I recently listened to a sermon by Tozer, where he explicitly stated the process of consubstantiation, as defined by Luther.
I wish I could quote the reference, but my question is, was this a belief that Tozer had early in his ministry, or was it something he believed in, throughout his ministry?
I know this is a non-essential but still would like to know.
'Consubstantiation'? I can even say it, never mind know what it is! :)
Consubstantiation, the doctrine, especially in Lutheran belief, that the substance of the bread and wine coexists with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.
I believe Tozer believed the Lord's Supper was more then just symbolism but rather there was a mystical sense to it of Christ's body and blood. Many reformed groups even in the symbolism camp would have wording in their liturgies that essentially the elements are so holy that they should be treated "as-if" they were the body and blood of our Lord.
The modern way of being careless with the Lord's Supper in some modern evangelical churches is a down-trodding of all that is holy in the Church.
God has always shown me since I was a young believer that there is a mystery to it and it should be done very reverently when taking the Lords Supper.
A reading of John 6 surely opens our eyes to this.
Jesus said that 'when two or three gather in His name, there He is in the midst of them'.
So any time we meet together 'in His name' we should be reverent and aware that He is with us, in our midst. This is true of the Lord's supper (bread and wine), but not any more so than other acts of worship.
I don't think we have to have a mystical, or superstitious attitude to have an awareness to Christ being with us. If we look at when Christ instituted this at Passover with His Apostles, He was actually present with them (physically and spiritually) yet said the bread was His body and the wine was His blood. Surely he meant 'it represents His body and blood' because His blood was still in His veins and He was there in body! In the same way today, He is present spiritually with us when we gather in His name, and not in some strange way 'in the bread and wine'.
It seems to me that it may be that this 'consubstantiation' doctrine was a compromise by Luther to reject the RC 'Transubstantiation' teaching, but offer an alternative and lesser mystical experience that still satisfied the religious heart.
Edit: Added to paragraph 3
I think the "mystical” aspect simply means that something special is happening when believers take the Lord’s Supper.
I have seen youth group kids take communion using pizza and coke and that did not sit right with me. There was no reverence or reflection. Could there be reverence and reflection if pizza and coke I are used for the communion elements? Possibly, but I think someone like Art Katz would gag over the idea.
I think it should be a solemn sacrament.
I am a firm believer that the Lord's Supper is not just mere symbolism. The level of consequences that are shown in Corinthians testifies to this. If it were merely a symbolic act, then why was the Lord judging (and even killing!) the Corinthian believers over their haphazard taking of it?
I actually don't agree that something happens to the wine (or Welch's, if you go to my church...lol) or the bread (cracker if your at my church) when you take it. That's silly. Something happens to the PARTICIPANT.
Seems to me that the following things happen to the believer:
1) They self examine
2) The Holy Spirit convicts
3) The believer responds in repentance and worship
4) The sacrifice of Jesus is magnified
5) God in His grace, reminds them that Jesus is indeed the Passover, purchasing for us our pardon
6) The believer takes it (if done appropriately) to display the inward working of the Spirit in his life, even in that moment.
That is not just a symbol. The Spirit of God is doing something in the heart of the believer at that time. There have been times where I have been preparing to partake in the Lord's Supper and have had to make sure that I forgive/repent/etc before I do so--and that is prompted by the Spirit, as shown in Corinthians.
This is not a vote necessarily for consubstantiation, but what Greg said was spot-on. AMEN and AMEN.
Like Havok: I too believe communion is more than the elements, it involves the active presence of Jesus, the active faith of the believer and the understanding of what partaking of communion truly means.
The warning in 1: Cor 11:29 align with the warnings found in numerous places For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
The Arc, the tent of meeting, the sacrifices, the fire, the blood all symbolic and all were held sacred; these were not sacred by reason of their manufacture but by reason of God who sanctifies the article.
I love taking communion and I hate when it's treated like a bullet point in a service order.
There is more to communion than symbol, what is sacred is always more than symbol.
In no way do I suggest that we should be lighthearted or casual when taking the bread and wine in remembering the Lords death 'until He comes'. However I do believe there is a lot of wrong 'church' tradition attached to it.
Havok,
Don't you consider that the 6 points you listed should apply all the time? I mean if a church only takes the Lord's supper once or twice a month, is it then OK not to examine yourself and repent the rest of the time? Does the Holy Spirit only convict at the Lord's supper? Should we not be conscious at all times that christ is our sacrifice for sin, etc, etc?
What is often read during the Lord's supper in most churches from 1 Corinthians is in context a judgment against what was a total shambles of feasting and drunkeness, which I have never witnessed in any church. And yet this is put upon the church bringing condemnation to those weak in their faith.
