The Lord's Supper: A Reformed View 

great suggestion, here is a link for anyone interested: www.amazon.com/Defence-Catholic-Doctrine-Sacrament-Savior/dp/1592447775

from my understanding, Cranmer goes almost but not quite full Zwinglian in that work, the book of common prayer and the article dont go nearly as far

This came by the thrust of Peter Martyr Vermigilli fyi.

@@internetenjoyer1044 define what you mean by Zwinglian, since I would venture to say his view is the most misinterpreted by polemicists.

@@TruthUnites In connection with Cranmer's works and his view on the eucharist I highly recommend an article written by Daniel Marrs "Real Presence, Spiritual Presence: Assessing Thomas Cranmer's Appropriation of St. Ambrose's Eucharistic Doctrine" which demonstrates that Ambrose though often cited by Roman Catholics, is closer to Cranmer's and the reformed view. The article is available online.

How did it go?

Nothing maddens me more than to realise western churches don’t have weekly communion.

​​@@aericabison23 majority of western churches do (Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican etc.) It tends to be reformed, baptist's, evangelicals and the like that don't.

​@@aericabison23really? That's not good. How bout, Who is CHRIST? What has HE Done?

@@abcdefksohfosuh9024my nearest PCA church does weekly communion

"This has helped me understand more of what I’m realizing I do believe regarding the Lords Table." GO with scripture and the full 2000 years of Christianity. *SCRIPTURE:* 51 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” *SCRIPTURE:* 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” *SCRIPTURE:* 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; *SCRIPTURE:* 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. *SCRIPTURE:* 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. *SCRIPTURE:* 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. *SCRIPTURE:* 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. St Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St John, the very same St John taught by Jesus Christ and who wrote the words above. A great example of HE (Ignatius) who hears YOU (St John) hears me (JESUS); Lk 10. “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110). St Justin Martyr writes a few years later: “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165). St Ireneaus a few years later, against heretics: “But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200). St Clement of Alexandria : “For the blood of the grape-that is, the Word-desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both-of the water and of the Word-is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202). Where are all those early Christians teaching a reformed understanding?? How could the Church, the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, where the manifold wisdom of God is made known, that Christ PROMISED to lead to ALL TRUTH, error and not know it for 1500 years leading to three Catholic who would disagree with each other: 2 priests named Luther and Zwingli and a Catholic lawyer named Calvin? Highly recommend this video is by Dr Brant Pitre. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-P45BHDRA7pU.htmlsi=KsozERJg9qmJZ5pa

May I ask why only those two traditions? There are a good number of Charismatic Anglicans, but also EPC presbyterians. Is it determining how sacramental you are convicted that the sacraments are?

@ H E Yes please, Dr. Gavin! This would be incredibly helpful!

Yes! I concur!

It might be interesting to invite someone like Brett Salkeld too and have a sort of panel

" For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink "

I'm sure that your experience was meaningful, and it's great that you desire to be closer to Jesus. Since you are desirous, I'm going to be direct because you need to know the truth. Only priests with valid ordinations can consecrate the bread and wine such that they literally become His Body and Blood as described in John 6 and in four other places in the New Testament. Only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments. If you wish to know more, I encourage you to contact a local Catholic Church and set up an appointment to meet with a priest who can explain this in more detail.

@randycarson9812 LOL when I posted that I KNEW catholics and orthodox were going to come for me. Who says only clergy can make sacraments for communion with our Lord Jesus Christ? That's an honest question? I've extensively studied this subject. I actually study my Bible for myself. A LOT. God bless you.

P.S. I am not catholic or orthodox nor would I ever be. Respectfully in Christ alone

@@jeannemaxwell3173 That's kinda my point. But "nor would I ever be" is interesting. Is there a verse or two in which Jesus promised a book and then told us to work it out alone? Jesus promised to build a Church. Does the Bible suggest that people should be alone or part of the body of Christ, the Church?

@@jeannemaxwell3173 If you are asking an honest question (and I think you are) then I will spend some time on this with you. I will answer any question you have for as long as you like. Fair? Two passages of scripture show that Jesus instituted a ministerial priesthood to continue His work on earth. First, during the Last Supper, Jesus instructed His apostles to "do this in memory of me," referring to the celebration of the Eucharist in which bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus (cf. Jn 6:35-69). Jesus' directive to "do this" necessitated that the Apostles be granted the authority to carry out the rite or duty just commanded. Therefore, Jesus conferred authority upon the Apostles, ordaining them for this purpose. Second, in John 20:21-23, after His resurrection, Jesus appears to His disciples and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." In this passage, Jesus grants His apostles the authority to forgive sins, thereby establishing the sacrament of reconciliation. This offers insight to Matthew 9:8 which says that God had given the authority to forgive sins “to men” (plural) - not just to one man, Jesus. Matthew understood this because, as an Apostle ordained by Jesus, he had been forgiving sins in the name of Jesus for decades by the time he wrote his gospel. These two examples illustrate the institution of the ministerial priesthood and the sacraments which they perform in continuing the priesthood of Jesus on earth. Thoughts?

