Thanks to Marc Lloyd for this one.
Doug Wilson is very helpful in articulating with clarity a Calvinist view of the Lord's Supper.
In a nutshell: Are the bread and wine that we share just bread and wine? His answer is: Yes... In the same sense in which the words on the page of the Bible are just words on a page.
The comments beneath his post are as worth reading as the post itself, because they clarify precisely what he is and is not saying.
Blog Category:
Comments
I noticed in Chapel this morning that the words in common worship ask the Holy Spirit to annoint us (or something to that effect) so the bread and wine will be Christ to us. Isn't that the important distinction that it is us not the elements that God is concerned with in the communion service.
On a seperate point, thanks for the tip off about Enns on Exodus picked up my copy on Tuesday
I wonder if it is as straight forward as the fact that it is a community meal and all that eating together means. It shows a poor regard for the body of Christ to eat in an unworthy manner. The bread and wine represent his body and blood -but...his body is the church -and it is the church gathered that are attacked by one who pretends or treats lightly this fellowship meal.
The whole point seems to be not that there is something spooky about the supper but that in their divisions and their selfishness they dispised other Christians.
As for baptism -it seems again a lot more straight forward now you've pointed out how people regarded it. Baptism in our culture is something fairly meaningless in terms of what other peopel outside the church means and so we create something mystical but try telling a Muslim that the water is only water. It isn't only water it is his death sentance. And what about early Christians -Christian baptism wasn't a social occassion that you took lightly. So if you turned up and stood in the water then the people who witnessed it were entitled to believe that you were for real.
I'm not sure it's that straight forward.
At one level - yes, that is precisely the distinction to maintain. We need to say that:- if we are to say that the "substance" of the bread and wine do not change.
But... I don't know how far Wilson would want to push his "words on page" analogy. Is it only a change in our perception that turns the words on the page of a Bible into more than just "words on the page"? No. They are more than that - the question is whether our perception is in touch with reality.
Are the waters of baptism more than just water? Yes they are - to the one who receives them by faith, great blessing is brought by that water.
So are those waters only "more than water" to those who receive by faith. No. Those who are baptised are treated by the NT as believers; if they subsequently fall away they are treated as worse than an unbeliever. In other words, the waters are waters of drowning, bringing greater curse as opposed to greater blessing.
So are the bread and wine only "more than bread and wine" to those who receive by faith. A hesitant No. (Someone help me out here!) The one who eats and drinks without recognising the body will be judged by God. (However sickness relates to that, and whatever "body" refers to).
How to synthesise this I'm not quite sure. God doesn't change the bread and wine into anything substantially more. But the Lord's Supper is a family meal, partaking in which is an objective reality. Eating in faith brings objective blessing. Eating in false faith brings objective cursing. I'm hoping someone can point me to how that is so, without resorting to trans-sub or con-sub.
Add new comment