Article: Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper by Keith Mathison – original source: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/calvins-doctrine-lords-supper

John Calvin is widely considered to be one of the greatest theologians of the Reformation era. Many associate his name with doctrines such as the sovereignty of God, election, and predestination, but fewer are aware that he wrote extensively on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. The topic occupied many of his sermons, tracts, and theological treatises throughout his career. Calvin’s emphasis was not unusual. Among the many doctrines debated during the Reformation, the Lord’s Supper was discussed more than any other.

By the time Calvin became a prominent voice in the late 1530s, the Reformers had been debating the Lord’s Supper with Roman Catholics and with each other for years. In order to understand Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, it is necessary to understand the views he opposed. Throughout the later Middle Ages and up until the sixteenth century, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass was the received view in the Western church. Two aspects of the Roman Catholic doctrine require comment: Rome’s view of the Eucharistic presence and Rome’s view of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

According to Rome, Christ’s presence in the sacrament is to be explained in terms of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The doctrine of transubstantiation asserts that when the priest says the words of consecration, the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. The accidens (that is, the incidental properties) of the bread and wine remain the same. Rome also teaches that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice; in fact, the same sacrifice Christ offered on the cross. The Eucharistic sacrifice is offered for the sins of the living and the dead.

The Reformers were united in their rejection of both aspects of Rome’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. They rejected transubstantiation, and they rejected the idea that the Lord’s Supper is a propitiatory sacrifice. In his book The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), Martin Luther attacked both of these doctrines. Also opposed to Rome’s doctrine was the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli. However, although Luther and Zwingli agreed in their rejection of Rome’s doctrine, they were not able to come to agreement on the true nature of the Lord’s Supper.

Zwingli argued that Christ’s words “This is my body” should be read, “This signifies my body.” He claimed that the Lord’s Supper is a symbolic memorial, an initiatory ceremony in which the believer pledges that he is a Christian and proclaims that he has been reconciled to God through Christ’s shed blood. Martin Luther adamantly rejected Zwingli’s doctrine, insisting that Christ’s words “This is my body” must be taken in their plain, literal sense.

Martin Luther argued that although Rome’s explanation of Christ’s true presence in the Lord’s Supper was wrong, the fact of Christ’s true presence was correct. He offered a different explanation for the presence of Christ. In order to understand his view, however, a brief explanation of some rather obscure theological terminology is required. Medieval scholastic theologians had distinguished various modes of presence, or ways of being present. They used the term local presence to describe the way in which physical, finite things are present in a circumscribed place. Spiritual presence described the way in which spiritual beings (such as angels, souls, or God) are present. Because this term was somewhat vague, other terms were used in order to be more specific. Illocal presence, for example, described the way in which finite spiritual beings (for example, human souls or angels) are present, while repletive presence described the way in which an infinite spiritual being (God) is present.

Zwingli argued that the only mode of presence proper to the human body of Christ was “local presence.” Therefore, according to Zwingli, Christ’s body is locally present in heaven and nowhere else until the Second Advent. Luther rejected Zwingli’s view, claiming that other modes of presence were proper to Christ’s human body — specifically the illocal mode of presence. Because Christ’s body can be present in an illocal manner, according to Luther, it can be present in the bread of the Lord’s Supper. In his Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528), Luther argues that there is a “sacramental union” between the substance of Christ’s body and the bread resulting in a new and unique substance that Luther refers to as fleischbrot (“flesh-bread”). Thus, according to Luther, Christ’s human body is present in the Lord’s Supper supernaturally in a real and illocal manner.

Calvin’s first significant contribution to the subject appeared in the 1536 edition of his Institutes, by which time the battle lines had already been drawn. He continued to progressively clarify and explain his doctrine of the Supper over the next two decades. Calvin’s doctrine of the Supper was very much influenced by Luther, but others were just as instrumental in shaping his approach to the subject. Among those whose influence is discernible are Augustine, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Peter Martyr Vermigli.

Calvin followed Augustine in defining a sacrament as “a visible sign of a sacred thing” or as a “visible word” of God. The sacraments, according to Calvin, are inseparably attached to the Word. The sacraments seal the promises found in the Word. In regard to the Lord’s Supper, more specifically, it is given to seal the promise that those who partake of the bread and wine in faith truly partake of the body and blood of Christ. Calvin explains this in terms of the believer’s mystical union with Christ. Just as baptism is connected with the believer’s initiation into union with Christ, the Lord’s Supper strengthens the believer’s ongoing union with Christ.

