at our Churches receive Christ’s body and blood, they just don’t receive the benefits, rather judgment, as Paul is so keen to tell us in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians. Which is the main reason we practice closed communion.
The benefits we receive are forgiveness of sins, life and salvation. By and large, the same benefits we receive by faith when we hear the Gospel, and when we are baptized. But like in baptism we receive these gifts in a tangible manner in the Lord’s Supper. We aren’t left naval gazing to see if we have believed enough, or not. We aren’t left with any cloud of doubt the devil might plague us with after a prayer in which we have asked God to forgive our sins. We are left with the sure and certain promise of Christ, and we have banquated with God, at the feast of forgiveness he provided us with at His Son’s sacrifice of the ultimate Paschal lamb. We have drunk the life of Christ, and received his Holiness. Our sins have been forgiven.
Michael,
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is like that of Baptism. As long as its done according to the scriptures(in the Triune Name, adhereing to the Words of Institution, etc.) it is a true baptism or Lord’s Supper. The difference is in the comfort, assurance and strenght that is received by the believer because of what is taught.To those of us in Sacramental churches there is little comfort in a symbolic washing that demonstates or witnesses to our committment to follow the Lord. Likewise mere bread and wine (or grape juice) as a token of OUR remembrance of Him places the burden on us and the strength of our remembering. The scriptures teach that the Sacraments are much more rich and beneficial than what the above two views teach. Technically the symbolic view is also true, but it doesn’t go far enough or say all the truth concerning God’s work through these means of grace. The realization that God is actually ministering to me through His promise in baptism forgiving my sins, and offering me His own body and blood for the forgiveness of sins and the upbuilding of my faith has a huge impact on your faith and daily walk, especially when you are suffering or despairing. The symbolic views are unable to deliver this, not because the sacraments are false, but because the substance and benefits are denied by those who hold to these views, and thus the believer remains unaware.
Union with Christ is always through faith created by the Word. So those who deny baptismal regeneration and the “real presence” are still united to Christ through the power of His word. Someone might then say “If we are united with Christ in the same way, what difference do the Sacraments make?” This is not the way of faith to speak like this. Fist, I would argue that the scriptures teach “the real presence”(I know you hate that term, but I use it as a shorthand way of speaking-please don’t read it through the”we have it and you don’t” lens, its not meant that way.)and baptismal regeneration. Second, given the difficulty of the Christian life this side of the New Creation, why deny yourself and others the comfort, encouragement and strength of the sacraments by what is an impoverished and incomplete view of them? Denial of Sacramental doctrine only hurts those who hold it, not because it changes the Sacraments into “non-Sacraments” but it effectually prevents them from realizing their true benefits.
Finally, given my sinful condition, I need every opportunity, whether by the Word prached or read, by taking communion, or going to Confession and Absolution, to have my faith strengthened and to be encouraged by God’s grace. I don’t want to miss out on any of God’s gracious provision for me.
This issue seems to me to be in the same vein as “second blessing” theology, or dogmatic Calvinism, or even Keswick theology. Is there really something more that some Christians know or receive because they “think” about some aspect of Christian experience differently than I do? Does God withhold some of His blessing based on “insider information” that I don’t have? Is my faith in Jesus somehow deficient because I go to the wrong kind of church? Do sacramentalists really believe they somehow receive more of Jesus in the bread and the wine (or juice) than I do simply because they believe they do? I have a really hard time not feeling that any of that kind of teaching borders on theological arrogance. It is just one more “I am of whatever” thing to divide the body.
This may not be an answer, and I apologize if it is off-topic somehow, but Ephesians 1:3-14 always centers me when I hear doctrines that seem more divisive than unifying. I think what Paul is saying is that we have EVERYTHING we will ever have, and we have it NOW, if we are “in Christ.” If we have come to Jesus in faith (1:1), then we are “chosen” (3-6), “redeemed” (7-12), and “sealed” (13-14) in Him. It is all and already done. Nothing can be added or taken away from that. We can grow and mature in our understanding of what we have “in him” (15-23), but God left nothing out of the “spiritual blessings” that came to us at salvation.
In the Holy Spirit, I in union with Jesus Christ and have every spiritual blessing God intended for me to have. The only thing preventing me from experiencing those blessings is whether or not I am “presenting” myself to God as an instrument of righteousness (Romans 6:12-14)–yielding myself to him, resisting the world, and being transformed by his truth (Romans 12:1-2). The spiritual blessings are all there all the time “in Jesus”–I just have to get out of the way to let God live through me. I never have less of Christ, and I can never get more of Him. I can only mature so there is less of me in the way.
For what it’s worth, here’s my two cents.
I’d agree with Caine that the strongest clue to the truth of the Eucharist is found in 1 Cor. 11:26, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”
But I disagree with Caine’s emphasis on the word “death.” I think the emphasis, and the key to the truth of the passage, should be on the larger phrase “proclaim the Lord’s death.”
What are we doing during Holy Communion? We are “proclaiming” something. It is a speech-act in reverse.
And what are we proclaiming? We are proclaiming “the Lord’s death.” The Lord’s death. Get it? We are proclaiming that a young peasant Jew, executed by the Roman authorities, is Lord. In other words, we are proclaiming the gospel, folly to Greeks and a scandal to Jews.
And we’re doing so “until He comes,” when there will no longer be a need to proclaim anything, because then every knee will bow and every tongue confess that that young peasant Jew, executed by the Roman authorities, is Lord.
That’s how I see it. I think that’s how Paul saw it, too.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi Shahinian
Parables of a Prodigal World
If you can’t understand how Christ can be both “everywhere present” and the one who “fillest all things” while also being bodily present in his flesh and in his blood, then how can you accept the incarnation itself? For in the incarnation Christ is both God and man. He’s both everywhere and in this place and that. The RC and EO view, et al, is much more consistent incarnationally concerning the Eucharist than your position.
Brad:
>If you can’t understand how Christ can be both “everywhere present” and the one who “fillest all things” while also being bodily present in his flesh and in his blood…
Not sure who you are talking to since you didn’t preface the comment.
I do not have the dilemma you are positing. (Assuming you were speaking to me.)
But I also don’t have the dilemma of saying that two persons in union with Christ have different accesses to Christ based on their view of the sacrament.
If I thought God differentiated in the benefits of union with Christ based on one’s belief about the theology of the LS, I’d abandon ship. That’s just me. A God who discriminates based on what I believe about the mechanics of “how” the ascended Christ is “present” is no God I could approach with confidence.
But that’s my problem.
peace
MS
Refocus please, folks. The question is about union with Christ.
I have no problem with anyone’s sacramental theology of how they believe Christ is present in the LS.
The problem, as stated well by JS Bangs above, is that some have the real presence of Christ and some do not. Since all are in union with Christ, all are mediated by Christ, all are “in” Christ, all are given the fullness of the Spirit in Christ, etc…..my issue is with those who say other Christians have LESS Christ than they do.
In other words, it’s the quantification and localization in the cause of exclusion that I can’t (and won’t) agree to.
Michael,
I’ve wondered this. I have a more “spiritual presence” view of the Lord’s Supper, but I work in a church that sees it as (only) a memorial. If most people in my church see it as a memorial, are they missing out on the spiritual presence every week? If so, why?
