With Christ at the Table (Revised)

The sects wrangle about how the Lord is present at his Table -- or if he is.

But, there is only one question to answer:

Is our Lord present to us because we believe, that is, as a result of our faith?  Do we make him present with us?  Inconceivable!

We believe in Christ because he is first present, offering himself to us as the God-man through bread and wine, to be received by faith!

Faith can only receive what is already present and truly offered!

Glory be to God!

The New Commandment (Revised)

This post has been slightly revised for emphasis in the last three paragraphs.

I grew up dispensational, being taught Dispensationalism by Hal Lindsey while he was assistant pastor of Berachah Church, Houston TX, a long time ago, before he wrote books or became famous.

Much later, along about 1982, I think, through hearing teaching and doing some reading, I saw that the Dispensational approach was not in full accord with the Scripture.  But, rather than trying to find a substitute for Dispensationalism, I decided to withdraw from detailed study of eschatology, and simply to hold the "catholic" position that Christ is coming again, bodily, for the Day of Judgment, at which point we will be resurrected bodily to enjoy eternal fellowship with him.  In other words, I gave up direct study of eschatology, and gave my attention to other topics.

This benign neglect of curious detail worked until 2005.

At that point we joined a church with a strongly postmillennial cast, and so I began to hear about this approach first-hand, being immersed in both the doctrine and the practice of the church.  I did not know that this experience was also set to be a lesson in eschatology!

Even now I do not know to what extent the functioning of the internal, mutual ministry of the church is influenced by what appears to me to be the reigning postmillennial eschatological doctrinal position.  So, perhaps this exercise is simply a learning experience for me.  It is certainly the case that Our Lord has decreed that I will now learn some eschatology! 

Now, my main interest is not an abstract investigation of millennial types.  My main interest concerns the effect eschatology has on the spiritual life of the church. 

This investigation, in turn, takes place amidst my personal redemptive-historical theological view which regards the New Testament scriptures to contain the preeminent hermeneutic for interpreting all of Scripture -- both Old Testament and New.  Therefore, all the unfulfilled, and yet to be fulfilled, eschatology of the Old Testament, as well as the New, is interpreted and explicated according to the norms of the New Testament writers.  The New Testament is never transcended throughout the age.  It is not a standard of ecclesiology and Christian ethic suited only for the childhood and youth of the church, but is also supremely suited for her maturity.

Now, the New Testament carries within it themes of triumph, themes of conflict, themes of judgment, themes of love for the world, and themes of separation from the world.  All these themes need to be well-balanced and Scriptural in the life of the church.

Now, we know that the church is both separated from the world and in the world, just as the individual Christians are.  We are in the world but not of the world.  Furthermore, my reigning concern on this topic is that the mutual love shown in the internal fellowship of the church, in separation from the world, is (along with gospel preaching) the visible testimony to the world that Christ has come.

Another way to put this is to say that the redeemed humanity, the visible church, is a new, gospel-preaching and gospel-acting culture, a counter-culture to the world, which testifies in the world and to the world what is the nature of the inner life of the New Humanity, and that this testimony of the true inner life of the New Humanity is the testimony to the world that Christ is the Savior.

Jesus said, in the Upper Room, after Judas had gone out (John 13:31ff):

So, when he [Judas] had gone out, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in Him. If God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and glorify Him immediately. Little children, I shall be with you a little while longer. You will seek Me; and as I said to the Jews, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come,’ so now I say to you. A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

We are probably so used to reading about the New Commandment that we hardly grasp the astounding significance of Jesus saying this:  He's exceeding Moses (not that Moses would ever disagree with what Jesus is saying).  John, of course, was lying back toward Jesus while they were reclining at the Table and marked this saying well.  Even the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers about John's deportment as he was carried to church in a chair in his old age was that he was continually exhorting them to "Love one another."  This is not some kind of mushy, gooshy emotionalism, but John's recollection and re-anouncement of the New Commandment, which he obviously regarded as the real guiding principle of the New Covenant:  In the quote from the gospel given above, "Love one another" is repeated three times!

Therefore, a scriptural eschatology, regardless of the positioning of the "millennium," and regardless of how much the Kingdom of God is fulfilled in this present age, must teach us how to execute the New Commandment!  The Church must know, or come to know, what real Christian love for one another actually is, and must live it in Christian community.

But, there is a problem.  There appears to be no time for the cultivation of deeper Christian friendship and mutual ministry amidst urban busy-ness and the accompanying idolatry-of-good-things.

It may also be so hard to see the need because the upper-middle class church is materially "rich and in need of nothing," even though spiritual poverty is actually widespread (Rev 3:14ff).

Might it also be, to some degree, a defect in eschatology?  Can an eschatology and vision of individual and church "world-engagement" be a detriment to the inner social life of faith, apart from the world?

