When Christ commanded the church to observe two ordinances He gave us pictures of two important Christian realities.
Baptism pictures the believer’s union with Christ
Lord’s Supper pictures the believer’s communion with Christ.
Just as the believing sinner is united to Christ in salvation once, so the believer is baptized as a believer once. Because fellowship or communion with Christ is repeated by the Christian so does the believer repeat the ordinance of Communion or the Lord’s Supper.
The Lord’s Supper is a picture or symbol like the Passover was a type of Christ’s death (1 Cor 5:7).. The Lord’s Supper is called different names in the New Testament: It is the “Lord’s Table” (1 Cor. 10:21), “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor.11:20), the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:24a), the Memorial (1 Cor.11:24b). It is not called a sacrament.
John Hammett writes: “Due to its [sacrament] long association with the idea of conveying grace, most Baptists have chosen ordinance as the term for baptism and the Lord’s Supper, signifying that these acts are ordained by Christ for the church” (John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 259) (click to open).
Four Different Views on the Lord’s Supper
Roman Catholic view: Transubstantiation
Hamment defines sacramentalism: By the time of the Reformation, the sacraments were thought to commuicate grace in an almost mechanical way. the phrase used to refer to the view is ex opere operato, “from the work done.” The meaning is that the sacrament conveys grace by the mere fact that it is properly done, apart from faith on the part of the recipients. For example, the Counsel of Trent, meeting in 1547, promulgated this decree: “If anyone says that by the sacraments of the new law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema” (258).
This doctrine contradicts the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
The Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation is the sacramental view that the elements of the Lord’s Supper are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ by the priest’s consecration which is sacerdotalism [from the Latin sacerdos which means priest]. At the moment the priest says, “This is my body” the element becomes the literal body of Christ according to Catholicism. For centuries, the RCC did not allow laypeople to drink from the cup, for fear that the blood of Christ would be spilled but Vatican II (1962-1965) changed this (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 991).
Hammett adds these details: Official Catholic teaching … affirm that when a properly ordained priest lifts the host (from the Latin word hostia, or ‘sacrificial victim,’ the term used to refer to the physical elements of bread and wine) and pronounces the words of institution (Hoc est corpus meum or this is my body) a miracle occurs. The outward appearance, or accidents, of the bread and wine remain the same, but the inner reality, or substance, is changed (transubstantiated) into the actual physical body and blood of Christ. His body and blood are really, physically present in every wafer, every drop of wine” (279). This reflects Aristotle’s view of metaphysics of eternal and transcendent ideas or substance and matter or accidents combined not separated as Plato did into his transcendent world of eternal ideas and the physical world of matter.
R. C. Sproul has an introductory book on Philosophy that is helpful: The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts that Shaped Our World. Dr. Bruce Gore has classroom lectures on Philosophy (click to open) that go much more in depth.
Hammett added this footnote: “The common people, not understanding the meaning of the Latin phrase, hoc est corpus meum (“this is my body”), came to see it as a virtual magical incantation. It was eventually corrupted and passed into common usage as hocus-pocus, a phrase associated with the performance of magical tricks” (Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 279).
Here is the statement in the Council of Trent on Transubstantiation (clink to open):
CHAPTER IV
TRANSUBSTANTIATION
But since Christ our Redeemer declared that to be truly His own body which He offered under the form of bread, it has, therefore, always been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy council now declares it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a change is brought about of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This change the holy Catholic Church properly and appropriately calls transubstantiation (Thirteenth Session of the Council of Trent, Session XIII - The third under the Supreme Pontiff, Julius III, celebrated on the eleventh day of October, 1551). What does not change is the accidents or the external appearance of the wafer and wine. For this reason the wafer still feels and tastes like a wafer.
The Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation, in part, is based on Christ’s words in Mt. 26:26, “Take eat this is my body.” The R.C.C. Bible, the Douay Version in its footnote on Mt. 26:26 says, “Neither does He say in this, or with this is my body, but absolutely, this is my body, which plainly implies transubstantiation.”
Another passage used by RCC is John 6:53. RCC theologian Ludwig Ott summarizes the argument of the RCC. “The necessity of accepting a literal interpretation in this case is evident:
(a) From the nature of the words used. One specially notes the realistic expressions alethes brosis = true, real food (v.55); alethes posis = true, real drink v.55); [from] trogein = to gnaw, to chew, to eat (v.54 et seq.).
(b) From the difficulties created by a figurative interpretation. In the language of the Bible to eat a person’s flesh and drink His blood in the metaphorical sense means to persecute Him in a bloody fashion, to destroy Him (cf. Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3)” (Geisler, page 152).