All of this raises a question. How does Calvin understand the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper? According to Calvin the sacraments are signs. The signs and the things signified must be distinguished without being separated. Calvin rejects the idea that the sacramental signs are merely symbols (for example, Zwingli). But he also rejects the idea that the signs are transformed into the things they signify (for example, Rome). Calvin argues that when Christ uses the words, “This is my body,” the name of the thing signified (“body”) is applied to the sign (the bread).

Calvin repeatedly stated that his argument with the Roman Catholics and with Luther was not over the fact of Christ’s presence, but only over the mode of that presence. According to Calvin, Christ’s human body is locally present in heaven, but it does not have to descend in order for believers to truly partake of it because the Holy Spirit effects communion. The Holy Spirit is the bond of the believer’s union with Christ. Therefore that which the minister does on the earthly plane, the Holy Spirit accomplishes on the spiritual plane. In other words, those who partake of the bread and wine in faith are also, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being nourished by the body and blood of Christ.

This, of course, raises a second question regarding the mode by which believers partake of the body and blood of Christ. Zwingli had argued that to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ was simply a synonym for believing in Christ. Calvin begged to differ. He argued that the eating of the body of Christ is not equivalent to faith; instead, it is the result of faith. Calvin often used the term “spiritual eating” to describe the mode by which believers partake, but he is careful to define what he means. He asserts repeatedly that “spiritual eating” does not mean that believers partake only of Christ’s spirit. “Spiritual eating” means, according to Calvin, that by faith believers partake of the body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit who pours the life of Christ into them.

Calvin also rejected the idea that we partake of the body and blood of Christ with the mouth. Not only Rome, but Luther and his followers, asserted the doctrine of oral manducation (that is, oral eating). According to the Lutherans, the body of Christ is orally eaten, but it is a supernatural or hyperphysical eating rather than a natural or physical eating. Both believers and unbelievers receive the body of Christ according to the Lutherans, although unbelievers receive it to their own judgment. Calvin denied that unbelievers receive the body of Christ at all. According to Calvin, the body and blood of Christ are objectively offered to all, but only received by believers.

According to Calvin, the Lord’s Supper is also “a bond of love” intended to produce mutual love among believers. It is to inspire thanksgiving and gratitude. Because it is at the very heart of Christian worship, Calvin argued that it should be observed whenever the Word is preached, or “at least once a week.” It should be shorn of all superstition and observed in its biblical simplicity. Calvin considered the Lord’s Supper to be a divine gift given by Christ himself to His people to nourish and strengthen their faith. As such, it is not to be neglected, but rather celebrated often and with joy.

Article “Observing the Lord’s Supper Weekly Makes It Routine—And That’s a Good Thing” by Scott Aniol.

Scott Aniol, PhD, is Executive Vice President and Editor-in-Chief of G3 Ministries. He lectures around the world in churches, conferences, colleges, and seminaries, and he has authored several books.

Original source: https://g3min.org/observing-the-lords-supper-weekly-makes-it-routine-and-thats-a-good-thing/

I’ve long been an advocate for weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is the God-ordained picture of the climax of our worship of God the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit, by faith—Communion with God.¹ One thing I’ve noticed since I’ve been a part of churches that celebrated the Supper more frequently, and now weekly, is that observing the Lord’s Supper weekly makes it routine.

This reality is often raised as an objection to weekly Lord’s Supper observance. If we celebrate weekly, the objection goes, then it will become routine; it won’t be as special as when we celebrate monthly or quarterly.

Well, yes, weekly observance does make the Supper seem routine. I’ve come to expect it every week. The same passage of Scripture is read every week. Some of the same words are spoken every week. I hold the same cup and bread in my hands every week. We sing the same Doxology after eating every week. The Lord’s Supper has become routine.

And that’s a good thing.

Routines Reveal Our Priorities

When we establish routines for ourselves, our families, or our churches, we reveal what is important to us. They become routine because we have prioritized them so that they become so regular we simply don’t have to decide to do them anymore—they become a regular part of our lives.