The Mystery of Christ in You, The Hope of Glory

From Colossians 1:25-28 (The Epistle for July 18, 2010)

Paul writes:

... I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, ...

Now, the whole Word of God is a big subject, but Paul speaks of fully carrying out the preaching of the Word, not with the sense that he must exposit the whole of Scripture to them (though he does this in principle), but that he must finish the process of revealing and expositing the whole Word that had been begun in the Old Testament revelation (before Paul's time) but was only completed in the New Testament time, with its special emphasis on doctrine and experience previously hidden -- the "mysteries."

Picking up the quote, this is seen by the underlined words:

... that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations; but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, ...

Then, Paul continues with a more explicit indication of what this mystery is:

... which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

The teaching of the doctrine of "Christ in you," leads to the experience of it by faith.  It is real, not just an abstract idea.

Paul continues, indicating that "Christ in you," and "You in Christ," are complementary conceptions for the same reality.

And we proclaim Him [Christ], admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in Christ.  

This passage indicates that the revelation of Christ among the Gentiles (not just Jews), bringing Jew and Gentile into a true and real union with Christ, is the surpassing spiritual reality that constitutes what the New Covenant actually is and does.  This intimate union, we in Christ and Christ in us, is the only salvation, and it is what those Old Testament saints waited for, and have finally received, along with us.

This union is our certain hope of glory.

Union with Christ, Baptism and the Lord's Table

It is very interesting to see how Paul's doctrinal exposition in the Epistle to the Romans presents the doctrine of union with Christ in a certain order.

In Chapter 5, we have the presentation of the similarity and distinction of the two racial heads Adam and Christ.  The two are made the heads of their two races, and not much is said about the mechanics of the union.  This is obvious in the case of Adam: physical generation, leading to offspring in his own image.  But, what is the means of union with Christ?  Well, Paul doesn't give details for us in Chapter 5.  We just see that we are represented by Christ, who conveys to us life, rather than the death conveyed to us by Adam.

This direct imputation from Adam to me, or from Christ to me is called "immediate imputation."  Paul teaches the "immediate imputation" of sin (and death through sin) from Adam as head to each member of his posterity, and also teaches the "immediate imputation" of the righteousness of Christ to each one who is in him.

In Chapter 6, Paul then speaks of our deliverance from the realm of law and judgment by describing our union with Christ through baptism.  This union is described as a union with him in his death -- a union which continues from that point on into his resurrection and glorification.  His death is the disconnection for us both from the old age of law and judgment, and is followed by his resurrection and ours into the realm of the New Creation, we being resurrected spiritually in our souls now, and ultimately also in our bodies.  This union with him is a union which is so close that we in Christ are plunged with him into his very death, and then included with him in his very resurrection in righteousness.

Therefore, Paul, in Chapters 5 and 6 of Romans definitely describes our union with Christ, first with him as head (Chapter 5), and then in him by a union sealed by baptism, which disconnects us from the dominion of the law (Chapter 6).

In Chapter 7 of the Epistle, Paul then begins to bring in the Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is the one whose power works in us to recreate us anew in a way that the letter of the law on the bare flesh could not do.  The experiential and practical effects of our union with Christ are mediated to us by the Spirit.  By him, we are made over into the image of Christ, so that Christ is in us, the hope of glory.  Just as the "bloodline" was the basis of our relationship with Adam, so that his sin is imputed to us his posterity, so it is the case that Christ's righteousness is imputed to his "bloodline," his "posterity," which is a creation of the Spirit.  By the Spirit, we grow within that union with him which is described in Ephesians 5 as being bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.  The Word of God received in faith, and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper convey and seal this union to those of faith.  This union is no theological figment or abstract concept, but a reality.  

The "reality" of the "real presence" at the Lord's Table is the reality of this vital and realistic union with Christ -- a union which is fed and grows by the power of the Holy Spirit, through Baptism, Baptism remembered, and the Bread and Cup received in faith.

Real Presence -- Real Fellowship

One of the issues concerning the conduct of the Lord's Supper is whether the elements (bread and cup) should be passed among the people assembled for worship, or whether the people should come forward to receive the elements from the hands of the servers (i.e., directly from Christ's representatives).

Even though the latter position has much historical tradition behind it, I believe that the Scripture indicates that the former way better illustrates important doctrine concerning the real fellowship of the believers with one another in Christ.

Let us examine relevant passages from Paul, in I Cor 11:

1 Corinthians 11:2   Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

At this point, Paul begins to speak about head-coverings -- a subject we will not discuss in this post.  After discussing head-coverings, Paul makes the following comment:

1 Corinthians 11:17-18   17 ¶ Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse.  18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.