The following arguments refute RCC view of transubstantiation
1) The copula “is” (Greek estiv) used in Mt. 26:26 or some form is used figuratively frequently by Christ.
Other examples of “is” used metaphorically by Christ are John 10: 9 “I am the door” and John 15:1 “I am the vine.” Also, the Bible uses in a figurative sense the process of eating as in Psalm 34:8, “O taste and see that the LORD is good.” So, Christ is in keeping with this figurative use of language when He said, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” There are many other passages that use the same metaphors of eating and drinking as illustrations of spiritual realities: Rev. 10:10 and 1 Pet. 2:2. The Greek word sarx translated “flesh” has a broad semantic or meanings range that includes the figurative such as spiritual, nonphysical fallen nature (Roman 7:18).
2) Physically, Christ cannot be present in Heaven and at the same time present at Lord’s Suppers being celebrated on earth all over the world. While the divine nature of Christ is omnipresent (Col. 1:27) the human nature is not (1 Tim. 2:5). The co-mingling of the two natures of Christ is a heresy called Eutychianism or monophysitism which was condemned by the council of Chalcedon in 451: “Lord Jesus Christ ... truly God and truly man ... recognized in two natures, without confusion …. The distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union.”
3) The RCC views the Mass as a sacrifice of Christ. “The term sacrifice is found as early as Pope Gregory the Great (r. 590-604), who held that in every mass Christ was sacrificed afresh” (Geisler, page 160). This contradicts the sufficiency of Christ’s death and the aorist and perfect tenses used to describe Christ’s shed blood in 1 Cor. 15:4; Rev. 5:6 and Heb. 10:12.
5) RCC takes koinonia in 1 Cor. 10:16 to mean physical participation because koinonia can mean physical and material participation as in Phil. 1:5; 4:1; 4-15. The koinonia can also have a spiritual meaning as in 1st John. 1 Cor.10:16 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion [Gk. koinonia a fellowship or participation] of the blood of Christ?” The context demands that koinonia in Phil. 1:5; 4:15-16 mean a material participation with Paul’s ministry and the context in 1 Cor. 11:16-17 demands a spiritual fellowship or participation.
6) The R.C. Bible, the Douay Version in its footnote on Mt.26:26 says, “Take eat ….” “Neither does He say in this, or with this is my body, but absolutely, this is my body, which plainly implies transubstantiation.” If the bread and blood were literally Christ’s body and blood then there must have been two bodies of Christ present at the time.
Lutheran View: Consubstantiation:
The true body and blood of Christ are “in, with, and under the bread and cup” because Christ is physically omnipresent and He is in the bread and cup when partaken. This is not the communion of attributes but a mixing of attributes.
Zwingli’s view: The Memorial View
Zwingli’s view “A sacrament is the sign of a holy thing. When I say ‘the sacrament of the Lord’s body’, I am simply referring to that bread which is the symbol of the body of Christ who was put to death for our sakes .… But the real body of Christ is the body which is seated at the right hand of God, and the sacrament of his body is the bread, and the sacrament of his blood is the wine, of which we partake with thanksgiving. Now the sign and the thing signified cannot be one and the same. Therefore the sacrament of the body of Christ cannot be that body itself” Zwingli. “On the Lord Supper”, LCC 24: 188.).
Calvin’s view: The Spiritual Presence of Christ:
John Hammett notes that Calvin took “a mediating position. With Luther, he affirms Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper, but with Zwingli, he denies that it can be a physical presence since Christ’s body ascended into heaven” (John Hammett, 280).
Calvin spoke of participating in the Lord’s Supper as spiritual eating: “As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate and keep alive the soul” (John Calvin, “Chapter 17, Of the Lord’s Supper, and the Benefits Conferred by it” in The Institutes of the Christian Religion, paragraph three).
Christ’s presence is in the believer (Col 1:27) and in the local church (Rev 2:1) not just when the Lord’s Supper is being observed. Zwingli’s view is therefore closer to the biblical view.
The Meaning of the Lord’s Supper
The Lord’s Supper symbolizes the believer’s fellowship with Christ in 1 Corinthians 11:23-32. If we partake of the Lord’s Supper with unconfessed sins, we invite God’s chastisement.
The Lord’s Supper also symbolizes our fellowship with the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17). The one loaf of bread used in the Lord’s Supper in the early church symbolizes the oneness and unity of the local church.
