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?