I agree with Brother Greg and several of you that believe that most of the Church has not grasped or appropriated the real meaning and value of communion.
Whereas the Catholic Church falsely believes that the bread and the wine becomes the Body and blood of Jesus when consecrated by a priest, most of the protestant Church does not embrace the spiritual reality of communion.
When we receive communion, by faith we are partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. It is not merely a ritual that we are going through.
If we can be sick by partaking of the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily, we can also be healed by receiving communion as life for our whole being: spirit, soul, and body.
There is also an aspect of communion not only between the Lord and us, but the communion and fellowship with one another.
Hey Dave,
You said:
"Havok,
Don't you consider that the 6 points you listed should apply all the time? I mean if a church only takes the Lord's supper once or twice a month, is it then OK not to examine yourself and repent the rest of the time? Does the Holy Spirit only convict at the Lord's supper? Should we not be conscious at all times that christ is our sacrifice for sin, etc, etc?"
Of course I believe that it should apply at all times.
On the opposite end, I would never say to anyone, "You've been seeking the Lord and repenting and worshiping every day. Take a break and partake in the Lord's supper." The point is that the Lord's Supper is a spiritual event and should not be treated as a mere physical event. Taking a shower is physical. You don't incur the judgment of God if you forget to scrub between your toes (although that's gross). But the Lord's Supper is Spiritual--you will incur judgment if you do not do it correctly within your heart.
Consubstantiation was a compromise by Luther. I think as always, context is key. If we read verses 17-34 we see what Paul was talking about, how the supper was being abused and there were folks there who were drunk or had plnety of food while others had little food at all. What a shambles. Paul was rightly disgusted and did not pull his punches. He straighlty warned them about this lack of reverence. This drunkards and gluttons who disregarded there brothers and sisters and who were without holiness and righteousness in all of their dealings with the Lord would be dealt with by the Lord. Clearly our prime example is the last supper.
This is where Jesus gathers with His disciples and has a meal, a last meal, but a meal nonetheless. Then, as an example He takes the bread and the Wine as examples of His own Body and Blood and told the disciples every-time they gathered around the table, they were to remember Him. This has nothing to do with John 6, this is the classic mistake the Catholics made by taking literally what Jesus spoke of in the chapter, the bread and the wine, which represented everything He had taught them. They must accept fully and surrender to everything they He taught them for as it says in that very chapter that His Words were life indeed, His commands. In the same chapter Jesus tells us to beware of the bread of the Pharisees. He was referring to their teaching, then using the same example, He tells them about His bread, the true bread, the bread of life, the Word of God made flesh, the Word of God that leads us and guides us by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Remember how many millions of saints were martyred for rejecting the Catholic notion of the bread being His Body or of it having some mystical power when the only power is the power of the Holy Spirit that is with us daily. Every saint loves to remind Himself of what the Lord had done for us. It is no more and no less than that..............bro Frank
Frank,
Thanks for your input here, where you correctly puts Paul's rebuke in 1 Corinthians 11 in context and rightly say the last supper/passover is the prime example as it is referenced by Paul as such. This is important as taking the bread and wine is meant to be a blessing and confirmation of the New covenant, where we remember what we have in Christ, sins forgiven, reconciliation with God and a future hope of His return and kingdom.
It grieves me (and I think the Holy Spirit) that what is meant to be a blessing often becomes a condemnatory fear of partaking in case we are 'not worthy'. Here's how it is often presented in many churches:-
1.Before distributing the bread and wine 1 Cor 11:23-32 is read. Verses 17-22 or 33-34 are never read, which would give the correct context!
2. We are told we need to examine ourselves to see if any sin needs to repented of. The implication here (from the passage read) is that you may not be worthy and will be drinking judgement on yourself.
3. After a few minutes of searching for any sins I need to acknowledge, the bread/wafer and wine/grape juice is distributed. Then there are those who rather than be drawn closer to the Lord in partaking are now are unsure if they are 'worthy' (who is in themselves?) and exclude themselves adding to their problem. In fact the passage read (verse 29) does not say anything about sin in general, but 'not discerning the Lord's body'. The 'Lord's body' here in context is clearly the body of believers, the church.
Of course there are those who are strong in the faith and use this time (despite the misapplication of scripture) as a blessing to themselves, but the fact is this passage of scripture being used as a regular instruction at the Lord's Supper is wrong and stumbles many who may not be as strong or mature.
It amazes me that Christian churches who would normally be very zealous about correct exegesis will persist in such traditions from age to age and not be willing to rightly handle the word of God. But it is ever so!