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Lutherans are right and the bread and wine are “really” the body and blood. If a Baptist has an errant view of the LS and partakes as a memorial, does he forfeit the spiritual union? If so, on what basis? Aren’t they being faithful by partaking, even if they misunderstand the ritual? What is the Lutheran doing that the Baptist isn’t? Will God reward the Lutheran because he is “smarter”?
I’ve never been to a Lutheran church. Is there a kind of blessing on the elements in the same way that there is at a RC church? If so, is that when the elements consubstantiate? If so, what is involved in the “blessing,” and how does the “blessing” consubstantiate the elements?
I’m probably not smart enough to answer your question but I have explored it as I recently left the SBC’s quarterly symbol for the AMiA’s weekly sacrament. Not physical, but spiritual, or as Allen Ross puts it in Recalling the Hope of Glory, seeing the bread and wine as more than just part of a meal.
As for union with Christ: Personally, like Mephibosheth, I hobble by invitation to the king’s table for fellowship and nourishment. Corporately, though, I do not know what happens between the Creed and the table that would cause some believers to exclude others.
Michael
First, I think that Christ is physically present even when baptists celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Christ’s presence in the Supper is objective. There is an ontological change in the Bread. Everyone who partakes of the Bread has full access to Christ, and is united to Christ through that partaking. But not everyone knows that’s what’s going on.
Second, it seems to deal with works righteousness to me. If our union with Christ in the Lord’s Supper is based on our thinking of Christ, it is a work we do. Our union with Christ is based on our action, our thoughts, our ability to bring Christ down from heaven into our imagination. But if Christ is, by His free choice, physically and objectively present before us, it doesn’t depend on us, and so isn’t a work. The objective physical presence of Christ is what guarantees that no matter how we see the Sacrament, we all have the same access to Christ in it.
Along a slightly different train of thought, in a very real sense, I think that our union with Christ is our partaking the Supper. Holding your wife’s hand isn’t distinct from your union with her, it in a real sense is (or is a part of) your union with her. I am a physical person. Christ is a physical person. My union with Him is physical.
But I think the easiest way to get at my understanding is as follows:
St. Paul says that he is absent in the flesh, but united in the Spirit to the Colossians. Because of his union in Christ, St. Paul was united to the Colossians. Similarly, by your union with your Christ you are united to your wife.
So my question is could you explain how your wife’s person and benefits are present to you in a different way when you kiss her than they are to me by virtue of our union in Christ?
My wife is not the head of the church. Your union with the members of the body of Christ gurantees nothing to you. Christ on the other hand is the head of the one body the one church and gives all benefits to all those who are in union with him.
Kissing my wife is a benefit I derive, but the rest of the church isn’t entitled to that benefit.
All Christians receive all benefits of being one in Christ.
For example, since we will all be raised in Christ, is there some benefit in the Lord’s Supper that makes for a better resurrection?
Well, here we go. I’ve actually read all the comments and decided I wanted to chime in. I am Catholic, just so everyone knows. Your question, Michael, about union with Christ and how that relates to more or less “union” available in the Lord’s Supper or the Eucharist, is a very interesting one. It deserves being asked and thought about.
The whole idea of union with Christ is, for me, the center of Christianity. I think the concept is often talked about too simplistically. Some Christians don’t talk about it at all. Their notion of what a Christian is has more to do with an external statement of faith or merely an assent to a catalog of beliefs. They have no theology of union, of a mingling of Life and life. This is unfortunate. I certainly wouldn’t say this makes them not genuinely Christian. It may hinder their ability to tap into certain aspects of our union with God in Christ.
Another thing that might make this discussion a little more difficult between those of different traditions is this: thinking of union as either an either-or situation or one in which a person is initially connected and then grows, progressively, in a deeper and deeper union with God in and through Christ and the action of His Holy Spirit. It seems, at least as I can see here, that your view, Michael, seems to tend toward the either-or - either you’re in union or not. I can understand your philosophical difficulty if this is your view.
If, on the other hand, you think more in my neighborhood - that there is, yes, an initial connection (justification, union) but there is then a growing union with God, a progressive union. In this view, we may well be connected to God but our union with Him is not yet complete. A lot of things can and do contribute to this growing union. Sacraments are some of the chief ways we can tap into the fullness of God’s Life (God’s Grace - the actual “stuff” of Grace). And the Eucharist is the prima Sacrament I suppose, in which we are given an opportunity to tap into (I like to say it like that) the ever-flowing river of His sacrificial Grace in the heavenly dimension.
Can one be in union with Christ, as you are talking about it, be a Christian, be born from above, belong to God, be “in Christ” without ever receiving the Eucharist as Sacrament? Yes. Are there many ways (in my view of progressive union) that Christians can deepen or increase their union with God in Christ? Again, yes and this gets to this business about having “more of Christ.” It’s not really about someone saying, “nya nya, we’ve got more Christ than yoooouu dooo” - I hope it’s not. It’s about a certain view of a growing union with Him that produces real transformation of our being.
And it’s not just mechanical; i.e., you go up and receive Communion and boom, you’re more unified. The proverbial Sacramental “wormhole” may have been opened up but your inward, participatory faith is a key element in how efficacious this Sacrament is for you. It’s much like “mixing faith” with the hearing of or reading of the Scriptures - faith mixed and change happens - faith not mixed and you have heard words but they don’t do much.
So, if you have an understanding of our union with God as growing and progressive then there’s really no disconnect with the idea that a Sacrament like the Eucharist or the Lord’s Supper could be a conduit for increasing or deepening that union. I went around the bush a little there explaining how I think about this. Hope that adds something helpful to the mix. Peace.
You ask the question that Baptists have asked for years, and that has yet to be sufficiently answered. Personally, I “feel” that Christ is present in a special way during the Lord’s Supper, but I’m not so sure that this is not just merely my coming into line with the divine mind during the experience whereas I’m more often simply not consciously aware of my union with Christ at most times.
Hmmm.. After reading Bror’s comments, and my friend Rick Ritchie’s comments on a previous post, I may need to modify my reply slightly.
Imagine for a moment that the Lutheran(or other sacramental churches’) view were true beyond a shadow of a doubt. How would that affect your faith? What would that mean personally to you? What kind of comfort would you experience?
Hmmm.. After reading Bror’s comments, and my friend Rick Ritchie’s comments on a previous post, I may need to modify my reply slightly. But I need to think about it first.
Imagine for a moment that the Lutheran(or other sacramental churches’) view were true beyond a shadow of a doubt. How would that affect your faith? What would that mean personally to you? What kind of comfort would you experience?
>What about those to whom the properly ordered
>denominational sacraments are not available?
>I’d like to hear it put simply: Is there union with
>Christ apart from the sacraments of a denomination?
To simply answer: Yes, for union with Christ is brought about by the Holy Spirit, when He converts the sinner and grants him the gift of faith in Christ.
I would put it back to you this way, however: Once you have been so converted, do you then lay aside all that God gives to you in His Word and Sacraments as of no further benefit? Your question could just as well be asked about the Gospel itself. What further benefit do you get from the Gospel, that you do not already get from your union with Christ?
Discussing the real presence in this connection as beside the point in the end if we do not first understand the function of the Gospel. It is through the Gospel that the Holy Ghost creates _and sustains_ our faith.
