Loutzenhiser's picture

* "Transubstantiation" — the substance (fundamental reality) of the bread and wine is transformed in a way beyond human comprehension into that of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, but the accidents (physical traits, including chemical properties) of the bread and wine remain; this view is that taught by the Roman Catholic Church and by the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem, and is held by many Anglicans, especially in Anglo-Catholic circles.
* "In, with and under the forms" — the body and blood of Jesus Christ are substantially present in, with and under the substance of the bread and wine, which remain. This is the view held by most Lutherans, and some Anglicans. Lutherans and non-Lutherans refer to this view as 'consubstantiation'. Although, for some, this term is difficult to understand, it remains the confessed understanding of the Lutheran faith.
* "Objective reality, but pious silence about technicalities" — the view of all the ancient Churches of the East, (including the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Catholic Churches) and the Assyrian Church of the East as well as perhaps most Anglicans. These, while agreeing with the Roman Catholic belief that the sacrament is not merely bread and wine but truly the body and blood of Christ, and having historically employed the "substance" and "accidents" terminology to explain what is changed in the transformation, usually avoid this terminology, lest they seem to scrutize the technicalities of the manner in which the transformation occurs.
* "Real Spiritual presence", also called "pneumatic presence", holds that not only the Spirit of Christ, but also the true body and blood of Jesus Christ (hence "real"), are received by the sovereign, mysterious, and miraculous power of the Holy Spirit (hence "spiritual"), but only by those partakers who have faith. This view approaches the "pious silence" view in its unwillingness to specify how the Holy Spirit makes Christ present, but positively excludes not just symbolism but also trans- and con-substantiation. It is also known as the "mystical presence" view, and is held by most Reformed Christians, such as Presbyterians, as well as some Methodists and some Anglicans, particularly Low Church Reformed Anglicans. See Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 29. This understanding is often called "receptionism". Some argue that this view can be seen as being suggested — though not by any means clearly — by the "invocation" of the Anglican Rite as found in the American Book of Common Prayer, 1928 and earlier and in Rite I of the American BCP of 1979 as well as in other Anglican formularies:

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us, and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood.

* "Symbolism" — the bread and wine are symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and in partaking of the elements the believer commemorates the sacrificial death of Christ. This view is also known as "memorialism" and "Zwinglianism" after Ulrich Zwingli and is held by several Protestant and Latter-day Saint denominations, including most Baptists.
* "Suspension" — the partaking of the bread and wine was not intended to be a perpetual ordinance, or was not to be taken as a religious rite or ceremony (also known as adeipnonism, meaning "no supper" or "no meal"). This is the view of Quakers and the Salvation Army, as well as the hyperdispensationalist positions of E. W. Bullinger, Cornelius R. Stam, and others.

What is your position on this subject and how do you support it scripturally?

michael_legna's picture

Real Presence

mike kirby said -
I know that 1 cor 11:29-30 is dealing specifically to the Lord's supper.

but my understanding of how the christian lives under the blessing or cursing is much derived from 1 cor 11:29-30.

I am confused isn't this the same verse as above? I am missing your point. Yes, 1 Cor 11:29-30 is referring to the Lord's Supper and I would add our failure to recognize the body of the Lord in it. Yes there is a threat of condemnation if we fail to participate worthily. But what do you mean by your understanding of how a Christian lives is derived from those same verses?

mike kirby said -
Our condition in life is tied to how we treat each other.
(do unto others....) That also is communion.

Certainly that is the teaching of many other verses, but it is not the only thing our condition in life is tied to. Love of man is one of the commandments but love of God is the other and It is the first of the two.

If we accept 1 Cor 11:29-30 to be preaching to us to treat others with love, that the body of Christ in this phrase is these others who are part of the Church (thus the body of Christ we fail to discern is the Church) are we not back to teaching a risk of damnation over treating people unworthily? If we can, is this not a doctrine of works playing a role in salvation? Can we really blaspheme other people, because isn't that what is required to bring down damnation over treating someone or something unworthily? I am not sure where you stand on any of these issues so I am asking.

mike kirby said -
The presence of the Lord during communion is very special for sure and not to be taken lightly.

But if He is not truly present in the bread and wine and they are just symbols how can we treat them unworthily. Doesn't He have to be truly present in order to risk damnation by not discerning the body of the Lord?

mike kirby said -
How does the taking of the eucharist change you (or anybody else that wants to say) personally?

I think it changes me every time I partake. I think there are graces given as I accept the Lord into me. I feel the life and strength of the Lord renewed in me and I feel energized to go back out into the world and serve Him and His creation.