Monergism MP3 Library

This is by far the best site on the web for listening to God exhaulting and God glorifying sermons by hundreds of different pastors around the world. Check it out yourself!

MONERGISM MP3 LIBRARY

The Lord's Supper

Communion, also called the Lord's Supper in many Protestant denominations, or the Eucharist in the more liturgical churches, is one of the two sacraments specifically instituted by Christ in the New Testament, the other being Baptism.

Jesus instituted this ordinance with his disciples at the Last Passover on the eve of his arrest. This event is specifically recorded in Luke 22:14-23 with Jesus saying "do this in remembrance of me." (22:19) The remembrance is to be of Christ's person and work, specifically his sacrificial death on the cross. This ordinance is a sign of God's grace whereby:
Jesus gave his body and blood for our sins (Luke 22:19-20),
he entered into a covenant with us (Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25), and
he joined us into one body, his church (1 Cor 10:16).

The Westminster Confession defines it in this manner: "Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body." (WCF, 29.1).

Historical positions:

Luther
Luther's position (particularly as developed by subsequent Lutheranism) is referred to as a "real physical presence" of Christ in the elements. The bread is still bread, but it is also truly the body of Christ. And while the wine does not lose its "wine-ness", it is very much the actual blood of Christ. Luther found Jesus' words "This is my body" (Hoc est corpus meum) as a mandate for such an understanding. This view is often conflated with consubstantiation, which is a philosophical rather than a theological view.


Consubstantiation is a philosophical theory that, like the competing theory of transubstantiation, attempts to describe the nature of the Christian Eucharist in concrete metaphysical terms. It holds that during the sacrament the fundamental substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present.


Transubstantiation differs from consubstantiation in that it postulates that, through consecration by the priest, one set of substances (bread and wine) is exchanged for another (the Body and Blood of Christ) or that, according to some, the reality of the bread and wine become the reality of the body and blood of Christ. The substance of the bread and wine do not remain, but their accidents (superficial properties like appearance and taste) remain.


Consubstantiation is commonly—though erroneously—associated with the teachings of Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon. Lutheran teachings reject any attempt to explain philosophically the means by which Christ is present in the Eucharist. Luther did teach that the body and blood of Christ are present "in, with, and under the forms" of bread and wine, and present-day Lutherans hold to this statement while disagreeing about its exact meaning. Some Lutherans do use the term "consubstantiation" to refer to this belief, but the theology intended is not the same as the philosophical theory described above. Luther illustrated his belief about the Eucharist "by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged," 1 a concept which he called sacramental union. Consubstantiation is affirmed by a minority of Christians, including some Eastern Orthodox churches.


The Roman Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine, used in the Lord's Supper or Eucharist, actually become the literal body and blood of Christ at the "consecration" by the ordained priest. This is based on a super-literal reading of Christ's words, "This is my body, which is broken for you" (1 Corinthians 11:24, KJV); and on His Johannine discourse, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53, KJV).
Roman Catholics believe that "by the words, Do this in commemoration of me (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24), Christ made the apostles priests. Moreover, He decreed that they and other priests should offer His Body and Blood." [1] This doctrine should not be confused with the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation.

Zwingli
The position associated with Zwingli is sometimes referred to as the memorialist position, or the "real absence" view. That might be somewhat misleading: everyone agrees that the Supper is to be a memorial of Christ's death and resurrection. The question is whether it is more than that. While most modern evangelicals suggest, at least in practice, that it is not - Zwingli does seem to have some place for the notion of a spiritual feeding of Christ. Ultimately though, both he and Oecolampadius rejected Luther's position at Marburg because they saw it as a threat to the validity of Christ's resurrection and ascension - if Christ was physically resurrected in body, that body cannot be in two places at once (ie. at the right hand of the Father and in the bread/wine). To argue that it could, as Luther did, seemed to challenge the physical nature of Christ's resurrection.

Calvin
Calvin's understanding would emerge after that of Luther and Zwingli, but attempted to offer somewhat of a middle ground. He drew heavily on Augustinian definitions of the nature of sacraments, arguing that the Eucharist was a visible sign of an invisible reality. So that while the bread is nothing more than bread, it signifies and presents to us a spiritual reality that takes place - a spiritual feeding on Christ by which believers are nourished. Calvin sought to answer the question posed by Zwingli (on how Christ could be in two places at once) by proposing that at the Supper, Christians are taken into communion with Christ in heaven by the Holy Spirit. So Christ is exclusively present in body at the right hand of the Father. If that is confusing to you, don't worry - Calvin himself admitted a level of mystery, saying that he would rather experience the reality of the Supper than understand it.

One Holy Catholic Church

The Universal Church also known as the Church Militant. This is the "one holy catholic church" referred to in the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed. Some people feel this church has not existed since the Great Schism of 1054.