However, I am confused by your distinction “the sacraments of a denomination”. I know of no such thing. I’m not trying to play games. The Lord’s Supper which I celebrate every Sunday and feast day is not the sacrament of my denomination. It is Christ’s. He instituted it. It does not become valid because I or any other man perform it, or because any denomination authorizes it. It is valid because Jesus Himself instituted it, and wherever it is celebrated according to His institution, it is His Sacrament, whatever the “denomination”.
What is a Sacrament in the end? It is the Word of God in a visible form. To say, “What do I get from the Sacrament that I don’t already get from union with Christ?” is like saying, “What do I get from food and water that I don’t already get from life itself?”
I am probably not understanding your question in the end, I fear. If the question is “what difference does the real presence make” I can answer this way: It matters because it is that part which particularly assures the sinner that He is forgiven. And it is that cogent and continuous assurance that keeps him in the faith and joined to Christ.
All parsing of verbs aside (as if any single word of the Scriptures could be insignificant . . .) if one, as a premise, denies the real presence, his entire understanding of the sacrament must by definition be utterly different than one who believes it. Further, considering the real presence as a possibility only in so far as one can fit it into a philosophy of Christianity, would, I fear, saddle one’s faith to his reason, rather than to the revealed Word of God which will always be an offense to reason. Reason cannot comprehend the union with Christ. Christ is beyond reason. Nevertheless, reason has its ministerial use when disciplined by the Word of God, which sets the boundaries beyond which reason cannot go.
>All sides of this question cite and interpret John 6, as you certainly know.
I don’t. I don’t think John 6 has anything at all to do with the Lord’s Supper or the real presence in same.
From the context of the passage, I believe it is utterly clear that the eating and drinking is faith. Otherwise it would contradict John 3.
Michael,
I think you may have missed my question. Yes, I know I don’t have access to kiss you wife. And I wouldn’t dare try to take it. But as a member of Christ, I am united not only to Christ Himself, but to all His Church. So, what is the difference between the union I share with your wife, and the union you do? Yes, I agree yours is greater than mine, and no I wouldn’t dare steal that from you. But in what way is it greater?
Or perhaps I should ask, “given that you are fully united to your wife through Christ, and in Christ enjoy all of her, how is kissing her an addition? What benefit do you derive from kissing her?”
The answer to those questions is the answer I give to yours. Had Christ not given the Eucharist, we would have the sort of relationship with Christ you, by virtue of your mutual union in Christ and His Spirit, would have with your wife if you never kissed her. And when we receive the Eucharist, all baptized Christians have the sort of union with Christ you have with your wife when you kiss her.
I’m Pentecostal, and a lot of us Pentecostals believe we have more of the Holy Spirit than other churches do. I’m not one of them… that is, I’m trying not to be one of them.
Theologically, I understand that the Spirit indwells, inspires, and directs every believer in Christ Jesus. It’s just that Pentecostals feel we follow that direction more so than other Christians, or that we expect the supernatural to be a normative part of the Christian life whereas other Christians don’t.
Now, that’s not entirely fair, because lots of Christians follow the Spirit’s leading all the time, or at least follow what the Spirit says through the scriptures. One doesn’t have to speak in tongues in order to have an intense personal relationship with God. One does have to humbly repent, though. I’ve known lots of non-charismatic Christians who are much further in God (because of this humility) than many Pentecostals who figure—wrongly—that their tongues-speaking covers a multitude of sins. It most definitely doesn’t.
How this connects to the sacraments is in this way: If you’ve just seen God do something during your church service, you recognize the communion ritual is not purely academic or intellectual. We don’t just remember what Jesus did for us 1,975 years ago. We also recognize that He’s still doing stuff among us; that He’s in the room right now, ’cause we just saw Him do something in it. It might not be the “real presence” some churches talk about, but by golly it feels real.
(Not that the feeling is valid, ’cause you can manufacture that feeling artificially with some really good bass guitar. As I said, it’s ’cause we just saw Him do something. Someone got saved, forgiven, healed, a message, or were otherwise ministered to.)
However, the union with Him is more in that He’s personally present in our service, rather than that He’s somehow physically present within our matzo and juice. Or at least that’s our church’s theology. Our union to Christ doesn’t come from a regular ritual, but from a developing relationship. The ritual reflects the relationship, which is why we do it; but it was never meant to take the place of it.
>Since we will all be raised in Christ, is there some benefit in the Lord’s Supper that makes for a better resurrection?
No. But, spending one’s entire life in a quest to be more vitally connected to Christ will not warrant a “better resurrection” either. However, I think that being vitally connect to Christ does, in some way, bring me closer to Him. (Or maybe removes self-constructed barriers between myself and Him).
I guess whether the LS or Eucharist gets you closer to Christ depends on your understanding of grace. If you think that grace brings you closer to God, and you obtain grace through sacraments, then the LS/Eucharist brings you closer to God.
I don’t know where I stand yet. All I know is that it’s hard to see how someone can absolutely believe their denominational view is correct to the exclusion of all others. When looking at it objectively, there are good arguments for various interpretations of John 6.
For me as a Lutheran, I receive the bread and wine as well as Christ’s actual Body and Blood in,with and under the bread and wine for the foregiveness of sins.
Michael:
The greatest argument I have for the sacraments is that protestantism sinks into transcendentalism without them. Jesus becomes a prisoner of the valhalla of heaven. He cannot be touched except through mental pictures, or some esoteric transport. The material world, including human senses, become unfit for Him to use. Certainly He cannot condescend to reach us from heaven. Our only hope is to find ladders to climb up to Him. It all starts to sound like gnosticism.
I recommend the following post by Peter Leithart entitled “Blame it on Marburg: Why Protetants Can’t Write”. He explains how a lack of a sacramental world view affects the way we view material life - especially art.
http://www.credenda.org/issues/18-2liturgia.php
Paul Tillich had similiar views. I wish I was finished digesting his view of religious symbols, because it might provide a bridge between a Lutheran/sacramental view and a Zwinglian/Calvinist view.
It has always puzzled me why most protestants can only see communion as mere bread and juice, but put red and white stripes on a piece of cloth, add a little blue and a few stars, and that mere piece of cloth takes on mystical characteristics - even for the most iconoclastic protestants! That mere piece of cloth takes on the very honor, power, and name of the entire nation. Any soiling of that cloth is viewed as desecration of the nation itself. Proper disposal of that piece of cloth resembles a liturgical rite. Amazing.
There is one view which still challenges me, and that is the one of the Quakers: that life itself is sacramental, comprised of an infinite number of sacramental moments. Jean-Pierre De Caussade stated a very similar view in “The Sacrament of this Present Moment”, but for him such a view was still dependent upon the sacraments provided through the church.
I think there is plenty of room for discussion, and I appreciate that you make room for it here.
“All Christians are united with Christ by the sovereign, gracious work of God himself.”
I want to know what verses this is based on so that I can know what is really being spoken of here. I suspect you mean something other than baptism.
“All the benefits of salvation come to us because of union with Christ.”
This is like saying all the benefits of hospitality come from the generosity of your host. So when your host said ‘Welcome to my house!’, you figured there was nothing more to receive. No swimming in the pool. No eating a fine meal. No smoking a cigar. For what hospitality could you find in the pool, the meal, or the cigar that was not to be had in the welcome?