When Paul speaks of "giving these instructions," he is just finished with his discussion of head-coverings (as one of the "traditions" he has taught them).  So, it appears that he continues discussing these important traditions by taking up the question of conduct at the Lord's Supper.

It is clear that his first concern is that there are divisions at the Supper.  Our rationalistic minds are apt to wonder what the divisions were about, and whether or not they were justified.  We have a lot of curiosity here, and also feel that we're justified in "knowing."  But, the point of what Paul is saying is that they are morally unjustified in having those divisions.  Now, it's true that Paul himself discusses proper doctrine in many places, and sometimes makes comments which indicate his willingness to sever fellowship over certain issues.  But, here, in teaching on the "tradition" of the conduct of the Supper, he forbids divisions.

Paul's concern to avoid divisions reveals a very important doctrinal aspect of the Supper: the fellowship of the believers in Christ.

Now, attention can focus on a lot of important aspects of the Supper:  "real presence," the "words of institution," the nature of the Eucharistic Prayer, who has the right to administer the Supper, whether the Supper can be carried away from the gathered church to be administered to the sick, etc., etc.  But, the opportunity to investigate the deep and marvelous lore of all these questions -- valuable as it is -- can take attention away from a profound observation:  We are in this together.  Yes, our connection to the Head of the Body is vital.  But our connection to one another in the Body is also vital and often neglected when talking theology.  This post wants to pay attention to that neglected element.

We may cast our investigation, then, in terms of this question:  What are the implications of the Communion we have with one another in Christ for the conduct of the Supper?

Paul continues:

1 Corinthians 11:20-22   20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper.  21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk.  22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

The point here is that the fellowship of the church cannot be disrespected in the conduct of the Supper.  This is vital.  It is for this reason that the apostle disapproves of their meeting, and even says that "it is not the Lord's Supper"!  Clearly, it can only be the "Lord's Supper" when the fellowship of the church is respected.  There is decidedly little "individualism" present in these comments.  Because of the broken fellowship in the church (evidently on a fairly grand scale), Paul can say that the meeting is "not the Lord's Supper" for any of them (not just the unspiritual ones).

Paul continues in vss 23-26 detailing the ordo of the Supper.  Then, in vss 27-32 he details the need for self-judgment, and the discipline of the Lord, and finally he picks up the same thread of thought that he began this discussion with:

1 Corinthians 11:33 - 12:1   33 ¶ Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.  34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come. 

This passage -- which picks up the initial thread of exhortation, namely, the thread of fellowship within the church body -- must set the tone for all that comes in between.  That is, the ordo of the ceremony, the necessity for self-judgment, and the application of the Lord's discipline to those who insufficiently repent are all understood in the context of the fellowship of the church.

Concerning the ordo, it is said:

1 Corinthians 11:23-24   23 ¶ For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;  24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

Just as the Lord "took" bread, so we "take" it, too.  And, our "taking" and "eating" is given as command to "us" (in the plural).  In other words, the Lord does not give the bread to "you" singular -- that is, to each one of us individually, but he gives it to "you" plural -- that is, to all of us -- the Body.  He makes the fellowship and spiritual priesthood of the Body to be involved in mediating the serving of the bread and cup.

As a consequence of these observations, I suggest that the dominical instructions that Our Lord gave when instituting the Supper (which are repeated by the apostle) indicate that giving the elements ultimately into the hands of the Body for distribution to the Body is most in harmony with the theology of the ceremony and the meaning of Christian fellowship in the meeting.

Real Word and Sacrament

We are accustomed to think that Word and Sacrament convey information, primarily, and that the information conveyed serves to strengthen our faith and to strengthen our union with Christ.  So, when we hear the gospel preached, we think of ourselves receiving the information in the spirit of faith, and therefore we are edified by it.  Likewise for the sacraments.  The Lord's Supper conveys information, by words, by sight, and by taste.  This information is received in a spirit of faith, and therefore, we are edified by the Spirit through faith.  This is true, as far as it goes.  But, consider the raising of Lazarus:

Lazarus, though dead, heard the words, "Lazarus, come forth."  And, hearing the words, he was raised from the dead.  This certainly involves the communication of information, but the primary power is the power of the Word of God to create reality.  So it is in the church.

Men who hear the gospel are raised from spiritual death and come to spiritual life in Christ, and not simply by the conveyance of information!  Being dead, they nevertheless receive Christ "by ear."  And, having received Christ, they continue to receive him afresh by the ministry of Word and Sacrament in the Gospel.  Our receiving is not merely the receiving of information.  It is also the receiving of Christ himself.

When we hear the word to our spiritual edification, we are receiving Christ by ear -- by actual participation.  When we are baptized, we are also receiving Christ by water -- by actual participation.  When we receive the Supper to our spiritual edification, we are also receiving Christ by mouth -- by actual participation.  (This has nothing to do with "consubstantiation.")