"Made things more clear." Just go with scripture - THIS IS MY BODY - and the teaching of Christianity for 2000 years. REJECT 16th c man-made doctrines that came along. Those Catholic men, two priests Luther and Zwingli and the Catholic lawyer Calvin all disagreed with each other, even as they said the Church errored for 1500 years and didn't even know it. Your friend has it 100% right! *SCRIPTURE:* 51 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” *SCRIPTURE:* 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” *SCRIPTURE:* 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; *SCRIPTURE:* 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. *SCRIPTURE:* 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. *SCRIPTURE:* 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. *SCRIPTURE:* 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. St Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of the very same St John above. A great example of HE who hears YOU, hears ME. “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110). St Justin Martyr writes a few years later: “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165). St Ireneaus a few years later, against heretics: “But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200). St Clement of Alexandria : “For the blood of the grape-that is, the Word-desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both-of the water and of the Word-is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202). And thus the question is raised, just where are all those protestant beliefs on the Eucharist in the early Church? AND, how could the Church universally error and not even know it, not even meeting to discuss a disagreement on the topic?

@TruthHasSpoken do you know the gospel where Jesus tells us to eat of his flesh doesn't even include the Lord's Supper. You would think if it meant that then it would have been in that gospel.

@@stephengreater1689 "where Jesus tells us to eat of his flesh doesn't even include the Lord's Supper." His words in the Lord's Supper are the same, highlighted in bold. 26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; *this is my body.”* 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for *this is my blood* of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Interesting too, the early Christians had no problem reconciling these teachings. A great video to watch: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-P45BHDRA7pU.htmlsi=9o2gY68rNh4VLtFQ The questions remain for you: 1. why argue with scripture, with Jesus? 2. where are all those protestant beliefs on the Eucharist in the early Church? 3. how could the Church universally error and not even know it, not even meeting to discuss a disagreement on the topic? Suggest too. Read the bread of life discourse - Jn 6 and the first paragraph in Jn 7 - and make two columns a. those who took Jesus as speaking symbolically only b. those who took Jesus as speaking literally Compare the lists. What do you find?

@@stephengreater1689 "where Jesus tells us to eat of his flesh doesn't even include the Lord's Supper." His words in the Lord's Supper are the same, highlighted in bold. _Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Interesting too, the early Christians had no problem reconciling these teachings._ A great video to watch: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-P45BHDRA7pU.htmlsi=9o2gY68rNh4VLtFQ The questions remain: 1. why argue with scripture, with Jesus? 2. where are all those protestant beliefs on the Eucharist in the early Church? 3. how could the Church universally error and not even know it, not even meeting to discuss disagreement on the topic? Suggest too. Read the bread of life discourse - Jn 6 and the first paragraph in Jn 7 - and make two columns a. those who took Jesus as speaking symbolically only b . those who took Jesus as speaking literally Compare the lists. What do you find?

Forte abraço. Deus te abençoe! O Gavin é um privilégio aqui na internet.

@@josueinhan8436 Com certeza! Tenho aprendido muito com ele, tanto pelo exemplo de cristão, quanto pelo conteúdo que produz. Abraços pra ti, meu irmão!

@@jonathanfraires irmão, confere dps esse livro dele do Thomas Watson. Está à venda por 13 reais na Amazon. Chama-se "A Ceia do Senhor". Foi traduzido pra português. Abração, Deus te abençoe

hi Sophia! No, that is not eating and drinking judgment on yourself. It is good to keep working on your understanding of it, but the Corinthian problem was much more severe than that. They were getting drunk on the wine, etc. Hope that gives you some peace of mind.

Well, then what was his explanation of the last supper verses in Luke's Gospel ?

I am not sure why you would think those verses support a memorial view. The reformed view does not accept transubstantiation. I don't see this as a conundrum.

When it comes to deep reverence and deeper meaning for Holy Communion, we do need to look back and find our first love for it.

"But it seems like you’re saying people need to get back to the early church." And in the early Church, for the first 1500++ years, those who led the faithful at Church were Catholic priests, bishops included. Protestant pastors didn't exist.