Participates of the Lord’s Supper
This is called fencing the Lord’s Table, i.e., allowing only believers who are in fellowship with Christ. There are three views on who is permitted to partake of the Lord’s Supper. There is a challenging example of fencing in the life of John Calvin as told by Steven J. Lawson:
Further, groups of Geneva's citizens caused him [Calvin] much pain, not the least of them being the Libertines, who boasted in sinful licentiousness. Sexual immorality was permissible, they claimed, arguing that the "communion of the saints" meant that their bodies should be joined to the wives of others. The Libertines openly practiced adultery and yet desired to come to the Lord's Table. But Calvin would have none of it. In an epic encounter, Philibert Berthelier, a prominent Libertine, was excommunicated because of his known sexual promiscuity. Consequently, he was forbidden from partaking of the Lord's Supper. Through the underhanded influence of the Libertines, the City Council overrode the church's decision, and Berthelier and his associates came to church to take the Lord's Supper with swords drawn, ready to fight. With bold audacity, Calvin descended from the pulpit, stood in front of the Communion table, and said, "These hands you may crush, these arms you may lop off, my life you may take, my blood is yours, you may shed it; but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profaned and dishonor the table of my God." Berthelier and the Libertines withdrew, no match for such unflinching convictions (Steven J. Lawson; Greg Bailey; Kent Barton. The Expository Genius of John Calvin, Long Line of Godly Men Profile, Kindle Locations 184-187) (click to open).
Baptists have historically debated this question with three possible answers. Hershael York provides the following definitions:
Open communion is the position that all believers present when a local church observes the Lord’s Supper may partake. Someone could believe in infant baptism and partake of the Lord’s Supper.
Alternatively, the close communion view maintains that only those who are saved, properly baptised, and in fellowship with a church of like faith and order — meaning holding to the same basic doctrine as the observing church — may sit at the Lord’s Table. These would need to believe in believer’s baptism and be members of another denomination like a Bible Church.
Finally, closed communion is the most restrictive position, asserting that since communion is connected to discipline, only members of the local church can partake (Theology Forum: What is “open” or “closed” communion — and why does it matter?) Click to open.
Debate among evangelicals over open communion
Mark Dever’s view is that only baptized believers by immersion can participate in the Lord’s Supper. Also, believers not baptized by immersion [such as by pouring or baptized as infants] are in disobedience to God’s Word.
Sam Storms took Dever to task over this view because Storms said that Dever announced that he was going to have an Anglican and Presbyterian to preach in his pulpit. What if Capital Hill Baptist Church had a Communion Service immediately after the Anglican or Presbyterian preached, would Dever forbid the Anglican or Presbyterian from taking the Lord’s Supper when Dever just allow the to preach in his pulpit?
Here is Sam Strom’s critique (click to open) of Dever’s position:
In his recent post, Dever indicated that he planned on having an Anglican and a Presbyterian preach from his pulpit in the near future. In the comment section of his blog, one person said:
“The implication … is that there are people whom you are happy to have in your pulpit but not at the Lord’s Table. That seems a little odd.” Yes, it does.
In a similar vein, another comment asked: “Why would you let someone in unrepentant sin be teaching the flock at Capitol Hill?”
Finally, more directly to the point of this article, the question was asked: “If your Anglican … friend were preaching in your pulpit on a Sunday where the Lord’s Table was observed, would you exclude him from participating?” The answer, clearly, is that Dever would indeed exclude him from participating.
In fact, let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the Lord’s Table is celebrated every Sunday at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (although I don’t think it is). This would mean that Dever’s Anglican or Presbyterian friend might conceivably preach a profoundly biblical message on the gospel of the dying and rising Christ and salvation through him alone, only to be told (if not in words then surely by the actions then taken) that he must sit to the side and refrain from receiving the elements that symbolize and embody the very dying and rising Christ whom he only moments before so faithfully and biblically proclaimed.
In this not unlikely scenario, the visiting paedo-baptist might even reinforce the truth of the gospel message by pointing to the elements on the table before him, articulating with passion and humility how the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, here symbolized by the bread and wine, have secured for all Christians forgiveness of sins and eternal life. He would then, I suppose, be led away from the elements and be told that although he is no less trusting in what they represent than are his credo-baptist brothers and sisters, he cannot partake with them in the supper.
In R. Kent Hughes’ The Pastor’s Book: A Comprehensive and Practical Guide to Pastoral Ministry discusses the wide range of views. He requires that the participants be believers with no unconfessed sins. Hughes adds in reference to children: In the delicate deliberation about who may participate in the Lord’s Table, both Baptists and paedobaptists must avoid rigid, intractable application of rules, especially in respect to children (461).
John Hammett holds to the closed view with the exception of allowing other Southern Baptist from sister churches to participate: “Fellowship with other believers across denominational lines can and should take place, but in contexts that do not require a de facto [in actuality] denial of an important article of faith (such as believer’s baptism” (287). So it sounds like believers from Independent Baptist or Bible Churches would not be allowed even if they were in total doctrinal agreement. I don’t see these kind of restrictions in the New Testament.