One writer from the 19th century gives an example:  A blind person who receives the gospel by applying his lips to the feel of the letters on the paper, receives Christ "by mouth," because it was by mouth that he understood it. 

So it is when we receive the Supper.

The Secret Work of God Saving Souls

It's worth a deeper and broader investigation of the Scriptural data concerning God's secret work when converting souls to himself.  Here are a couple of questions for your consideration.

Does regeneration come first?

Those of us of "Calvinist" persuasion (a recent name for an understanding of Scripture that goes back through Aquinas and Augustine to the Apostles and Our Lord) sometimes speak of the "antecedent" work of the Spirit in preparing souls to receive the gospel.  Sometimes some of us (or even some of our confessional material?) speak of this "antecedent" work as "regeneration," meaning the spiritual bringing to life of the soul in such a way that it can be attracted to and receive the gospel.

It turns out that in Reformed academic theological circles that conceptions of the workings of the ordo salutis which involve events in sequence of time are held in serious question.  A brief consideration will show that there are still grounds for investigating the ordo to try to determine a more Scriptural statement of it.

Consider this:  Rom 4 clearly states that God justifies the ungodly.  But regenerate people, though sinners, are not "the ungodly."  Therefore, if God regenerates a man so that he may receive the gospel, then that man is made righteous enough to receive the gospel (by regeneration in the inner man) before he hears and exercises faith.  So, he's born again before he's justified.  But, the gospel isn't for saving those already born again.  The gospel is to bear them again itself.

In my opinion, therefore, it is better to say that the Spirit, when implementing union with Christ in a person's heart, simultaneously inhabits him, gives him new birth including faith (the first feeling of life), and brings him into union with Christ in "one fell swoop."  This view also tends to keep a realistic closeness between the preaching of an "efficacious" gospel and the fruits of it (conversion of hearers).

There have been times in the Reformed camp when regeneration and conversion have been envisioned as being separated by a considerable distance in time for some hearers.  This tends to separate the converting work of the Spirit from the administration of the gospel "sacrament," thus turning the "sacrament" of the gospel into an opportunity to show allegiance to Christ (unwitting Zwinglianism) rather than seeing that the "sacrament" of the gospel is a converting ordinance in itself.

When Christ is preached, and sinners are exhorted to believe, then some of them who hear do immediately obey, rising from spiritual death, just as Lazarus rose from physical death as an analogy.  Christ did not awaken Lazarus so that he could hear the words calling him out of the tomb.  Christ's call to come out of the tomb woke Lazarus from the dead!

Is the Gospel Offer well-meant to the non-elect?

Also consider this:  If the secret work of the Spirit in preparing souls for Christ were not a mystery, then one could say that the gospel offer to sinners was not sincere or well-meant on God's part, when it was addressed to the non-elect.  However, it's a trivial argument from Scripture to prove that God often offers a well-meant gospel to people who reject it.  Christ wept over Jerusalem.  In fact, unless a sinner sees the offer as well-meant, he cannot be saved.  He must accept it as well-meant.

Therefore, we must dig deeper.

All gospel offers from God are well-meant.  The particular, secret work of the Spirit on the elect is to make them willing.  To say just blatantly that God does not desire the spiritual rebirth of certain sinners who hear the gospel opens many questions.  A sinner must then say to himself, "I hear this gospel offer, but do I have grounds for accepting it?  Perhaps it is not meant for me."  This conundrum has been a real problem in certain epochs of Reformed history.  But, this will never do.  The first question a sinner asks when he hears the gospel must not be, "Is this for me?"

It is for him.

We know that it is at God's sovereign ordination and agency that the man believes.  But, how it works is a mystery.

The "extra Calvinisticum" and "real presence"

I've been reading some Reformed theological papers and books recently which speak of the extra Calvinisticum.  This descriptive tag is not ancient, but the doctrinal material connected with it is.  Recently, during the Reformation, that doctrinal material was discussed again in polemics between the Reformed and the Lutherans over the nature of the "real presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper.

I first learned the meaning of all this from reading Lutheran theology, in its polemic against the Reformed -- a polemic, by the way, that every serious Reformed theologue should read.  The Lutherans were the ones to invent the "new" term extra Calvinisticum.  They use this term to find fault with the Reformed doctrine of the Incarnation.  The claim is that the Second Person of the Trinity is incarnate in the human nature that was born and walked among us, died, and was buried, raised, ascended and now sits on the throne of heaven, BUT that (physically) outside that humanity, the Second Person of the Trinity is not incarnate, but pure God.  This "outside the incarnate human nature" of the deity of the Second Person is called by the confessional Lutherans the 'extra Calvinisticum.'  It's worth further study and contemplation, to assess the validity of this claim.