“So how does union with Christ relate to your understanding of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?”
I would rather start from the other side. I was first united to Christ when I was baptized into his death on Christmas Day in 1966. I believe I also feed on him by faith throughout my life, hearing His Word and believing it. And I believe that in the Supper, when we break the bread, I am one body with those who partake of the one bread, for we all partake of the one bread. But if they deny the identity of the bread with Christ, I don’t know what that does. I still think they are baptized into him, and cling to Him by faith.
A friend of mine took his small children to church. When he received communion, his son asked, “Daddy what you have?” The father realized that his children instinctively asked the right question. They don’t ask questions about the sacrament as a whole, its benefits, its meaning. They ask what is in your hands. When you answer that rightly, you don’t run into a problem with union with Christ. (And how would a child formulate that as a problem?)
Scott M has really touched upon something major here - why do some wish to confine the interpretation of the sacraments to a view alien to not only the majority of the history of the church, but to a key interpretation of the issue in the scriptures itself?
Yes, we can speak of communion as a ‘remembrance’ and as a ‘proclamation’ if we wish, but does that really constitute and conclude all the goes on?
Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 10 about how the Children of Israel, whilst in the wilderness were ‘baptized into Moses’ and drank from the waters of the spiritual rock that ‘was Christ’. These things, he states were so to deter us from evil, to flee from mis-use of life, that we might truly participate in the blessing of the bread and the wine, the body and the blood.
I’ve attended all manner of churches in my life, with all kinds of ideas about this, but it seems that Paul and Jesus Himself are taking about something more than just bringing something to mind - isn’t that something we do anyway every time we ‘preach’ Christ and Him Crucified?
I had an opportunity some years ago to chat with the late Colin Gunton about this, and he was convinced that we had certainly missed something of the richness and significance of this event in the manner we approached and interpreted the matter.
My own view is that the manner of rationalism inherent to the Zwinglian manner of reform has borrowed heavily from the taint of ill-defined (erroneous)teaching regarding negating creation that has wounded the church from it’s earliest days, and thereby dislocating us from the manner of connection between Christ and Creation clearly expressed in the communion services of the first century. The tragedy, of course, is that it is often the potential richness of our fellowship which suffers - perhaps why we so often have a rushing in of other, more dualistic ‘blessings’ and practices to seek to breach the void.
“Is there union with Christ apart from the sacraments of a denomination?”
This is the key to the question, but then you have to deal with ecclesial theology as well. To a Roman Catholic, there is no full union with Christ apart from The Church (them) and the sacraments. Same for the Orthodox who, in turn, deny RCs as being part of The Church.
You’ve got a completely different definition of ‘Church’ here from the Protestant definition. Church is nothing to do with ‘a fellowship of true believers’; it *is* tied up with the sacraments and the priesthood. I would use the words ‘it’s tied up with the institution’ but neither the RC Church or the Orthodox Church would see themselves as ‘an institution’ or ‘a denomination’; they simply see themselves as The Church. Of course, since Vatican II, the RC officially offers to Protestants the recognition that we are separated brethren.
My own theology: “Here our humblest homage pay we,Here in loving reverence bow; Here for faith’s discernment pray, Lest we fail to know thee now. Alleluia! thou art here, we ask not how.” (Charles Wesley)
Michael: the promises of the gospel are offered to us in baptism, absolution, the preaching of the gospel, the Lord’s Supper and so on.
It is the same promises of the same gospel that are offered to us in each case. The same Christ who is offered to us and received by us in each case. The same Holy Spirit who creates faith in our hearts by means of those promises.
God delights to pour out his blessings in any number of ways, and his people delight to receive those blessings in all the ways they are offered to us. To ask, “Well, what more do I get from that means than I get from those means?” misses the point.
As someone once put it to me, when I was asking much the same question while exploring Lutheranism back in early 2004:
I’m just trying to encourage you not to put your sins and forgiveness on such a linear path. God already knows all the sins you’ll commit in your life, and he forgave them all in your baptism. And he forgives you as often as you confess and receive absolution. And He will forgive you each time you receive his body and blood. His gifts he gives to us oh so abundantly and over and over meeting all of our needs.
How much do we need forgiveness? How much gospel do we need? How much grace can we have? How much building of our faith is enough? God just pours out his grace to us again and again and just because he does a thing more than once, does not in any way mean that the previous was less than enough. Your baptism was enough, but he gives you more. His absolution is enough, but he gives you still more. His supper is enough and even though you don’t deserve it, He gives you yet more.
He does this because he loves you so and you are his child and he knows just exactly what you need - and he gave it to you in your baptism, he gives it to you again in absolution and he’ll continue giving it to you in his supper. In this way, you are forgiven. You can know you are forgiven. And when you sin and are terrified, you can be forgiven again - each time with the words of the gospel administered to you for the forgiveness of sins and the strengthening of your faith unto life everlasting.
So in a sense, the Lord’s Supper adds nothing to your union with Christ through faith and baptism. But God knows how frail our faith is, so he keeps giving us the same gift - Christ, and with him forgiveness, life and salvation - over and over again.
Rick: I don’t believe in the Lutheran view of baptism. I believe union with Christ happens by grace, through faith. I believe that baptism is for disciples alone, a la Fred Malone, but I respect the differing views and their magnification of grace.
Patrick: What would I do if the Lutheran view (as I hear it from LCMS friends) were true? Well, it would have deep implications for my entire belief in the Christian God. Part of my struggle in these questions is at this point: If God has restricted union with him to sacraments dispensed through denominations, rituals and men, I’m not sure what kind of God that leaves me with. My journey to be “reduced to Jesus” is my way of working through all this. I want exactly what Jesus was teaching in his stories, esp the Prodigal Son. I want exactly what he was inviting us to in his proclamation of the Kingdom. But if God is dispensing himself in local, quantifiable appearances, then I have a real issue.
ALL: Alan has given, IMO, the most reasonable and cogent answer: Union with Christ is a process facilitated by the sacraments. I totally disagree
but I think it’s the most consistent and reasonable response to the question.
Michael: Where did Patrick say that “God has restricted union with him to sacraments dispensed through denominations, rituals and men”? Where has any Lutheran contributor to this thread said that?
I think you are misunderstanding the Lutheran perspective here. When a Lutheran says, “We receive God’s grace through baptism, absolution, the preaching of the gospel and the Lord’s Supper”, we are not “restricting” the ways in which God could conceivably bless us. Rather, we are making a positive statement about places in which God has promised to bless us. It’s an answer to the question, “Where can I hear God’s promise of grace and forgiveness with certainty?”, not to the question, “What are the only places where I can receive God’s grace?”
If anything, it is you who are being restrictive. We all agree that union with Christ comes by grace through faith in the promises of the gospel. But you are left with only one way in which those promises can be received: through the verbal (written/spoken) word. We fully embrace that particular means, but believe that the same word of promise can also come to us through the means of water, bread and wine - and that the validity of those means depends solely on the promise of Christ and not on the denominational credentials of the minister declaring them or the congregation hearing them.
I’d like to add my 2 cents.
First of all, I am Episcopalian and a Catholic-leaning one at that. Having said that, I see the sacraments, primarily Baptism and Eucharist, as being “outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace, given by Christ as sure and certain means by which we receive that grace.” They are an incarnational way by which God communicates his grace to us and binds us together by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ.
