What's Your View of the Lord's Supper?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by dr396, Mar 17, 2004.

  1. dr396

    dr396
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    I posted this on the general baptist board, but got no responses. I figured I would try again here.

    I am taking a class right now called "Contemporary Roman Catholic Theology." We are examining RC from the perspective of the post-Vatican II church. We recently got into a discussion about the various views of the Lord's Supper (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Zwinglian) and the class was generally divided between the strict Zwinglian view (completely a memorial) and the Calvinist view (Christ is spiritually present, but we can't know how). I am interested to see what those on the board believe.

    D.R.
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    100% memorial. As in "this do in remembrance" of Me. Not "eat me" like a teen would say today!!
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
  4. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    I lean more toward the Calvinist view. But don't tell anybody.
     
  5. following-Him

    following-Him
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    10,952
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that the celebration of the Lord's Supper is a memorial. However, Jesus also said"where two or three are gathered together, there shall I be also", so in the light of this I understand that when the Lord's Supper is celebrated, and on other occassions of worship also, the Spirit of God is present anyway. As the sacraments are inanimate I do not see how it is necessary for the Spirit to be present in them or what purpose this would achieve.

    Sheila
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    A little more than my "ditto" as I was challanged by a dear friend on the board. ;)

    I do believe that the Lords Table is a memorial of the death of Christ. I don't see any grounds for a supernatural presence, any more than the fact that where two or three gathered together He in our midst.

    I think that the Lord's Table is a local church function and the individual observance of it is up to each individual to partake or abstain.
     
  7. dr396

    dr396
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    A couple of thoughts that were brought up in our discussion.

    1. If the Supper is strictly memorial, why does Paul go into detail in 1 Cor. 10 about how we are partakers in the cup?

    2. If the Supper is strictly memorial, then how do we explain the effect on those who took unworthily in 1 Cor 11.

    3. At one point those in the Zwinglian camp and Calvin's followers came together in agreement over the Supper.

    4. When we say "when two or more are gathered together" we may be taking that out of context, for it is placed within the passage on church discipline.

    DR
     
  8. following-Him

    following-Him
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    10,952
    Likes Received:
    0
    DR,

    I don't know if I can remember all the points you raised in one go, but in point 1 the Corinthians were not waiting for each other but eating with little regard to their fellow Christians, whether they arrived late because they had to work, being slaves or that they were poor and limited in what they could bring, if anything. If you believe that the Lord's Supper has its origins in the Passover then the Passover was a family affair. Jesus, on the night he was betrayed shared this supper with those who were closest to him, his family of disciples. The meal was not only a Passover, but the instigation of the new covenant and also an example for the disciples to follow. Therefore, when Paul was made aware of what was happening within the church he had planted at Corinth he decided that they needed further teaching on how to conduct themselves as Christians, which would not have been easy in the context of the pagan sociey in which they lived.
    Sheila
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Sound points Sheila. 1 Corinthians was IMHO, a detailed teaching on a practise already in place.

    It is a memorial service, but it is a serious memorial. Those who come with undealt with sin make of mockery of what they are supposed to be remembering.
     
  10. dr396

    dr396
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think you understand what I am getting at with those points. If the Supper is simply a memorial, then why does Paul paint it with such spiritual overtones as calling us partakers in Christ in participating and listing spiritual consequences for those who take unworthily. He literally says those who take unworthily eat and drink judgement upon themselves. If it has no spiritual affect upon the person by being a ritual why is Paul so concerned about the spiritual consequences of a merely physical act. This was Calvin's critique of the memorial view that apparently ended up winning over Zwingli's followers.

    D.R.
     
  11. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    I completely agree with you DR. [​IMG] The Lord's Supper is a Memorial supper but is also a real spiritual communion with Christ and by faith we "spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified" (1689 London Baptist Confession). I am reminded how far some Protestants go in avoiding this. One Pastor as he was serving the Lord's Supper reminded his congregation "This is not the Body and Blood of Jesus" :eek: Hmmm....Sounds like he was correcting Jesus doesn't it? Calvin knew the danger of saying it is only a memorial meal.
     
  12. dr396

    dr396
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kiffin,

    Boy Luther would have torn him up for that one. I am tending to lean that way after the discussion. It was interesting that before the class I thought all Baptist held to a strict memorial view and I believe that as best as I could tell over 3/4 of the class held to the Calvinist view along with our professor.

    D.R.
     
  13. Jeffrey H

    Jeffrey H
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    1
    D.R.

    My view of the Lord's Supper is primarily a memorial as a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice and resurrection, and the promise of his second coming. We should take the Supper often as Jesus commanded for our spiritual nourishment. I believe "often" does not mean once every quarter. In my experience with Baptist churches in my area, the Lord's Supper is only observed 4 to 6 times a year and does NOT have a place of priority when we plan our worship services.

    I have a Baptist and Presbyterian background and my view of the Lord's Supper is somewhat colored by my time spent in the Presbyterian church. Like the Baptists, Presbyterians view the Supper as a memorial, but unlike Baptists, they also see it as a "sacrament" in that Christ is spritually present in the elements (Calvin). I have no problem with this view, even though I'm a member of a Baptist church. My view of the Lord's Supper is in agreement with the 1689 London Baptist Confession and Westminister Confession.
     
  14. dr396

    dr396
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree Jeffrey that the infrequency of the Supper in the Baptist church is problematic. I have been encouraged to participate in two Baptist churches recently which engaged in the Supper more often than once a quarter. One church did it once and month and every 5th Sunday (which equals about 15x a year) and the other takes it every week. I wish more Baptist churches saw the need for taking the Supper more often like these two did. Especially if Calvin is right.

