Ecclesiology > Means of Grace > Sacraments > Lord's Supper

[Josheb]

yes,

Then just sit with that premise for a minute or three (or 1000 ). Something other than the ritual itself is happening. Ther are only a very small few possible ways answers to the question, "What is happening aside from the ritual itself?"

1. Explicit statements found in scripture
2. Rational inferences based on what is stated.
3. Inferences not based on what is stated.
4. Sheer invention of the mind of flesh.

Is there a fifth possibility?

but is that 'something" external or internal, as in the very sacrament when being done is the Lord administering additional effectual gracings or not?

I'm not sure what you mean by "external or internal." The something else that is occurring cannot come from within as if it is a work of sinful flesh. That would inherently and necessarily contradict the premise of "sacred." I might be getting off into the weeds her but, etymologically speaking, the word "sacrament" means a sacred honored mysterious promise exists. That's a mouthful. It is also curricular, imo, unless scripture itself provides an indication (either explicit or necessarily implicit). We can't just call something mysterious because we want to do so or because we cannot (yet) explain something. Doing so would be a work of the mind of flesh.

This particular op is specifically concerned the Supper as a sacrament. Nothing more. This op asks whether or not Reformed sacramentology sharpen should (re-)engage the previously discarded Catholic category, wondering whether the "personal presence" clarifies or confuses the Reformed position. Whatever the answer may be, it's going to be built on a sound definition of sacrament.

Rome would state yes indeed, but I would state no

I do not believe in creation anything apart from God's ordaining but that does not mean I think the RCC is correct. False dichotomies are to be avoided. It seems to me we can reason quite well from the answer to a fairly simple inquiry:

What would be the difference between a group of atheists attempting to perform/enact/go through the motions of the Lord's supper and a group of redeemed and regenerate believers in Jesus as their Lord and Savior? If the differences are only psychological then there's no basis for calling the ritual a sacrament at all - other than some mysterious promise we're making to ourselves in our own minds and attributing the matter to either ourselves or God. In such a case the group of atheists would have more integrity than the group of Christians.

And I am betting that is not what anyone here believes, whether they be RCC or Reformed.

I am also wondering whether you've correctly grasped the Reformed pov on sacraments because Reformed views of the Eucharist do not deny "the Lord administering additional effectual gracings." They simply deny the RCC version of God's "gracings." This is why I asked you if grace is effectual and/or effective. The premise of God extending grace purposelessly is, imo, wholly inconsistent with and contrary to scripture. God does not act without purpose and God never acts and fails. Therefore, if grace of any kind has been provided then there is an effect.

Is the effect salvific (as the RCC asserts), or is the grace merely edifying?

I say the latter, not the former. Are the wafers and thimblefuls changed into Jesus' flesh and blood? No. That would be irrational, wholly inconsistent with Jesus' own words as his hand of flesh held a piece of bread. It would amount to him saying, "my flesh is holding my flesh." I mean no disrespect to any RC siblings, but that's just dumb.

 

[JesusFan]

Then just sit with that premise for a minute or three (or 1000 ). Something other than the ritual itself is happening. Ther are only a very small few possible ways answers to the question, "What is happening aside from the ritual itself?"

1. Explicit statements found in scripture
2. Rational inferences based on what is stated.
3. Inferences not based on what is stated.
4. Sheer invention of the mind of flesh.

Is there a fifth possibility?

I'm not sure what you mean by "external or internal." The something else that is occurring cannot come from within as if it is a work of sinful flesh. That would inherently and necessarily contradict the premise of "sacred." I might be getting off into the weeds her but, etymologically speaking, the word "sacrament" means a sacred honored mysterious promise exists. That's a mouthful. It is also curricular, imo, unless scripture itself provides an indication (either explicit or necessarily implicit). We can't just call something mysterious because we want to do so or because we cannot (yet) explain something. Doing so would be a work of the mind of flesh.

This particular op is specifically concerned the Supper as a sacrament. Nothing more. This op asks whether or not Reformed sacramentology sharpen should (re-)engage the previously discarded Catholic category, wondering whether the "personal presence" clarifies or confuses the Reformed position. Whatever the answer may be, it's going to be built on a sound definition of sacrament.

I do not believe in creation anything apart from God's ordaining but that does not mean I think the RCC is correct. False dichotomies are to be avoided. It seems to me we can reason quite well from the answer to a fairly simple inquiry:

What would be the difference between a group of atheists attempting to perform/enact/go through the motions of the Lord's supper and a group of redeemed and regenerate believers in Jesus as their Lord and Savior? If the differences are only psychological then there's no basis for calling the ritual a sacrament at all - other than some mysterious promise we're making to ourselves in our own minds and attributing the matter to either ourselves or God. In such a case the group of atheists would have more integrity than the group of Christians.

And I am betting that is not what anyone here believes, whether they be RCC or Reformed.

I am also wondering whether you've correctly grasped the Reformed pov on sacraments because Reformed views of the Eucharist do not deny "the Lord administering additional effectual gracings." They simply deny the RCC version of God's "gracings." This is why I asked you if grace is effectual and/or effective. The premise of God extending grace purposelessly is, imo, wholly inconsistent with and contrary to scripture. God does not act without purpose and God never acts and fails. Therefore, if grace of any kind has been provided then there is an effect.