It’s also important to remember that in many of the ancient Christian fathers, esp. Augustine, the main focus of their use of the term “Body of Christ” referred primarily to the gathered church. What they saw on the altar was indeed the mystery of what they were (Aug., sermon 272). John Chrysostom also stated, “What is the bread? The Body of Christ. And what do those who receive a share of it become? The Body of Christ — not many bodies b
ut one body.”(Homily of 1 Cor. 10:16-17) I’d also like to add that in the Apostles’ Creed, when we say, “I believe in . . . the communion of saints,” the original Latin of the Creed uses the term communio sanctorum, literally “communion of the holies.” This can refer to both the holy assembly in heaven and on earth and the holy gifts. There is an identification between the Body of Christ and . . . the Body of Christ.
I don’t know if this added much, but maybe it gives a little more to think about.
In Christ,
Kevin
I might get stoned for this, but I’ve been thinking lately about the contextual side of the Eucharist. For me, the taking of bread and wine seems to align me with the historical elements of my faith, helping me to better see the world as Jesus did. Therefore, the Supper is a vessel for the Holy Spirit to move me to greater knowledge and passion for Christ and His purposes in the world. I differentiate this from a “memorial” view, because at least in my SBC context, memorial is very individualized, i.e. “remember what Jesus did for you”. Perhaps in a liturgical setting this would not be as evident, but the Supper has this effect on me - union with the way of thinking of Christ.
I’m Pentecostal, too. To be more accurate, the road of my journey to date makes me Jewish-Metho-Bapti-costal. But, hey, I don’t like labels. I’m a Christian.
Flannery O’Connor, a devout Roman Catholic, famously said of the Eucharist, “Well, if it’s just a symbol, I say, To Hell with it,” and then added that was all she could say, or would ever have to say, about it.
For the record, I am not a Roman Catholic.
But one day I might be.
Michael, you have been taken to task quite handily by several of the commenters on this thread. God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Trying to understand is not a sin, but insisting on your own way is.
Everyone believes that the Thief on the Cross, was not baptized, per se, did not receive communion, did not spend hours in prayer, may have not studied Scipture, and may have not lived much of a Christian life - yet he was saved. He probably felt more fulfilled and more united with Christ at the moment of death than many of us will feel. Many of us may have “felt” united to Christ at certain times of prayer, after reading certain verses, and after helping someone hurt or disabled. Despite all the value judgments that have been made about our various different modes of worship, would we not all agree that a Christian is somehow deficient in their union with Christ if he/she never prayed, heard the Word, practiced self-sacrificing love, or met Jesus in the poor or sick?
More than for a “feeling of forgiveness” many come to Eucharist for the grace of transformation - to be better Christians and to be more united to Christ. This is not accomplished through “having all the right thoughts” but rather through faith receiving a grace. A grace that we must be mindful of. A grace that has a reality that was not readily apparent to the Corinthians or the Disciples on the road to Emaus.
I’m cogent and reasonable! Woo hoo!
I’d like to add that I’m talking about a progressive union that is not only to be had through the Sacraments, and not only to be facilitated by them. They are conduits given by God for a broken humanity. One day the Church (in any expression) won’t be necessary. One day Sacraments will fade away in the blinding light of our complete and unbroken union with God through and in Christ by the Holy Spirit. Right now we’re talking about a God who works through His People, through the Body of His Son both in and, in a way, through the context He has created us to live, the world. But, of course, the more technically we try to nail these things down and define them, the more trouble we get in, for God won’t hold a nail. Well, He did once for a little bit, but you know what I mean. His mystical Reality is not bound by our understanding of the Sacraments or even how He might have intended them to work. Peace to you Michael.
Michael,
You seem to be playing a game here where you decide what’s true. Our fatih can not work that way. Truth must be received, and we must receive it beyond our wants and our fears.
As Pascal said (a paraphrase): There is enough light for those who want to believe, yet enough shadow for those who don’t.
If you can’t see why recieving the very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord is important then I don’t know how to explain that to you. It is a fortaste of Heaven, a taste of salvation.
To me, it seems, you make the mistake of suggesting that all denominations are equal because Truth is whatever we say the bible says it is. We know Christ is the Truth and we know truth is objective. It is grounded in something bigger than ourselves. Therefor if two groups disagree, either one is right or they’re both wrong, BUT they both can not be right (assuming we’re talking about an objective reality and not a matter of opion). The more we reside in authentic Truth the more we reside in Christ. Therefor some traditions will most certainly be more in tune with what Christ intended his followers to believe and practice.
To answer your question: The Eucharist is the source and summit of my union with Christ. It is the ordinary means of uniting oneself to our Lord (note: there are extra-ordinary means such as a strictly spiritual union, but these are the exception not the rule). When we eat His flesh, we abide in Him and he in us. We become one flesh with the God of the universe. I, along with all the Saints of history, can not imagine life without this most blessed Sacrament. If you can’t understand the appeal, I don’t know how to explain it to you.
Joseph
Michael,
why would you have a problem with God dispensing himself in local quantifiable appearances?
I’m not sure if I am understanding you rightly. But isn’t this what Christ did in the upper room? To Paul on the road to Damascus? To Moses in the burning bush? To the Isrealites in the Temple? This is also what he, not the LCMS, says he does in the Lord’s Supper. God is God, he can do whatever he wants. I think at the heart of it this has been the Lutheran problem with Calvin and Zwingly all along and almost every other protestant. Zwinlgy at Marburg, (and the best book disecting this historical debate is Sasse’s “This is my Body…” Wanted to tell God what he could and could not do based on finite logic. Luther believes that with God all things are possible, even making bread and wine be His Body and Blood. As Philip Watson once said, “Let God be God.” Who are we to judge Him for whatever it is He does, we can only believe His words. maybe he doesn’t live up to our preconceived notions of who he is, but if we let go of those, we might find that he far surpasses them. He surpasses them, by puting himself into the the box for us.
In 1st Corinthians 1:18 Paul writes “for those who are being saved…”
This goes against Baptist theology.
One time, when I accepted Jesus, or way back there on the cross, it’s a done deal, don’t need anything else. Wrong.
“Being saved”. It is a process. We still stray. We still have our sinful selves, the sinful world, and satan who wishes to tear us from Christ.
So we have the gift of the sacraments to keep us in faith, and give us the assurance that WE NEED apart from relying on …whatever.
There are different Lutheran views on the Lord’s Supper. Some Lutherans practice closed communion and others do not.
In our congregation we offer the Lord’s Supper to all baptised Christians who believe the Lord to be truly present in the meal. Everything you need is in that meal. It’s not parsed out to you as you’ve earned bits of graciousness on some gradual ladder of assent to more and more holiness in greater union with a God. That’s not the God that I have come to know.
If you don’t believe He is present then you will accesss none of the benefits, so don’t come.
It’s not a lucky rabbit’s foot. Trust is involved.
In the Supper He reads His last and and testament to us, assuring us that whatever is His, is ours.
“You have set a table before me in the sight of my enemies” (23rd Psalm)
The table is the altar of the Lord where invites us(His enemies) to dine with Him.
What a gracious God we have.
This is the view of the Lords Supper that I beleive in.
Thank you, Michael.
“I totally disagree, but I think it’s the most consistent and reasonable response to the question.”