The Apostles' Creed is an early statement of Christian belief, possibly from the first or second century, but in its current form more likely post-Nicene Creed in the early 4th Century AD. The theological specifics of the creed appear to be a refutation of the early heresy of Gnosticism. The Apostles' Creed is widely used by a number of Christian denominations for both liturgical and catechetical purposes, most visibly by liturgical churches of western tradition, including Lutheran churches, Anglican and Episcopalian churches and Roman Catholic churches.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,

the Creator of heaven and earth,

and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,

born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven

and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,

whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,

the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.
Amen.

The Nicene Creed is a Christian statement of faith accepted by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and most Protestant churches. It gets its name from the First Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.), where it was initially adopted, and from the First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.), where a revised version was accepted. Thus it may be referred to specifically as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to distinguish it from the original 325 A.D. version.
The original Nicene Creed adopted in 325 ended just after the words, "We believe in the Holy Spirit..." Content was added at the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.; hence the name "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed", which refers to the modified or updated creed. The Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus (431 A.D.) reaffirmed the creed in this form and explicitly forbade making additional revisions to it.
There have been other subsequent creeds formulated to guard against perceived heresy, but this one, as revised in 381 A.D., was the last time both Catholic and Orthodox communions were in united agreement on a Credo. This creed is not to be confused with the later Athanasian Creed.

We believe in one God, the Father,
the Almighty, maker of heaven and
earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally
begotten of the Father, God from
God, light from light, true God from
true God, begotten, not made, one in
Being with the Father.
For us and for our salvation he came
down from heaven, by the power of
the Holy Spirit he was born of the
Virgin Mary and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under
Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died and
was buried.
On the third day he rose again in
fulfillment of the Scriptures; he
ascended into heaven and is seated at
the right hand of the Father. He will
come again in glory to judge the
living and the dead, and his kingdom
will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the
Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds
from the Father and the Son.
Who with the Father and the Son is
worshiped and glorified.
Who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and
apostolic Church. We acknowledge one
baptism for the forgiveness of
sins. We look for the resurrection of
the dead, and the life of the world to
come. Amen.

The the Great Schism, also known as the East-West Schism, was the event that divided "Chalcedonian" Christianity into Western (Roman) Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Though normally dated to 1054, when Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael I excommunicated each other, the East-West Schism was actually the result of an extended period of estrangement between the two bodies of churches. The primary causes of the Schism were disputes over papal authority -- the Roman Pope claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs, while the four eastern patriarchs claimed that the primacy of the Patriarch of Rome was only honorary, and thus he had authority only over Western Christians -- and over the insertion of the filioque clause into the Nicene Creed. There were other, less significant catalysts for the Schism, including variance over liturgical practices and conflicting claims of jurisdiction.
The Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographic lines, and the fundamental breach has never been healed. It might be alleged that the two churches actually reunited in 1274 (by the Second Council of Lyons) and in 1439 (by the Council of Basel), but in each case the councils were repudiated by the Orthodox as a whole, given that the hierarchs had overstepped their authority in consenting to these so-called "unions". Further attempts to reconcile the two bodies have failed; however, several ecclesiastical communities that originally sided with the East changed their loyalties, and are now called Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. For the most part, however, the Western and the Eastern Churches are separate. Each takes the view that it is the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", implying that the other group left the true church during the Schism.

The Heidelberg Catechism

For next few months, I will be going through the "Heidelberg Catechism". Here is a brief history of how the Catechism was established:

History. — Soon after the introduction of Protestantism into the Palatinate in 1546, the controversy between Lutherans and Calvinists broke out, and for years, especially under the elector Otto Heinrich (1556-59), it raged with great violence in Heidelberg. Frederick III, who came into power in 1559, adopted the Calvinistic view on the Lord's Supper, and favored that side with all his princely power. He reorganized the Sapienz College (founded by his predecessor) as a theological school, and put at its head (1562) Zacharias Ursinus, a pupil and friend of Melancthon, who had adopted the Reformed opinions. In order to put an end to religious disputes in his dominions, he determined to put forth a Catechism, or Confession of Faith, and laid the duty of preparing it upon Zacharias Ursinus (just named) and Caspar Olevianus, for a time professor in the University of Heidelberg, then court preacher to Frederick III. They made use, of course, of the existing catechetical literature, especially of the catechisms of Calvin and of John Lasco. Each prepared sketches or drafts, and "the final preparation was a the work of both theologians, with the constant co-operation of Frederick III. Ursinus has always been regarded as the principal author, as he was afterwards the chief defender and interpreter of the Catechism; still, it would appear that the nervous German style, the division into three parts (as distinguished from the five parts in the Catechism of Calvin and the previous draft of Ursinus), and the genial warmth and unction of the whole work, are chiefly due to Olevianus." (Schaff, in. Am. Presb. Rev. July 1863, p. 379).