Excellent Dave, could not agree more. Men love rituals, they always have. It is much easier to observe a ritual than to walk in the Spirit, so that path of least resistance is almost always taken..............bro Frank
The Importance of Communion - Derek Prince:
We have noted that the life is in the blood. (See Leviticus 17:11.) If we want the life, we must appropriate the blood. We do that by taking Communion, as well as by the word of our testimony.
To me, this matter of taking Communion has become extremely important. Paul quoted Jesus in 1 Corinthians 11:25, saying, "This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” Many churches think that says, "As seldom as you do it.” Some of the most beautiful services I have ever attended were liturgical Communion services; they were so beautiful because they held on to that fact.
At one point, my wife, Ruth, and I came to the conclusion that we were not taking Communion as often as we should. As the priest of our home, I decided we would have Communion every morning during our time with the Lord. I am not saying that every Christian should do this, but I am thankful that we did. We would have felt that something had dropped out of our lives if we had omitted it.
Every day, when we took Communion, we would say, "We receive this bread as Your flesh, Lord, and this wine as Your blood.” I would do this in a simple, specific way, saying, "Lord, we are doing this in remembrance of You; we are proclaiming Your death until You come.” In Communion, we have no past but the cross, no future but the coming. We do it in remembrance of the cross until Jesus comes. Let this compel us to consider whether we are really availing ourselves of the life that is in the blood.
Thank You, Lord, for the blood of the Lamb. I avail myself of the life that is in the blood through Communion, and I proclaim that I overcome Satan by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of my testimony, and I do not love my life to the death. Amen.
Thoughts On Communion - A.W. Tozer:
What a sweet comfort to us that our Lord Jesus Christ was once known in the breaking of the bread. In earlier Christian times, believers called the Communion "the medicine of immortality,” and God gave them the desire to pray: Be known to us in breaking bread, but do not then depart; Savior, abide with us and spread Thy table in our heart. Some churches have a teaching that you will find God only at their table-and that you leave God there when you leave. I am so glad that God has given us light. We may take the Presence of the table with us. We may take the Bread of life with us as we go. Then sup with us in love divine, Thy body and Thy blood; That living bread and heavenly wine Be our immortal food! In approaching the table of our Lord, we dare not forget the cost to our elder Brother, the Man who was from heaven. He is our Savior; He is our Passover!
When a man or woman is born again of the Spirit, then the Lord takes up residence with that one in his heart, He is one with God because of the blood shed at Calvary, because the lord was willing to die for us. This is life and in this is all life. We do well to remember often what the Lord did for us, it gives our whole lives context, we live in the shadow of Calvary and in that shadow, under the wings of our Lord, there is peace in the sure knowledge that He has saved us and that we are His own. Anything that takes away from that or is miss applied is not of the Lord. He dwells not in temples made with human hands but dwells in us and among us. Communion is the gathering, breaking of bread is the remembering. Any attempts to make the bread itself the "communion," is not Biblical. There are no mystical or magical powers in any bread or any wine, to believe so is to have fallen captive to the teachings of Rome and not to stand alone upon the Word. Do well minded and good people believe otherwise, yes indeed, but it is the Scriptures that never change, not the traditions of men...........bro Frank
Excerpt from Like Christ
By Andrew Murray
Though the words of our Lord Jesus in the sixth of John were not spoken directly of the Lord’s Supper, they are yet applicable to it, because they set forth that spiritual blessing of which the Holy Supper is the communication in a visible form. In eating the bread and drinking the wine, our spiritual life is not only strengthened because therein the pardon of our sins is signified and sealed to us, but because the Holy Spirit does indeed make us partakers of the very body and blood of our Lord Jesus as a spiritual reality. So one of our Reformed Church Catechisms, the Heidelberg (Qu. 78), puts it, "What is it then to eat the broken body and drink the shed blood of Christ" "It is not only to embrace with a believing heart the sufferings and death of Christ, and so to obtain the pardon of sin and life eternal; but moreover also that we are united to His sacred body by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in us, so that we, though Christ be in heaven and we on earth, are nevertheless flesh of His flesh and bones of His bones."
It is known that there are in our Protestant Churches three views of the Lord’s Supper. On the one hand, the Lutheran with its consubstantiation, teaching that the body of our Lord is so present in the bread, that even an unbeliever eats no longer only bread, but the body of the Lord. On the other the Zwinglian view, according to which the effect of the Sacrament is a very impressive exhibition of the truth that the death of Christ is to us what wine and bread are to the body, and a very expressive confession of our faith in this truth, and so of our interest in the blessings of that death. As the Holy Spirit in the Word speaks to us through the ear, so in the Sacrament through the eye. Midway between these views is that of Calvin, who strongly urges that there is in it a mysterious blessing, not well to be expressed in words; that it is not enough to speak of the life which the Spirit gives to our spirit through faith but that there is a real communication by the Holy Spirit of the very flesh and blood of Jesus in heaven to our very body, so that in virtue of this we are called members of His body, and have His body in us as the seed of the spiritual body of the resurrection. While avoiding, on the one hand, the sacramentarian view of a change in the bread, it seeks to hold fast, on the other, the reality of a spiritual substantial participation of the very body and blood of our Lord Jesus.