Oh, that was an interesting statement, Michael
I would say that all truth is consistent, and maybe also reasonable as well…
John H and Patrick: I want to be very clear that I never heard either of you say this, nor was I implying that you had. I apologize if I seemed to assign that statement to you rather than to myself.
I will be just as clear that I have heard many Christians, including Lutherans, say what I understand to be “the Eucharist is valid in our church and not at any other church that I know of.” You know some of them.
And to the guy who said I shouldn’t be bothered by a quantifiable, locally appearing God…….***crickets*** If that’s what the New Covenant tells you, then don’t let me disturb you. I’d be a Buddhist tomorrow if I thought that was Christianity.
To all the Lutherans getting angry at me because I am “deciding what is true” and I am “misunderstanding” etc.: I don’t hold to your position, and I won’t be argued into it. I didn’t start this open thread to convince myself of Lutheranism etc. I’m far closer to abandoning any form of organized Christianity than I am to moving to one of the denominational understandings.
John H and others have been working for a long time to get me over my issues with sacramentalism. I’m a tough case. To me, it goes deep into who God is and what belongs to all of those who belong to Christ. I’ll try to apologize when I misrepresent, but I don’t think any of you are going to be happy with where I am on this or where I will be when the thread runs out.
My interest is in how those who are sacramentalists interpret the New Testament on various things that are true for ALL of us, sacraments or not.
“I’d like you to distinguish how Christ’s person and benefits are available to you in the Eucharist in a way they are not available to me by virtue of union with Christ.”
This seems like a false dilemma (if I read you rightly). The sacraments effect, nurture and sustain one’s union with Christ.
Blessings!
Two brief comments that are somewhat off-topic but related to what various persons have said in this thread:
1. To say Zwingli preached that the LS is a “mere memorial” as if Christ isn’t present and active through the celebration is to terribly misunderstand him.
2. Meanwhile, Baptists have not univocally held to a “mere memorial” view of the LS. For example, Christopher Blackwood, a very early Baptist, wrote in his “A soul-searching catechism” (1653) that the ordinances are vehicula spiritus and that in the LS Christ is “present spiritually to the Faith of the receiver to increase by his Spirit the Union and Communion of the soul with Christ.”
Fr. Peter:
Right answer. Perfect. You win the M&Ms.
Chris S: I have a series of posts here at IM on the rich imagery of the LS that was once the heritage of Baptists. Look under “Baptists” in the categories and find the posts on the LS.
I may be too late to join in, and hope this makes at least a bit of sense…
I think there is union with Christ apart from the sacraments of a denomination, but perhaps not apart from the church which is human, fractured and denominational by nature.
Can we really have union with Christ through the universal church in the abstract? Do we really have union with Christ in isolation from other believers? Or do we have union through Christ through union with a particular local, real, gathering of believers?
We are to make peace with our brother prior to communion, and so we share communion with people with whom we share a bond through Christ.
While I like the generous Methodist call to Communion that recognizes our most basic unity through Christ, I can understand the Catholic exclusion of people who are not fully in fellowship with them.
An abstract communion that can be shared with an imagined universal church may not be a real communion at all. Even if it is a nice idea.
I think we can affirm Christ’s salvation and communion across denominational divides, and yet see it as something most appropriately performed among believers with whom we are at peace.
Michael,
you write:
“And to the guy who said I shouldn’t be bothered by a quantifiable, locally appearing God…….***crickets*** If that’s what the New Covenant tells you, then don’t let me disturb you. I’d be a Buddhist tomorrow if I thought that was Christianity.”
I’m not trying to be nasty here, But I need to ask you, Who is Jesus?
And did Jesus not appear locally? I don’t know what you mean by quantifiably, but if you mean in a tangible way, then I think he did that too. “In the beginning was the word…. and the word became flesh.” I’m not getting angry, believe me I’m not. I’m just asking here. Maybe I’m trying to convince you of my position. (you said you would allow that) But more I’m discussing.
Michael,
That’s a really good question. I’ve wondered about it on and off for some time.
To be sure, I’m on of those who believes that Jesus taught at the last Supper that, in receiving the Supper I receive the forgiveness provided by his shed blood (Mt 26.28). But the question is — in what way is the Supper necessary to receive Christ’s forgiveness? What does it “add” that I don’t or can’t receive elsewhere?
One possible answer, I suppose, is the “hard” Jn 6.53 answer, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.”
But that doesn’t seem quite right — and even Martin Luther did not think that Jesus was speaking of the Supper in Jn 6.
So how does the Supper minister forgiveness to me in a way that, say, confession of my sins (1 Jn 1.9) does not?
I don’t know. But, nonetheless, every time I go to the altar, I believe I receive that body and blood which forgives my sins — my individual, particular sins. Jesus, “my body . . . given for YOU; this cup . . . poured out for YOU” (Lk 22.19-20). So I receive the Supper as specific and personal absolution given by Christ personally to me personally.
Maybe that sounds goofy; and maybe it isn’t strictly a “necessary” means of receiving forgiveness. But I guess I’ll take Christ’s forgivness just about every way he’s willing to offer it to me.
This is one Lutheran who wouldn’t advise anyone to become a Lutheran. The Lutheran “churches” are really sruggling within themselves on just what it means (anymore)to be a Lutheran.
Sometimes we try to move heaven and earth to get someone to believe as we do. On theological matters, it’s often best to just throw it out there and let God do the rest…one way or the other.
Personally, my goal is to try and let people know that God has taken this “religious project” upon Himself. That is why He has given us the sacraments…to take this stuff out of our hands. We naturally want to turn all this stuff into a big ‘ME’ project.
I think there is great freedom in handing it all back to God. And isn’t that why He died for us..to make us free?
That’s it for me. Thanks again for letting me play!
- Steve
Is church authority at the heart of this? Sacraments will definitely raise that issue. The word authority is typically linked to power rather than servanthood, and power typically leads to abuse (e.g. temple worshippers being forced to go through the money-changer racket). In light of that, I can see how any talk about sacraments can be linked to thoughts of dependency, oppression, constraint, limitation, or localization. (The reformation was supposed to take grace out of the hands of church leaders and put it soley in the hands of the laity, right?) If I said the opposite is true, that sacraments free rather than restrict, I would understand if you rolled your eyes and muttered, “yeah, right”.
I do believe, speaking from personal experience, that “Jesus Only” can quickly become “Just me and Jesus” pietism, which can be a very lonely place. An ecclesiology which permits a pastor (sinful and broken as he may be) to announce forgiveness and administer sacraments frees me from bondage to self, which is a far more abusive, power-hungry despot.
Also, sacraments are not the only means of grace. I also receive God’s grace anytime I read or hear God’s word. That should aleviate some concern about localization. It is not a choice of one versus the other; it is an invitation to both. The sacraments in my church are presented as “The gifts of God for the people of God”, not obligations. We also practice “close” communion, versus “closed” communion, which is a completely different discussion altogether.
Michael: as you point out, Fr Peter wins the prize for the best summary.
As for Lutherans saying that non-Lutheran celebrations of the Supper are invalid: I can’t think of any Lutherans who would go that far, and they are badly mistaken if they do. (After all, Luther was very clear that the true sacrament of the altar could be found in the Roman Catholic Church, despite the abuses surrounding it.)