But, the Reformed have taken up the term extra Calvinisticum in many cases, and use it for their own purposes.  Generally speaking, the few Reformed references that I've read which explicitly refer to this term use the extra, which they believe in in their own way, to mean that the Second Person of the Trinity is not limited in his deity in any way to the 5 foot form of the man Jesus Christ who is sitting on the throne of heaven.

Of course, these two approaches reveal a different definition of the extra.  The Lutherans claim that the (bad) extra limits the incarnation to the physical body of Christ (including his invisible parts: soul), such that the omnipresent Person of the Son isn't a man.  The Reformed claim that the (good) extra doesn't limit the deity to that 5 feet.  Note that these comments made by the few Reformed that I've inventoried for this are making a false claim about Lutheranism, since Lutheranism does not limit the deity of the Son to the human body of Christ.  Just the opposite: They do not limit the humanity of the Second Person to that 5 foot figure on the throne of heaven.

All this bears further study, and goes back to the controversy between the Cyrillian (Alexandrian) Christology and the Antiochian Christology.

Before getting into this too deeply, it's worth pointing out that the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) proposed to describe the coming together of the human and divine natures in such a way that they each remained true to themselves, and yet worked together absolutely harmoniously.  So, it was right to say that there were two natures.  The Incarnate Christ was God.  The Incarnate Christ was a man.  However, it was wrong to say that the Person of the God-Man was a double person.  The right thing to say was that he was a single Person -- in fact, the same Person that he always was eternally -- but that he "took on" human nature, including not only the body of a man but his soul, too, and all other invisible attributes.  In result, the Second Person of the Trinity remained fully God and simultaneously became fully a Man, and yet remained a single Person.

Now back to the subject.

The Antiochian Christology has the desire to preserve the full manhood, as well as the full deity of Christ -- a worthy and serious goal of the ancient church, and one for which we can give thanks to God, that by this our religion has remained Christian.  However, this can be taken to an extreme, so that the two natures in Christ (human and divine) barely touch.  There is even a heretical version of this, called Nestorianism, in which the union of the human and divine natures in Christ is the union of the Second Person of the Trinity and one Mr. Jesus, to graphically explain it.  This violates the unity of the Person.

In the other direction from the Antiochian Christology is the Alexandrian (Cyrillian) Christology.  The emphasis of this approach is on the thoroughness of the coming-together of the natures in the single Person -- the Second Person of the Trinity -- God the Son.  The emphasis here is intended to prevent the God-Man from being considered as being in any sense two persons which don't entirely think the same way.  There is also a heretical extreme for this.  So-called "Eutychianism" sees the unity of the Person devour the distinction between the natures, so that the humanity effectively goes away, and some composite nature appears in its place.

Therefore, we can see that one side is concerned to keep the natures distinct, not mixed, but not separated from each other either, whereas the other side is concerned that the Second Person of the Trinity be seen as truly the Person of the God-Man in all times and places.  It is this ancient controversy, which has caused fights between orthodox churches for up to 1500 years, which in some similar sense, rears its head again in the controversy between the Lutheran and the Reformed over "real presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper.  For the Lutherans, Christ in his sacrificed body and blood is spiritually ("real"-ly) received during the physical practice of the Sacrament, because the God-Man, being everywhere a man, can make himself spiritually received by faith, in both natures, even at the Table.  For the Reformed, Christ in his sacrificed human nature is not received literally at the Table, but spiritually by faith only.  The activities at the Table are symbolic of what transpires in the spiritual realm.

In my opinion, the ecclesiastical difficulty with this is that our Lutheran and Reformed Confessions force us to take sides on some things not yet well understood in the "catholic" theology.  We each presume ourselves "hyper-catholic" on this issue, and as a consequence introduce schism.

Perhaps more later, as thought develops.

Schism in Reformation

(In order to understand this post, you need to know that the theological category called Ecclesiology includes not only church government, but all the spiritual doctrines concerning the efficacy of Word and Sacraments).

Please pardon the rambling nature of this post.  I just wanted to say this as an expression of concern.

The Reformation began with Luther and Lutheranism, then, simultaneously to slightly later, the Reformed and Anabaptist movements began.

The Reformed movement became Puritanism and the "Second Reformation," the latter term often used among the Dutch.

The Baptists arose, influenced somewhat from Anabaptism, but mainly from Continental Arminianism (General Baptists) or from English Calvinism (Particular Baptists).

Then came the Great Awakenings and Evangelical Revival.

It seems to me that all these stages form a sort of sequence, such that those from later stages, more or less in the sequence that I've enumerated them here, regard themselves as more thoroughly and Biblically reformed than the stages that have gone before.  Of course, there are still those whose convictions place them in "older" stages, but they can't help being influenced by the later stages either.