This is not the place to enter on this more fully. But I am persuaded that, when a more scriptural view prevails as to the relation between body and spirit, it will not be thought strange to believe that without anything like a real presence in the bread itself. we are indeed fed with the very body and blood of our Lord Jesus. The body of our Lord is now a spiritual body, transfigured and glorified into the spirit-life of the heavenly world, the spirit and the body in perfect, unity and harmony, so that now the Holy Spirit can freely dispense and communicate that body as He will. Our body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us; our bodies are members of Christ; our mortal board are even now being quickened and prepared by the indwelling Spirit for the resurrection (Rom. 8:11): why should it be thought strange that "by the Holy Spirit the communion" of the body of Christ, so distinctly promised, should be, not an Old Testament symbol or shadow, but a blessed heavenly reality?
Calvin’s words are as follows: "I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood." "In His humanity also the fulness of life resides, so that every one who communicates in His flesh and blood, at the same time enjoys the participation of life". The flesh of Christ is like a perennial fountain which transfuses into us the life flowing forth from the Godhead into itself. The communion of the flesh and blood of Christ is necessary to all who aspire to the Christian life. Hence these expressions: "The Church is ‘the body of Christ.’ " "Our bodies are ‘the members of Christ.’ " "We are members of His body, of His flesh and His bones." "What our mind does not comprehend, let faith receive, that the Spirit unites things separated by space. That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses His life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, He testifies and seals in the Supper, not by representing a vain or empty sign, but by these exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which He fulfils what He promises." "I willingly admit anything which helps to express the true and substantial communication of the body and blood of the Lord, as exhibited to believers under the sacred symbols of the Supper, understanding that they are not received by the imagination or the intellect merely, but are enjoyed in reality as the food of eternal life." "We say that Christ descends to us, as well by the external symbol as by His Spirit, that He may truly quicken our souls by the substance of His flesh and blood." "Such is the corporeal presence which the sacrament requires, and which we say is here displayed in such power and efficacy, that it not only gives our minds undoubted assurance of heavenly life, but also secures the immortality of our flesh." - Calvin’s Institutes 4. 17, § 7, 9, 10, 19, 24.
To the soul who seeks fully to live by Christ as He did by the Father, the sacrament is a real spiritual blessing, something more than what faith in the word gives. Let all the praying and believing and living in which we seek to realize the wonderful blessing of living just as Christ did by the Father, ever culminate in our communion of the body and blood at the Lord’s table. And let us go forth from each such celebration with new confidence, that what has been given and confirmed on the great day of the feast, will by Jesus Himself be maintained in power in the daily life through the more ordinary channels of His grace””the blessed fellowship with Himself in the word and prayer.
Frank said "Do well minded and good people believe otherwise, yes indeed, but it is the Scriptures that never change, not the traditions of men"
Amen! So why when scripture is put forth (in context) is it refuted by posting the teachings of men. Men are fallible, no matter how good these men might be.
Jesus said to the religious in His day "Your traditions nullify the word of God".
Quote //3.After a few minutes of searching for any sins I need to acknowledge, the bread/wafer and wine/grape juice is distributed. Then there are those who rather than be drawn closer to the Lord in partaking are now are unsure if they are 'worthy' (who is in themselves?) and exclude themselves adding to their problem. In fact the passage read (verse 29) does not say anything about sin in general, but 'not discerning the Lord's body'. The 'Lord's body' here in context is clearly the body of believers, the church.//
Dave, are you saying that because they were abusing the Lord's supper they were being judged by the Lord ( v.30 )
For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
But if they were sinning in general they would not be judged.
In other words, are you saying that misusing the Lord's supper is the only sin that makes someone unworthy of it?
Sorry, I am just trying to understand what you're saying here.
The reason I asked is because you talked about correct Bible interpretation and right context which is something I am very passionate about.
Correct Bible interpretation takes the following steps:
1. Read the text in it's original context.
2. Draw a general principle.
3. Apply the principle to any context.
Brother Frank did step 1 for us and we don't need to do steps 2, 3 either because Paul in that case does that for us as well.
Here the general principle the apostle draws found in verses 31,32 and which could be applied to any situation.
""31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world."
Edited...
This discussion is locked.