Is the effect salvific (as the RCC asserts), or is the grace merely edifying?

I say the latter, not the former. Are the wafers and thimblefuls changed into Jesus' flesh and blood? No. That would be irrational, wholly inconsistent with Jesus' own words as his hand of flesh held a piece of bread. It would amount to him saying, "my flesh is holding my flesh." I mean no disrespect to any RC siblings, but that's just dumb.

I see the ordinances not giving forth any additional effectual gracing, not being "infused" with more grace as Rome holds with, but also do think 'something" happens when taking Communion or water baptism, but not as in a salvation now happening grace extent as Romes holds with them being

 

[Josheb]

I see the ordinances not giving forth any additional effectual gracing, not being "infused" with more grace as Rome holds with, but also do think 'something" happens when taking Communion or water baptism, but not as in a salvation now happening grace extent as Romes holds with them being

Relevance to the op's specifics?

 

[JesusFan]

Relevance to the op's specifics?

When one partakes of Communion, what exactly would be happening to us?

 

[Josheb]

When one partakes of Communion, what exactly would be happening to us?

What does scripture say happens to a Christian when he partakes of the Lord's supper?

 

[JesusFan]

What does scripture say happens to a Christian when he partakes of the Lord's supper?

It states "something" happens to a Christian, but does not fully define what "that" is

 

[Josheb]

It states "something" happens to a Christian, but does not fully define what "that" is

Given that something happens, and since scripture is not explicit (or definitive), how then are we to determine what that "something" might be?

 

[JesusFan]

Given that something happens, and since scripture is not explicit (or definitive), how then are we to determine what that "something" might be?

Good point, all iI can know for sure they do not operate as Catholic Church see it as being

 

[Josheb]

Good point, all iI can know for sure they do not operate as Catholic Church see it as being

LOL. It is a good point but that's not the response for which I was looking . The answer is we properly exegete what is stated and infer what can rationally be understood. What, for example, can exegetically be inferred from Luke's account of the last supper (ch. 22)? What can exegetically be inferred when we examine Luke 22 and Paul's commentary on that event in 1 Corinthians 11? Alternatively, what can we rationally exclude based on a sound exegesis of those two texts? What, if anything changes when we expand the consultation to include all of scripture (like the fact the last supper was rooted in the Passover)? Whatever the answers may be the point is there is a basis form defining whatever grace exists in any (actual) sacrament.

 

[JesusFan]

LOL. It is a good point but that's not the response for which I was looking . The answer is we properly exegete what is stated and infer what can rationally be understood. What, for example, can exegetically be inferred from Luke's account of the last supper (ch. 22)? What can exegetically be inferred when we examine Luke 22 and Paul's commentary on that event in 1 Corinthians 11? Alternatively, what can we rationally exclude based on a sound exegesis of those two texts? What, if anything changes when we expand the consultation to include all of scripture (like the fact the last supper was rooted in the Passover)? Whatever the answers may be the point is there is a basis form defining whatever grace exists in any (actual) sacrament.

Yes, as that process would be doing proper exegesis for the topic in question, while many seek to impose what they believe it already means unto the scriptures themselves

 

[Josheb]

Yes, as that process would be doing proper exegesis for the topic in question, while many seek to impose what they believe it already means unto the scriptures themselves

So..... what can we exegetically infer are the means of grace in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or the Eucharist?

 

[JesusFan]

So..... what can we exegetically infer are the means of grace in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or the Eucharist?

I would take it as having the spiritual presence of the Lord Jesus with and among us, but not that God is giving to us any additional gracing, as when saved, we already have all spiritual blessings in now the beloved

 

[Josheb]

I would take it as having the spiritual presence of the Lord Jesus with and among us, but not that God is giving to us any additional gracing, as when saved, we already have all spiritual blessings in now the beloved

Okay. So when Paul writes to people who are already saved and states their participation in the Lord's Supper "proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes" we should understand there is no additional grace? There's no additional grace occurring when a Christian proclaims the Lord's death and (implicitly) asserts his return? How about if we couple that statement with what Peter wrote in his second epistle....

2 Peter 1:3-11
3seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. 4For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. 5Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, 6and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, 7and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love. 8For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. 10Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; 11for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

Peter has affirmed the position we already have everything we need, but he yet asserts we must add to our faith a big pile of stuff and never forget we've been washed clean. Should we understand that to be works of the regenerate flesh alone or works of the regenerate flesh and the Spirit of God graciously working within us to will and work God good pleasure (Php. 2:13)? Does the condition of God at work in those already saved, those who already have everything they need to live a godly life and participate in the divine nature apply when participating in the Lord's Supper?

What about the seeming antithesis in Paul's later commentary on the Lord's Supper?

1 Corinthians 11:27-34
27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28But a person must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For the one who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not properly recognize the body. 30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number are asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. 33So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34If anyone is hungry, have him eat at home, so that you do not come together for judgment.

Yikes! I can see why the ceremony was reduced from a large meal to a wafer and thimble! Are we to read this admonition in the context of "do this in remembrance of me" and/or "this is my blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." Is all of the above done solely within the grace already bestowed? Are we simply eating a wafer and sipping a thimble of liquid and remembering Jesus in our own minds or is there some other grace inherent in the ritual - a grace that isn't explicitly stated but might be inferred by the whole of scripture?