    D.R.
     
  15. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a memorial,it is spiritual.We should be right with God when we partake.The Wine or juice and bread are not transubstantiated into the literal blood and body of Christ but are symbolic.The Lord's Supper should be taken only with fellow Christians it is not for unbelievers.This is simplistic but I think you are looking for the short answer.
     
  16. GODzThunder

    GODzThunder
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a requirement for every Christian to partake in the ordinance of communion. The RC Church believes in transubstantiation that is that the bread literally becomes the body of Christ and the blood literally becomes the blood of Christ. This actually is the adaptation of an ancient pagan practice of eating flesh to gain the power of the gods & drinking the blood of your enemies to gain insight & power. Later this was replaced by bread & wine to represent that the gods would manifest themselves through mystical transformation. The RC is notorious for grafting the old empires pagan rituals into christianity when the empire was forced to change.

    The communion is to make us do three things. to reflect upon our sins (those who take communion with unforgiven sin are cursed according to 1 cor 11.) to remember the suffering of our Lord and to focus upon his triumphant return (do this until I come). It is really a time to memoralize and pay respect to our Lord.
     
  17. Caissie

    Caissie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    What was Jesus referring to when he said, "this is my body" (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19)? He was referring to the afikomen.

    The afikomen is the unleavened bread that is the desert part of the Passover supper (Seder). Let us look more closely at the afikomen and how it represented Christ.



    1. It was unleavened.

    Leaven represents sin (Matthew 16:6, 11-12). Christ was sinless, therefore, Christ was unleavened.



    2. The Seder ends with the eating of the afikomen that the father wrapped in linen, hid or buried beneath a cushion at the beginning of the meal. A game was developed where the children would try and steal the afikomen. The father would guard the afikomen closely so it would not be stolen. [The Jewish Festivals; by Hayyim Schauss, pg 75]

    Jesus was wrapped in linen, buried, and his tomb was guarded so his body would not be stolen.



    3. "[The] Moroccan Jews carry away with them from the Seder a piece of the afikomen, the matsoh saved for the end of the meal. They carry it as a safeguard on ocean voyages and throw it into the waters in time of storm, claiming that it has powers to calm the sea." [The Jewish Festivals; by Hayyim Schauss, pg 67]

    4. Some European Jews believed that the afikomen could heal the sick. [Christ in the Passover; by The Friends of Israel, video]

    5. In baking matzah (the bread where the afikomen comes from), the Jews would poke holes in it (so the heat will bake both sides of the bread more evenly) and place it on a grill (this resulted in the brown stripes on the bread as seen in the picture below).

    Jesus was striped and pierced.

    You can see a picture of the afikomen on my website: http://www.biblestuff.freerovin.com/photo2.html


    I think that our tradition that we got from the Catholics called "the Lord's Supper (which came from pagan sun worship mixed with other pagan rituals)" is not the "Lord's Supper" that Jesus meant to keep. But, no one has all their doctrines right. And doing something for Jesus, even when you are wrong, might be better than doing nothing at all. Doing something in Jesus' name, but really doing it for your self, or just because of tradition, I believe will do more harm than good. I know people that think that you have to do it a certain way to please God. In my opinion those are the ones that are not pleasing God. Even if they have their doctrine right.

    [ March 25, 2004, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Caissie ]
     
  18. dr396

    dr396
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    So Caissie in your opinion what is the right way to take the Supper and to view it?
     
  19. Caissie

    Caissie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Lord's Supper was the Passover supper. We should be taking it once a year on the 14th day of Nissan.

    That is my opinion on how Christ wanted it. The Passover supper was all about forecasting Christ's sacrifice on the cross. We should now take it in remembrance of his sacrifice.

    But I would not get mad at my son (if I had one) if I gave him instructions, and he tried his best to complete those instructions, but be misinterpreted me. I would still be happy that he tried his best for me.
     
  20. wopik

    wopik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2002
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    0
    We should take the Supper often as Jesus commanded for our spiritual nourishment.------------


    "Often", doesn't mean one has to do it frequently through out the year. I could say, "As often as you celebrate your birthday" or "as often as you celebrate Thanksgiving".

    Jesus commanded them to observe it - "this do". And why? "In remembrance of me," Jesus said. It was, then, a memorial -- in memory of His death. He instituted it on this tragic night, the very eve of His death.


    At the last Passover supper, Jesus changed the manner of observance of this ordinance (Ex. 12:17,24). No longer do we kill a lamb and eat it, since the Lamb of God has been sacrificed once and for all. Instead, we take the bread and wine as a memorial, looking back to His death.

    The time is once a year, at night, after the sun has set in the beginning of the 14th of Nisan/Abib.

    Jesus set us an example (1 Peter 2:21), observing it at this set time once a year (Luke 2:42).

    Suppose the Israelites in Egypt had observed this ordinance at some other than this set time? They would not have been saved when the death angel passed by that night! God does things on time. He had given us an exact time for this ordinance. Jesus instituted it "when the hour was come."


    I Cor. 11:26, "As often" as we observe it, "you do show the Lord's death till he come. And Jesus commanded, "This do you, as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me" (1 Cor. 11:25).

    We do it in remembrance of the Lord's death - a solemn memorial of His death. Jesus set us an example, that we do continue to remember His death, annually, on the very anniversary of His crucifixion. It is the most solemn and sacred occasion of the year -- especially when observed at this correct spiritual hour.

    [ March 27, 2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: wopik ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...