As I write this blog entry to my friends who are Calvinistic Baptist, Calvinistic Bible Church, and "Evangelical" Presbyterian in habit and conviction, I would like to suggest the following points to help sort things out:

1)  The modern publishing movement for Puritan and Calvinistic literature (and the kind of Lutheran literature read by us) still tends to play down the ecclesiological questions that loomed large in those older generations.  This is in harmony with the spirit of our evangelical and revivalistic age which plays down ecclesiology.

An example of the consequence of this is the ecclesiological history of Dallas Theological Seminary.  That DTS was, and in some ways still recognizably is, a Presbyterian institution would be surprising and shocking to many of its graduates and those influenced by them.  Lewis Sperry Chafer was a Congregational and Presbyterian minister.  He intended to found the seminary along with Griffith Thomas, an Anglican.  Rev. Thomas died before the seminary was in operation.  However, I presume that the seminary was founded to prepare ministers of the word of all denominations in Dispensationalism and the "literal hermeneutic," and thus the heavy -- and wonderful -- emphasis on the original languages of Scripture.  One consequence of this, whether intentional or not, was to downplay ecclesiological distinctives, possibly in order to teach students from all denominations the new ways.  This was also in harmony with the spirit of the evangelicalism of that age.  But, the consequence of downplaying ecclesiology was the conversion of the seminary, sacramentally, into a "baptist" institution -- a consequence probably not envisioned by her founders, and a consequence certainly not in harmony with their original Presbyterianism and Anglicanism.  During the year that I studied there, I remember that I was amazed that the student insurance company was Presbyterian Ministers Fund, and also that one of my fellow students was a Lutheran.  How incongruous, I thought, even way back in '67-8.  The consequence was that DTS created its own "denomination," which was probably NOT the purpose of her founders.

2.  The decline of ecclesiology under the evangelical and revivalistic spirit of the late 19th and 20th centuries was actually the replacement of older ecclesiologies with a new one that might be described as "zwinglian," because of its deemphasis on church membership, corporate worship and especially the sacraments as means of grace (and a parallel development of parachurch ministries as specialized ministries of grace).  As a result, the older Reformation ecclesiologies are not understood by most "evangelicals" today, and many Reformational doctrines, particularly on the sacraments, are regarded nowadays as remnants of Roman Catholicism.  It probably comes as a shock to many that the word "evangelical" originally referred to Lutheranism -- baptismal regeneration and all!  Some Reformed sentiments at the Westminster Assembly weren't far behind, though the final doctrinal statement from that Assembly made the efficacy of baptism come to apply not necessarily at the moment of administration, but potentially later in life (for those who turn out to have been unconverted at the time of administration.)

In any case, this shows the cleavage between the today's doctrinal stance and that of the Reformation.  We only imagine that we are in harmony with the Reformers on ecclesiology.  Generally speaking, in our day we are not.  The illusion of harmony is maintained by omitting ecclesiology from the world of discourse.  The consequence of this is a "zwinglian" ecclesiology that has no conception of the ecclesiology of Lutheran and Reformed origins.  Among those who are self-consciously "reformed" in our day, people think that Reformed Theology is "evangelicalism" plus the Five Points of Calvinism.

3.  One consequence of the "evangelical" and revivalistic spirit today is the replacement of the doctrine of the gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ alone with the experience of conversion.  This is something the Reformers would never do.  They had their experiences, but they never made the replacement I speak of.  Experiences are subjective, personal, and often unreliable.  My conversion experience, though real, is for me.  My doctrine -- provided it is the doctrine of Scripture -- is for you.  The result nowadays is that sudden outward conversion is regarded as the norm, rather than quiet inward conversion sitting in the pew under the steady Gospel ministry of Word and Sacrament.

4.  There is a revival of the old ways.  It began in the 20th century, but not among "fundamentalists," even though this revival may be practiced perfectly compatibly with the high doctrine of Scripture and the doctrine of justification by faith alone which is held to by all fundamentalists and real evangelicals.  As the ecclesiological revival feels its way along, it takes more and more "flak" from other evangelicals.  Nothing has been stranger in this experiment than to be disfellowshipped by old evangelical friends over this movement back to Reformational (and early church) origins.  Whereas in the old days there was a necessary schism carried out over the doctrine of justification, and whereas there was a questionable schism carried out between the Lutherans and Calvinists over nature of the "real presence" in the Lord's Supper, it now appears that the fundamental active schism outside Romanism is over the "high" vs. the "low" ecclesiology.  The fight between the Lutherans and the Reformed has never been resolved, and the "Reformed" have reformed themselves so far away from Reformational ecclesiology that it is not recognizable to them any more.

5.  My guess is that the cleavage between the "zwinglians" and those of that more traditional ecclesiology being revived from Scripture will continue, and possibly in some ways harden, if attitudes do not change.  Perhaps we will just accumulate a new set of Christian friends, and life will go on.  I do not know what the future holds.