There are two possible issues that can come up:
1. Where the Words of Institution are not used: Lutherans would say that this is not the Lord’s Supper, because the essence of the sacrament is Christ’s word to us in the Words of Institution. That’s not to say it can’t be a good and edifying act of remembrance, but the participants can have no assurance that the body and blood of Christ are present in the bread and wine. But then, the participants presumably wouldn’t believe that anyway!
2. Where the Words of Institution are used, but with what we would regards as an incorrect meaning: some would say that means the Supper is invalid. Personally I do not hold to that view, as I think the word of Christ overrules the mistaken intentions and misunderstandings of those who declare that word in the Supper. I do think it is possible for people to “have the experience but miss the meaning”.
Michael,
You write:
“John H and others have been working for a long time to get me over my issues with sacramentalism. I’m a tough case. To me, it goes deep into who God is and what belongs to all of those who belong to Christ. I’ll try to apologize when I misrepresent, but I don’t think any of you are going to be happy with where I am on this or where I will be when the thread runs out.”
I want to add to what I said in my last post. I’m discussing here. From my vantage point we approach the scriptures and God from very radically different positions. I don’t know that I expect you to be Lutheran when the discussion is done, though I certainly hope not Buddhist. But I think discussion is good in that it does challenge our notions, and either strengthens them or changes them. Sometimes we have assumptions that cloud our thinking and the only way to bring those assumptions to light is discussion with others who maybe don’t share our assumptions. but that God gives himself to me in the same body and blood that died on the cross, and rose from the dead, goes to the heart of what I believe about who Christ is, and what he has done for the world.
Just another passing thought as I read through all these very challenging views about union with Christ and the sacraments.
I’m no less convinced by the discussion that when by faith I receive Christ, I also receive through the Holy Spirit “every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Eph. 1:3, NASB). I don’t realize all those blessings at salvation, but I do receive them. There is no “blessing” held back from my union with Christ (being “in Christ”). My walk with Christ from that point on is not one of trying to find and get more blessings than I received at salvation, but rather of understanding and releasing the blessings into my life that are already all there in the person of the Holy Spirit. Sanctification is the means of allowing the spiritual blessings I have already received to find full expression in my life.
So where do the sacraments fit into that picture. Here’s what I’m thinking. “Spiritual blessings” are for the most part subjective. Sacraments objectify for us those blessings so that we can “see” the reality of what is unseen. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are visual sermons that continually objectify and visualize for us the reality of what we can only see with the “eyes of [our] heart” (Eph. 1:18-21). Baptism is a visual sermon of forgiveness, the “spiritual blessing” of the whole drama of salvation. The Lord’s Table is a visual sermon of redemption, the “spiritual bessing” of the whole drama of the atonement.
Do the sacraments add something altogether new that is missing in my spiritual life? In my biblical opinion, no. The act of any sacrament, which is in essence a “work,” does not create a new “spiritual blessing” for me that did not exist before, and that is not already mine “in Christ.” However, it does serve as what I would call a “window of grace.” The sacrament is not a grace in and of itself, but it opens the “eyes of my heart” to the grace of spiritual reality and truth that I do not otherwise see or fully comprehend. The sacraments pull back the curtains that keep me from seeing and receiving the light of the “unseen world.” I can see into the “heavenly realms” (Eph. 1:3) through the windows of baptism and the eucharist in a way that I cannot see without them. The sacraments are divinely-provided windows that allow grace to enter my spirit, sanctify me, and mature me “in Him” so I become more like Christ. The means of grace, for me, are still God’s Word, prayer, and fellowship, but the sacraments act as catalysts and lenses that activate and focus those means of grace.
Sacraments then, in my mind, are less than the “real presence” of Christ, but are more than “memorials” or even the “spiritual presence” of Christ. They are not “means of grace,” but they are real “windows of grace” that “open the eyes of my heart” just as Paul prayed for the Ephesians. They do not create any more union with Christ than I already have, but they reveal and review that union for me so the life of Christ can find more and more expression in my life as I am drawn to be more like Him and less like this world.
(Michael, if you consider this off topic and don’t post, I understand.)
To Rick Frueh,
I’m a bit puzzled about your comment about what the Early Church believed as not being important. They were the ones who learned either from Jesus directly or the apostles.
I’m not talking about the development of doctrine, because we have had more time, and energy to think about, and write about the Trinity. So, of course, we are more sophiscated about it.
But, if you ignore their beliefs, what is keeping you from changing the canon of the New Testament? What is keeping you from rejecting either the humanity of Jesus or His Divinity?
“And to the guy who said I shouldn’t be bothered by a quantifiable, locally appearing God…….***crickets*** If that’s what the New Covenant tells you, then don’t let me disturb you. I’d be a Buddhist tomorrow if I thought that was Christianity.”
Seriously? In my understanding of Christianity, the one God of all Creation came in all his fulness to Earth, incarnated in one quantifiable, locally appearing body.
How is your understanding different from that?
Bror and Brian: Do you guys really believe I am only talking about the physical body of Jesus? Pre-ascension? I’m sure you are aware I am talking about Jesus as mediated by the Holy Spirit.
I mean, if you want to say that Jesus is at your church but not at my church because you have the physical presence and we don’t….ok.
If Father Peter has the right answer can we still play? If so here are my two bits.
Maybe the differences in the our understanding of the sacraments are just differences in our perceptions of what the “Union with Christ” means. We Catholics expect frequent reception of the Eucharist will bring us in greater sanctifying union with Christ, depending on the state of our souls and our trust in Him. I expect that Christ is always within my heart, as long as I avoid grave sin. It is my understanding that another worthy reception of Him in the host and blood is like blowing a glowing ember into flame. He was already there but each new sacrament enlarges the fire.
Further I believe that frequent confession, another sacrament, opens my heart up to receive the Eucharist more worthily (through grace) and more perfectly suppress my own will in favor of his will (again through His gift). We Catholics see our Christian lives as a life long process of ongoing conversion and renewal.
Of course, it doesn’t really matter what I think. When I converted I accepted on faith the dogma of the Church before I understood it in it’s entirety ( not that I think I’ll ever fully understand it all) and if there is ruling dogma on any subject there is ruling dogma on this one. The institution of the Eucharist is considered a mystery in the Catholic Church. Meaning that we only fully understand what He has revealed and do not expect to grasp it all. The doctrine of the Eucharist is crucial because it not only unites ourselves with God but also with our fellow Christians in a literal body of Christ.
Here’s the part that gets in the way. The Church holds that the reception of the Eucharist is the ordinary normative form of union with Christ and that the Eucharist is only valid among Churchs with direct Apostolic succession among other things. Thus any “union with Christ” outside of these Churches is extraordinary and in a form known only to God. I believe this is what the Pope refers to when speaking or writing about “special graces” in other Christian communities.
Michael,
Good at least we are agreed on the incarnation, I hope.