When the Catechism was completed, Frederick laid it before a synod of the superintendents of the Palatinate (December, 1562). After careful examination it was approved. The first edition, whose full title is given above, appeared in 1563. The preface is dated January 19 of that year, and runs in the name of the elector Frederick, who probably wrote it. A Latin version appeared in the same year, translated by Johannes Lagus and Lambertus Pithopeus. The German version is the authentic standard. Two other editions of the German version appeared in 1563. What is now the eightieth question (What difference is there between the Lord's Supper and the Roman Mass?) is not to be found an the first edition; part of it appears in the second edition; and in the third, of 1563 — it is given in full as follows: "What difference is there between the Lord's Supper and the Popish Mass? The Lord's Supper testifies to us that we have full forgiveness of all our sins by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; and that by the Holy Ghost we are engrafted into Christ, who with his true body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father, and is to be there worshipped. But the Mass teaches that the living and the dead have not forgiveness of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is still daily offered for them by the priest; and that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and is therefore to be worshipped in them. (And thus the Mass at bottom is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and passion of Christ, and an accursed idolatry.)" The occasion for the introduction of this eightieth question appears to have been the decree of the Council of Trent "touching the sacrifice of the Mass," Sept. 17, 1562. This declaration, and the anathemas pronounced at Trent against the Protestant doctrine of the sacraments, had not time to produce their effect before the issue of the first edition of the Catechism. But the elector soon saw the necessity for a strong and clear declaration on the Protestant side, and such a declaration is furnished in this eightieth question, which was added to the Catechism in 1563. The first edition of 1563 was for a long time lost; that given by Niemeyer (Collectio Confessionum, p. 390) is the third of that year. But in 1864 pastor Wolters found a copy and reprinted it, with a history of the text (Der Heidelb. Katechismus in seiner ursprüzglichen Gestalt, Bonn, 1864, sm. 8vo), which cleared up all doubt as to the various editions of 1563. In 1866 professor Schaff published a very valuable edition, revised after the first edition of 1563, with an excellent history of the Catechism (Der Heidelb. Kat. nach d. ersten Ausgabe von 1563 revidirt, Philad. 18mo). — Other editions appeared in 1571 and 1573, and in this last the questions are divided, as now, into lessons for fifty-two Sundays, and the questions are numbered. An abstract of the Catechism appeared in 1585. The larger Catechism has since been republished by millions; no book, perhaps, has gone through more editions, except the Bible, Bunyan's Pilgrim, and Kempis. It has been translated into nearly every spoken language. It was, of course, at once used throughout the Palatinate by command of the elector. But it soon spread abroad wherever the Reformed Church had found footing, especially in North Germany and parts of Switzerland. It was early received in the Netherlands, and formally adopted at the Synod of Dort, 1618. Long and bitter controversies with Roman Catholics and Lutherans on the Catechism only endeared it the more to the Reformed. It is to this day an authoritative confession for the Reformed churches (German and Dutch). The (Dutch) Reformed Church directs all her ministers to explain the Catechism regularly before the congregations on the Sabbath day.

II. Contents. — The Catechism, in its present form, consists of 129 questions and answers. It is divided into three parts:

1. Of the misery of man.

2. Of the redemption of man.

3. Of the gratitude due from man (duties, etc.).

The arrangement of the matter is admirable, looking not simply to logical order, but also to practical edification. The book is not simply dogmatic, but devotional. It assumes that all who use it are Christians, and is thus not adapted for missionary work. As to the theology taught by the book, it is, in the main, that of pure evangelical Protestantism. On the doctrine of predestination it is so reticent that it was opposed, on the one hand, by the Synod of Dort, the most extreme Calvinistic body perhaps ever assembled, and, on the other (though not without qualification), by James Arminius, the greatest of all the opponents of Calvinism. On the nature of the sacraments the Catechism is Calvinistic, as opposed to the Lutheran doctrine. Dr. Heppe (deutscher Protestantismus, 1, 443 sq.) goes too far in asserting that the Catechism is thoroughly Melancthonian, and in no sense Calvinistic. Sudhoff answers this in his article in Herzog's Real- Encyklopadie, 5, 658 sq.; but he himself goes too far, on the other side, in finding that the Calvinistic theory of predestination, though not expressly stated, is implied and involved in the view of Sin and grace set forth in the Catechism (see Gerhart's article in the Tercentenary Monument, p. 387 sq., and also his statement in this Cyclopaedia, 3, 827). Olevianus, it will be remembered, was educated under the influence of Calvin; Ursinus under that of Melancthon. Dr. Schaff remarks judiciously that "the Catechism is a true expression of the convictions of its authors; but it communicates only so much of these as is in harmony with the public faith of the Church, and observes a certain reticence or reservation and moderation on such doctrines (as the twofold predestination), which belong rather to scientific theology and private conviction than to a public Church confession and the instruction of youth" (American Presb. Review, July, 1863, p. 371).