Sacraments and Faith

Participation in a sacrament is analogous to participating in the gospel.  The gospel brings union with Christ the Savior, through faith, a spiritually receptive capacity which is the gift of God and given through the Holy Spirit.  Baptism brings union with Christ, through faith.  The Eucharist brings union with Christ, through faith.

But faith is not faith in faith.  Faith is not a looking inward, so that I may analyze my heart state, and thereby be able to discern the presence of faith.  Faith is looking outward at Christ, at the objective truth of God's grace, and receiving it.

Faith is receiving the Words of the Gospel.  Faith is receiving Baptism as union with Christ.  Faith is receiving the Bread and Cup as the Body and Blood of Christ.  We know we are Christians because we receive the Words of the Gospel (not because we look inward and see that we have faith).  We know we are Christians because we have received the "washing of regeneration."  We know we are Christians because we have received the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

If the sacraments and the Word of the Gospel are only validated by some inward "faith" that we have to look inward to be sure about, then our assurance of salvation, our assurance of Baptism, our assurance of participation in the Eucharist in a meaningful manner is all contingent on how well we are doing in our faith.  Poor faith means poor participation.  Perhaps we don't benefit spiritually.

But, if the sacraments and the Word of the Gospel are external objective realities that we can receive, then we can know we are Christians when we look outside ourselves and receive these things.

This is why it is so vital that we see that the Word of the Gospel is objective and objectively powerful to save, and receive that.  This is why Baptism is objectively powerful to save, and we receive that.  This is why the Eucharist, and its sharing in Christ, is so objectively true and powerful to save, and we receive that.

This is why we must not only believe (receive) the Gospel, but also believe (receive) the sacraments as objective manifestations of the grace of God.

I, a believer in Christ, have received the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, because I ate in faith, and tasted the bread and the wine.

The Anti-Lutheran Polemic of Westminster

WCF 29:7  Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,(1) do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then,

not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine;

yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance,  

as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.(2)

(1) 1 Cor. 11:28
(2) 1 Cor. 10:16

This paragraph is based on the confessional Lutheran description of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist as being "in, with and under" the bread and wine.  The Westminster Assembly is saying that this means a corporal or carnal presence.  Most Reformed folks, then and now, say that this Lutheran description "in, with and under" means consubstantiation, or a physical union of the bread and Christ's body, or the wine and Christ's blood.

However, expert testimony from both Lutheran and Reformed sources indicates that this is clearly not correct, and in fact can only be construed as common though false imputation of the Reformed, who ought to know better.  The historic and continuing purpose of the Lutheran description of the presence of Christ's body as being "in, with and under" the bread is to teach against transubstantiation and consubstantiation.  In other words, confessional Lutheranism does not teach that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, nor that the bread and wine become partly the body and blood of Christ, and yet they continue to teach that the body and blood of Christ are present "in, with and under" the bread and wine.

Furthermore, the Lutheran notion of the presence of the body and blood is described by them as spiritual, not carnal.

Since the Reformed also use the word "spiritual" to describe the Reformed notion of "real presence," the meanings of the two uses of the word "spiritual" must be distinguished.

The confessional Lutherans believe that by means of the divine power of the Person of the Incarnate Son, he makes himself spiritually present in the Eucharist as the whole Christ in both his natures (since they cannot be separated), even though the body and blood are not present carnally in the Eucharist.  In fact, his body remains seated all the while on the throne of heaven.  In this view, the body and blood of Christ are spiritually present, not carnally present, in connection with the use of the bread and wine, whether the recipient receives them savingly by faith or not.

The high (Calvinian) confessional Reformed generally seem to mean that Christ is present to believers only, in both his natures, by the mediation of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and that the Lord's presence with them does not occur directly in connection with the handling of the bread and cup as instruments.  In other words, there is (only) a parallelism between the handling of the bread and cup by the believer and the work of the Holy Spirit to communicate to the believer the fruits of his union with Christ.  This seems to be the clear teaching of the article from the WCF quoted above.  This is also the implication of the Heidelberg Catechism.

These are different conceptions and uses of the word "spiritual."

As you study this subject (for 5 years or more) you'll begin to see

1) Why the Calvinists say that our argument with the Lutherans is a technicality about the mode of the presence (though, at the same time, the Calvinists will still zealously object to the special Lutheran "presence" "in, with and under" the bread and wine.)  And,

2)  Why the Lutherans try to say that we don't have a "real presence" at all.

Actually, we all have the "real presence," even the Zwinglians.  The only questions have to do with whether it is admitted and how it is described.