I didn’t say we have him and you don’t. And I don’t believe we Lutherans are the only ones who have a valid sacrament (Though I do believe we have the right understanding of it. And I’m not sure or any other church body going by another name that has it in the same way we do.) Like John H says, Luther was pretty adimant that the Catholics also had it. But he is not so clear on those who deny the Body and Blood is present. Most Lutherans I know think two things of a Church Body that doesn’t confess the Bodily presence. One, they don’t have the body and blood of Jesus in their sacrament. This is partly because we beleive that if they did they would be eating and drinking judgment on themselves for not discerning the body. And two, they might possibly be makeing a mockery of it, unwittingly to be sure, but still dangerouse. I hesitate to go with John H here on the word trumps understanding. Though I understand him here, and have had the same thoughts at times. It is the word of Jesus that makes it the sacrament and not my faith. But I don’t think an actor playing a priest has the sacrament because he says the words. I think there is an aspect that the public confession, and common understanding of the gathered body, may nullify it. In isn’t some magic formula we are talking about here that works despite context. (this is all hazy to me) But when it comes to baptism, we don’t believe Mormon’s have a valid baptism because their concept of the trinity is invalid. I think the same goes on some level for the words of institution. (I’m just trying to be honest with you as to what we believe and why.)
I am trying to digest your words “the Jesus mediated by the Holy Spirit.” One the Holy Spirit too is God and could very well mediate the physical body of Jesus should He want to. All things are possible for God. But in my understanding it is the Holy Spirit that proceeds from the Father and the Son, not the other way around. The Holy Spirit creates faith, But it is Jesus who gives Himself in the Sacrament of the Altar. And it is precisely His ascension, which we celebrate today, that allows him to do this. For in His ascension He reclaimed, in His Body, the full use of His divine powers. Therefore he is present in both his human and divinde natures everywhere. As God is omnipresent, so he, being God, is everywhere.
Michael,
You still haven’t really addressed my question. You know what “access” mediated by the Holy Spirit looks like–it looks like the relationship you have with your wife when she’s in another city and you can only talk with her on the phone. This sort of relationship is, I assume, rather unsatisfying.
So why is it suddenly different when you start talking about Christ. You want more contact with your wife than Christ? Come on.
The difference between the two is that your relationship with your wife is exclusive? Well, yes, but you don’t kiss her because it’s exclusive do you? So I ask again, what would be lacking from your relationship with your wife if it was mediated by the Holy Spirit (as it is) and not by your body? Why is there nothing lacking in your relationship with Christ if it lacks what your relationship with your wife would be lacking if you never touched physically?
That said, no one believes Christ is limited to the Sacrament.
I realize that this is an important topic to many by the impassioned comments on this blog, but the comments are really over the top. I am tired of people who proclaim that my (take your pick) denomination/mode of baptism/communion/union with christ/experience of the holy spirit/version of the bible/understanding of the scriptures/understanding of truth - is better than yours.
If you want to know why young people today are being turned off of organized religion, denominationalism and the church, then just reread some of the comments posted above.
As for me, I cherish my union with Christ, which has been deepened through many different experiences. My table and fellowship is open to all those who have also expressed a union with Christ, no matter what their background.
I know that there is such divergent Christian thought about so many topics that I can’t possibly get it all right. But I can try to earnestly follow Christ with all my “heart, soul, mind, and strength.”
When we get to Heaven someone may point at me and say to Christ, “He believed incorrectly about topic X”. Christ will say something like, “I died for him, and he has chosen to follow me as best as he knows how. He belongs to me. Why did you exclude him from my table/my church’s membership? He is welcome at my table and in my church.”
Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened and I will refresh you. (Matt 11:28) The bread that I will give for the life of the world is My flesh. (John 6:51) Take and eat, this is My body, which is given for you. Do this in memory of Me. (Matt 26:26; 1 Cor 11:24) He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I abide in him. (John 6:56) These words that I have addressed to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63)
A ‘Devout Exhortation to Receive Holy Communion’ that was quoted by Thomas a’ Kempis at the start of Book IV ‘On the Blessed Sacrament’ in his book ‘The Imitation of Christ.’ Sort of says it all I guess.
How are we united with Christ? Just reading Colossians, we discover.
1. “Ye are complete in Him” 2:10a
2. “Ye are circumcised…by the circumcision of Christ.” 2:11
3. “Buried with Him in baptism, ye are risen with Him.” 2:12
4. “And you…hath He quickened with Him…” 2:13b
5. “For ye are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God.” 3:3
6. “When Christ, who is our life,shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory.” 3:4
7. “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly…” 3:16
From baptism through the Second Coming we are in Christ and He in us, according to Paul.
How does this relate to the Lord’s Supper? Can it be neglected without damaging the relationship with Christ?
First of all, communication with Christ is a necessity for a vibrant Christian life. Whether that be through prayer, through teaching, reading, and hearing the Word, through praise, through acts of charity, or through communion, all build up not only the individual, but the body of Christ. It is not an either/or situation, but both/and.
The question is not how we try to explain the mystery of the Lord’s Supper (which is ultimately unexplainable), but whether we obey Christ by participating in it, invite others to share in table fellowship with us and Christ to build up the body.
Christ gives us the same honor he gave His disciples of sharing with Him the Passover meal. If we are united with Him, how can we pass up the opportunity to break bread and commune with Him or exclude others from the same experience?
Michael Bell,
Quite frankly I haven’t heard anyone here say you or anyone else won’t be in heaven, where all sins will beforgiven even sins of the mind.
But that doesn’t mean false doctrine should be tolerated, or doctrinal divisions should be glossed over here in the church militant. God has given us his word. If we love him with all our heart and with all our mind we will take that quite seriously. And those that are teaching things contrary to the word of God should be told as much, warned, marked, rebuked and avoided, it really is the only charitable thing to do. It is infact what the New Testament tells us to do in many places. It may not be nice by worldly standards, it may not be politically correct, it may even come off as unloving. But we don’t get to choose what parts of the Bible to believe, and what parts to ignore.
If I was to take what you said to heart, I would have no choice but set aside my ordination, forsake all my Lutheran distinctives, and swim either the Tiber or the Bosphurous. If doctrine doesn’t matter, than none of us had any reason to break with Rome, or Constantinople for that matter. Nor do we have any reason to split from a creedal Church chanting the mantra “only the Bible.”
I’d much rather be open about our differences and discuss them candidly. No one is served by anything less.
Refocusing on union with Christ:
Michael, I wish more Christians (including me) had your focus on “union with Christ.”
There’s a beautiful 40 year old live oak in my backyard. I hung a cypress swing from it as an anniversary gift to my wife when we moved in 10 years ago. I painstakingly arrange my favorite flowers around it every spring because it is a sacred place for me. I experience the presence of God in creation, and the blessings he has given me every time I see that tree. It always draws me to prayer and union with Christ. But, I would never bow down and worship that tree.
The Eucharist makes me keep his commandment to first love God, and then love my neighbor. When I’m present at mass I don’t feel a special way about God or understand his Word perfectly; but it’s the only time I have a “blessed assurance” that I’m actually doing His will, which is to worship and serve Him. I attribute my ability to do that second part about loving my neighbor (union with His body) to a Real grace I receive from communion. A little part of me dies and is replaced by Him every time; and that is a Real union with Christ to me.
The way figure it, if he could miraculously appear in the womb of a little peasant girl in Nazareth so long ago; who am I to say he can’t appear in the hands of the recovering alcoholic/chain smoking priest at my neighborhood parish?
Bror,
When my pastor retires…do you want the job?
I think you guys are on the same page.
You’d have to move to California and live fairly near the beach.
Sorry, you’ll have to supply your own suntan lotion.
- Steve