Brushing your teeth every day is clear evidence that clean teeth is a priority to you. You don’t even have to think about it anymore—you wake up groggy, stumble into the bathroom, and grab your toothbrush. It’s habit. The fact that brushing your teeth has become a routine does not mean you don’t think clean teeth is important, rather the opposite.

The same is true for weekly celebration of the Lord’s Table—it reveals how important we believe the Table to be. Our children notice when we do something regularly. Without even telling them, they can see that it’s something important. A visitor who has attended a couple of times will recognize that this observance is something we prioritize.

And perhaps most importantly, routine celebration of the Table ingrains the importance of what we are doing on our own hearts. This fact leads to the next two reasons routine celebration of the Table is a good thing.

We Miss Routines When They Are Absent

When we establish something as a routine, we miss it when we don’t do it. We may hardly think consciously about the routine as we do it regularly, but if it’s gone, the absence is striking.

Dinner in your home is routine; no one in your family wonders if you’re going to eat dinner. When I ask my wife, “What’s for dinner tonight,” she doesn’t reply, “You’re assuming we’re having dinner?” No, it’s routine. But try skipping dinner one evening. Everyone would notice.

This was one of the biggest reasons I objected to trying to observe the Table “virtually” (an impossibility) during Covid lockdowns. It’s why I even objected to even trying to replicate a Sunday morning service through the internet at all. If we are unable to meet in person, we should feel the weight of that. If we can’t meet as we normally do for whatever reason, we should miss it. If we’re out sick or even traveling on vacation, we notice when we’re unable to do what has become routine to us.

This is a great benefit of routines. If celebrating the Lord’s Supper becomes routine, we come to expect it, and in some ways we don’t even think about it anymore. But if I were to walk into the sanctuary one week and the Table is not set, I would wonder why. It may take me a moment—something is different; something is missing, but I would feel its absence. If I’m away on a trip and unable to eat with my family, I miss it.

This is also the important connection between the Lord’s Supper and church discipline. When a church member is living in unrepentant sin, they are not barred from coming to church services. We want them there under the preached Word, experiencing the convicting work of the Holy Spirit through the regular means of grace he has prescribed for the church.

But an unrepentant church member is barred from the Table. We warn them not to eat in an unworthy manner. Don’t partake. And that is a means of grace for them, too. If your church only celebrates the Table quarterly or monthly, barring an unrepentant member from the Table wouldn’t seem like that big a deal. They might not even attend the day the Table is scheduled. But if you celebrate every week, then they will feel the weight of missing the privilege of eating with their church family at Christ’s Table, and that will be a means to bring them back to Christ.

Routines Form Us

When we really want to learn to do something, whether it be playing a musical instrument or excelling at a sport, we practice. Developing a good golf swing or learning to play the piano requires rehearsing the necessary skills over and over again. Skill development requires doing; it requires the cultivation of habits that become second nature.

The same is true for cultivating a life of communion with God that impacts every aspect of how we live—it takes practice. Holiness, according to Hebrews 12:14, is something a Christian must “strive for.” Paul told Timothy to train himself for godliness (1 Tim 4:7).

This is one of the most powerful, God-ordained purposes of the routines we develop in corporate worship—they form godliness within us. They are means of grace by which the Spirit of God progressively works his Word into our souls so that Communion with God, love for God, and living a life that is pleasing to him becomes, well, routine. We don’t have to think about it anymore. This is why Christians have traditionally called the elements of our worship, including the Lord’s Supper, “ordinary means of grace“—these are the primary means we should expect the Holy Spirit to ordinarily work his grace into our lives. That’s why they are ordinary; that’s why they are routine. Charles Spurgeon’s catechism reads,

The outward and ordinary means whereby the Holy Spirit communicates to us the benefits of Christ’s redemption are the Word, by which souls are begotten to spiritual life; baptism, the Lord’s Supper, prayer, and meditation, all by which believers are further edified in their most holy faith.

The routine, disciplined use of Word-prescribed means of grace, like the Lord’s Supper, progressively forms us into the image of Christ. They are the means by which we “work our [our] salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in us, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:12–13). When we routinely celebrate the Lord’s Supper, communion with God through Christ becomes habit, and that forms us to live in light of that reality.

