There are effectively three approaches to the Lord’s Supper. Big words go along with each one. The first is often called transubstantiation, which takes Jesus’ statement “This is my body” with rigid literalism. By the proper accompanying rites of a priest, the substances of bread and wine are transformed into the substance of Jesus’ physical body. This position is refuted by noting that at the Last Supper, when Jesus inaugurated this covenant meal, His body hadn’t been broken nor His blood spilled yet. Plainly, He was speaking of the bread & wine as physical symbols of spiritual realities.
The second position bears the name of its most prominent Reformation era representative: Zwinglianism. In some respects, Zwingli’s position is an example of reacting to one error by falling into an error in the opposite direction. Sometimes called memorialism as well, it teaches that this meal is nothing more than a reminder. It’s a memory aid of the most important thing that ever happened, but nothing more than a memory aid. This position is found lacking by simply digging a bit deeper into what Paul meant when he commanded us to take this meal in remembrance of Christ and His death.
Which brings us to the third view. At the time of the Reformation to call someone a Calvinist was to describe their view of the Supper, not their soteriology. The Calvinist view, which we hold, teaches that Christ really is present in this Supper, but by His Spirit. The Spirit takes the sign of bread & wine and makes it effectual in a few ways. He builds up our faith; He makes our partaking into a potent covenant memorialization of God’s grace to His chosen people; and He assures the saints, whether feeble or strong in faith, that Christ is theirs and they are His.
So come in faith and welcome to Jesus Christ…
Leave a Reply