The answer depends on discerning the proper way to interpret passages like these:

1 Cor 10:16-17   16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?  17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

1 Corinthians 11:23-29  23 ¶ For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;  24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."  25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."  26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.  27 ¶ Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

"Bread Worship"

The mystical union between our human natures and Christ's human nature is a real union transcending the apparent distance between us.  So, in the Supper, he can be objectively present for us, as we receive him by faith.  But, if he is there, what kind of respect do we show the bread and cup?

Calvin and Melanchthon shared an opposition to what Melanchthon privately called "bread-worship" in letters between them.  One of the reasons for the Reformed opposition to too much "real presence" down on earth at the Eucharist was that it was the basis for the "overly-respectful" treatment of the bread and cup in high Lutheran worship, which, in turn, was too reminiscent to them of the worship that was paid to the bread and cup in Romanism.

But, rather than denying "real presence" on earth during the Eucharist, would it not be more reasonable to observe that the mystical union that we have with Christ, so that Christ is in each of us, does not oblige us to worship each other even though Christ is present there?  The Corinthian church would hardly have needed the exhortation to "discern the Lord's body" when taking the bread if those elements were being "worshiped."  Clearly they were not.

The bread and cup are instruments of Christ's real presence, but are not Christ in themselves, and thus are not worshiped in any fashion.

How is Christ Present in the Eucharist?

There is a historic, nearly 500 year old schism between the Magisterial Reformationalists -- the confessional Lutherans and the (non-Zwinglian) confessional Reformed -- over the nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist:

1)  The Reformed say that we two agree that Christ is present in his body and blood, but we seriously disagree on how he is present -- that is, on the 'mode' of his presence.

2)  The Lutherans say that we two really don't agree that Christ is actually present in his body and blood.  The Reformed are self-deceived in their own words.

The test question put by the Lutherans is this:  Do non-believers who come to the Lord's Table receive the body and blood of Christ?  Of course they don't mean, do the non-believers receive it savingly.  They don't.  But, the Lutherans believe that the answer to this question is "yes," because the body and blood are objectively present -- and received unto judgment by non-believers.  The Lutherans also believe that our Reformed theological and philosophical principles require us to say "no" to the test question.  The body and blood of Christ are not and cannot be present in the Eucharist to non-believers, since Christ in his human nature is not omnipresent, and the body and blood are in heaven.

Calvin is especially singled out by the Lutherans because his doctrine of the Lord's Supper is so "Lutheran" to begin with.  His view of the "real presence" is therefore regarded as particularly dangerous by the confessional Lutherans, because he could deceive Lutherans into subtly beginning to accept Reformed views not only of "real presence" but of other things just as vital.

But, the mystical union between me and Christ in our common human nature is a fact.  Christ's humanity and mine are joined intimately, and not just by some principle of "spiritual action at a distance."  Christ is in me, my hope of glory.  Christ said to Saul on the Damascus Road: "Why do you persecute me."

If Christ as a man is in me, and I am in him as a man, then there is no problem with Christ in his sacrificed body and blood being with me in the Eucharist.  This is what the mystical union is all about.

And, just as the offer of Christ in the gospel is just as real to a non-believer as it is to me -- though it may be rejected by a non-believer; so, the offer Christ in his body and blood in the Supper is just as real, whether the recipient is a believer or not.  But, only believers receive the offer savingly.

Union with Christ

In Adam we all die.  In Christ we all live.  As we have had both a real and a covenant union with Adam, so we must have a real and covenant union with Christ.  We ought not to think that our relationship to Christ is any less strong, sturdy and real than was our relationship to Adam.  And, the reality is also physical, because we rise from the dead "like him, for we shall see him as he is."

The "mystical union" between Christ and his church is likened to the union between man and wife.  Just as Adam bore Eve through his sleep in the Garden, so Christ bore his church in his own sleep in a Garden.  And, having borne us through death, in his own body, he is now our husband, triumphant in resurrection.  We are in him, and he is in us, forever.

It is to this union that Baptism and the Lord's Supper speak, each in its own way.  We are one with Christ in cleansing, and we are one with Christ in spiritual sustenance.

Consider the Lord's Table:

NKJ 1 Cor 10:16-17  The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?  17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

The reality of our union with Christ and with each other, as experienced and refreshed in the Eucharist, cannot be overstated.  It communicates by faith a true and real union with Him through his sacrificed body and shed blood, a union which looks forward to that communion meal which is the marriage supper of the Lamb.

So we are refreshed not only by words and actions which strengthen our faith, but by words and actions through which Christ the Savior actually comes to us to feed and strengthen our union with him through his sacrificed body and blood.

We are warned not to eat and drink in an unworthy manner, not discerning the Lord's body. But this warning is not given to turn the Eucharist into a disciplinary act.  Just the opposite.  This warning is given as a principle to the unruly:  Come to your senses and do not miss the joy of feeding on Christ!

Glory be to God!