When faced with temptation, we resist, because pleasing God has become our habit. When we sin and break fellowship with God, we’re struck with an emptiness because communion with God has become routine. We miss it, and that compels us to repent and return to Christ.

Celebrating the Lord’s Table weekly reminds us every week what Christ did on our behalf to restore broken fellowship between God and his people, and we are progressively formed by that reminder. Eating and drinking gives us a God-appointed tactile experience of Christ’s broken body and shed blood for us, and that sanctifies us. This sanctification is not mindless, it is not an ex opera operato (“from the work worked”) sort of magical infusion of grace. We must indeed “draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith” (Heb 10:22). But it is Word-ordained routines that God uses as ordinary means of grace to form us into his image “from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor 3:18).

Celebrating the Lord’s Supper weekly will indeed become routine. But that is a good thing, because it is one of the most significant means by which we engrain the importance of the cross upon our hearts, keep us committed to fellowship with the body of Christ, and pursue Christlikeness in every aspect of our lives.

Read Josh Buice’s article on the matter for some more good reasons.

original source: https://www.crossway.org/articles/4-questions-about-the-lords-supper/

Aubrey M. Sequeira (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) serves as the senior pastor of Evangelical Community Church of Abu Dhabi. He has served in ministry in India, North America, and now the Middle East. He is the author of the 9marks book Why Is the Lord’s Supper So Important?.

Q: What does the Lord’s Supper mean? How can I ensure that my participation in the Lord’s Supper is meaningful?

A: The Lord’s Supper is a beautiful act of worship ordained by the Lord Jesus for the spiritual good of his people. We miss out on its blessings, however, if we thoughtlessly “go through the motions” without understanding, or worse, while misunderstanding what’s taking place. The Lord’s Supper is the new covenant meal ordained by Jesus to be celebrated by the local church. At the Lord’s Supper, believers partake of bread and wine, symbolizing Jesus’s body and blood. Through their participation in this meal, believers together remember our Lord’s sacrificial death, enjoy communion with Christ and with one another, are strengthened and nourished by Christ’s sustaining grace, and proclaim Jesus’s death until he returns (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:14–20; 1 Cor. 11:23–26). Believers are exhorted to careful self-examination before participation (1 Cor. 11:27–32).

To participate meaningfully, think of “looking” in five directions as we come to the Lord’s Supper:

• We look backward: we remember Christ’s body and blood given for us at the cross; we remember that his death has brought us forgiveness of sins and eternal life
• We look outward: we celebrate the family bond we share with brothers and sisters in Christ in the local church
• We look upward: we realize that we’re lifted up to be seated with our heavenly host, Jesus, to whom we bring our hungry hearts for nourishment with the grace of the new covenant
• We look inward: we examine our hearts to ensure that we’re walking in faith and repentance, and living with love for our brothers and sisters in Christ
• We look forward: we wait in hope for the glorious day when we will celebrate the fulfillment of all God’s promises at his heavenly banquet¹

Q: Who can take the Lord’s Supper?

A: Since the Lord’s Supper is a covenant meal of the church, it has clear boundaries for who can participate. The Lord’s Supper is a meal for baptized believers who are members in good standing of a local church. First, the Lord’s Supper is for Christian believers: those who have repented of their sins and trusted in Jesus for eternal life. Non-Christians cannot participate in this meal because they haven’t trusted in Jesus’s death for their forgiveness. They can’t commune with Jesus and his family because they haven’t trusted in Jesus as their Savior, and they’re not a part of his family. They can’t remember Jesus’s death because they haven’t trusted its significance for their lives.

Second, the Lord’s Supper is for those who have been baptized. Not only should someone have trusted in Christ, they should have publicly identified with him and his family. Baptism is how someone makes this public identification. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are both signs of the new covenant. Baptism is the initial sign of the covenant, and the Lord’s Supper is its ongoing sign. Baptism is where one receives the family name, which is necessary before one sits down at the family table in the Lord’s Supper.

Third, the Lord’s Supper is for members in “good standing” of a local church. Membership in a local church is not optional for the Christian life; it’s essential. The local church is the context in which we live out our commitment to Jesus and his people. Belonging to a local church is basic obedience for disciples of Jesus. So, before sitting at the family dinner table, you should make sure you’ve committed yourself to be a part of the family—a commitment that’s made through membership. To be in “good standing” means that one is not under the discipline of the church and therefore still recognized as a part of the body of Christ (Matt. 18:15–20; 1 Cor. 5:1–11).

Q: Why must we be at a church gathering to take the Lord’s Supper? Why can’t I take the Lord’s Supper at home or somewhere else?

A: Underlying this question are certain assumptions about the role of the church in the Christian life. Many evangelical Christians mistakenly think that the Christian life is something that’s just “between me and Jesus”—a private relationship with God with no one else involved. People view the church as having nothing or little to do with their faith. The church is viewed as something optional that may aid one’s faith, but is not essential to one’s faith. With this kind of mindset, the Lord’s Supper becomes like a private dinner date with Jesus.

Biblically, however, a person’s faith in Christ is inseparable from one’s participation in the family of Christ. The local church is the context where the Christian life is lived out. Jesus didn’t just die to save individuals, he died to save a people in order to make them his family (Eph. 2:19–20; Heb. 2:11–13).

When we understand that the church is a family, we more clearly perceive the biblical emphasis on the Lord’s Supper as a family meal, to be celebrated by the church as Jesus’s family. That’s why the Lord’s Supper must only be taken when a church is gathered together in Jesus’s name.

In his corrective instructions on the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul repeatedly underscores the gathering of the church as the context in which the Lord’s Supper must be taken:

• “when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse” (1 Cor. 11:17b).
• “when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you” (1 Cor. 11:18b).
• “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not” (1 Cor. 11:20–22).
• “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment” (1 Cor. 11:33–34).

You’ll notice that throughout this passage Paul makes it clear that the Lord’s Supper was to be shared together when “assembled as a church.” Paul differentiates between eating in your own home and the special meal “when you come together.” Just like a family shares a special family meal in the context of the family being together, the Lord’s Supper is reserved for when the church family is together. It’s the church’s meal.

Our day is marked by widespread confusion concerning whether a dispersed group of individuals connecting online actually constitutes a “church gathering.” The increased difficulty of embodied fellowship over the past two years of the global pandemic and the alluring convenience of Zoom has duped Christians into feeling more “connected,” while in fact we are growing apart. The fellowship we share becomes an illusion as we relate to one another as disembodied talking heads on a screen. The development of the “metaverse” only further exacerbates this mirage, as the safety of virtual (un)reality provides an easy excuse from the command to offer our bodies as living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1–2). The Bible, however, refreshingly reminds us that we are embodied persons who need one another’s physical presence for our spiritual good—and a pandemic doesn’t change that. The Lord’s Supper is a time for the church to come together and to strengthen our bonds of faith as we enjoy communion with Jesus and with one another.

Q: Why should I not participate in the Lord’s Supper in a Roman Catholic Mass?

A: Bible-believing Christians who hold in faith to the biblical gospel of Christ ought not to participate in the Mass, particularly in the Eucharist at a Roman Catholic church. This is because the Roman Catholic teaching on the Lord’s Supper denies that Jesus’s one-time sacrificial offering on the cross was sufficient to take away our sins. Instead, they believe Christ’s sacrifice must be continually perpetuated in the Lord’s Supper: “In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.”²

The Roman Catholic Church erroneously teaches that the bread and wine, when consecrated in the Mass, miraculously transforms into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, now offered on the altar. They assert that this repeated presentation of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist actually ensures our redemption. Furthermore, they believe this saving work of the Eucharist takes place ex opere operato, i.e., by mere participation in the ritual, apart from faith in the worshipers. This teaching denies the heart of the gospel and is the reason why gospel-affirming Christians should refrain from participation in the Eucharist at Roman Catholic Mass. By participating in the Eucharist at Catholic Mass, we would be giving our approval to a false understanding of the gospel. This is why many Protestant Reformers were willing to be martyred rather than take the Mass and affirm the Roman Catholic teaching on the Lord’s Supper.

Notes:

1. Aubrey M. Sequeira, ​​Why Is the Lord’s Supper So Important? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2021), 48.
2. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1367.