@@TruthHasSpoken this is true

Keep studying as the Reformed and Lutherans debated this topic with Scripture, the Creed and extensive patristic studies. It really is the key issue in Lutheran/Reformed. Thomas Cranmer, Peter Verginili, Calvin, Chemnitz, etc

James white has videos on igantius as well

@@truthisbeautiful7492 what view do you hold?

Churches who take the Supper at face value get great comfort and assurance from it. Moreover, they consider it to be a basic belief because to them it requires no interpretation, only believing, taking, and eating. So when someone comes to church and they refuse to believe something so easy and basic, it's hard not to suspect them of being a "reviler." And according to 1 Cor 5:11, we are not to eat even secular food with christians who do not accept correction, i.e. revilers. Hope that helps explain the perspective.

You need to truly believe that the host is the body of Christ and you must receive Him in a state of grace (no mortal sin), otherwise it is sacrilege to receive the host. (In this state, you are ready to join the saints in heaven) Didache (90AD) "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles" - the earliest written catechism. The Lords instruction on how to worship Him: "On the Lord's Day gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled by the Lord. In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice."

@@jamesrey3221 The RCC Eucharist is sacrilegious.

@@jamesrey3221 The Didache states no where in it that The Thanksgiving is the real and physical body and blood of Christ. It has great reverence for the ordinance, and takes about a third or so of this little book in giving instruction for it, but it just doesn't state that. The Didache which is such an early writing, predating most of the church fathers, really showed me how this transubstantiation doctrine evolved over time and became more and more elaborate.

@@joycegreer9391 The RCC Eucharist practice is hyper reverent. We need to be careful what we call sacrilege. They hold is as their most sacred and revered sacrament, as far as I can tell.

I don't think there's much doubt that the presence is real or Paul would not have said we are participating in the body of Christ. Are you in a situation where you can't take communion at church? As Gavin pointed out, the normative position is to take it with his people, the body of Christ. But we do have Christian freedom so maybe you can take it at home. For myself, and only for myself, I would not.

Nope, it can't be done at home

I heard him say that it was an interesting question, especially during Covid times. When he said that, I believe he was still thinking that through.

You shouldn't be taking it at home, one of the things about the Supper is the communion with other believers

@ Michael Jennings, In the Catholic church we celebrate the Eucharist every day. We have daily Mass and Mass on Sunday.

Many Protestant churches, celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday. It seems more common among non-denominational churches.

Of course it is required. Bread and wine cannot magically turn into the body and blood of Jesus without the divine intervention of the Holy Spirit. But who has the authority to invoke the Holy Spirit? Definitely not some self-proclaimed pastor with no apostolic succession…

@@thejerichoconnection3473. There is no scriptural support for what you are saying. None.

@@HiHoSilvey of course there is. For example, Acts 8:14-19. Only the apostles (and their successors) have received the authority of calling down the Holy Spirit. Not a self proclaimed pastor with no apostolic succession.

Given that the RCC is schismatic, and Luther’s reforms are born of a spirit of schism that his colleagues like Calvin and Zwingli maintained, it’s not really surprising how chaotic the beliefs and practices of Protestants are.

@@nathanmagnuson2589 How do you figure the Roman Catholic church is schismatic? They have always maintained communion with the throne of King and his majordomo.

Theres a reason is the schism between the RCC and the EO is a schism between Rome and the other Orthodox patriarchates. Even the OO are closer to orthodoxy than the RCC at this point imo.

In the middle of it right now. Outstanding.

Brant Pitre’s “Jesus and the Last supper” is a wonderful, thorough scholarly work! 👍👍👍👍

As long as you realize Brant Pitre is not infallible. Scholars can be truly convincing yet still be wrong.

@@kaysandee I realize that Brant Pitre is not infallible. I also realize that every self-proclaim expert or pastor is at least as infallible as Brant Pitre. Brant Pitre doesn't invent historical truth. He researches the bible and Jewish history for it. I would trust him over a self-appointed minister any day. Brant Pitre also understand exactly how Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. How many Calvinists do you know that get that? Dr. Orlund, at this point in his research, is trying to reconcile his tradition with that of the early church. He is admirably taking a stab at understanding how the teachings of the apostles were practiced in the early church. There are a few OT scholars who could help, if he would listen. You can only go so far with Protestant scholars. They simply weren't there. The early fathers were. It can't hurt to listen to them and reconcile it with the REASON for their practices based on Judaism. Why do you think the Christian religion caught on so quickly? The early Christians didn't see it as foreign. Why? That's what the Jewish roots can explain.

@@bazzy8376 I've read, met and studied Brant's work. Really nice guy, thorough and well studied and spoken. I still stand by my comment. Not a debate.

What I cannot wrap my mind around is why we should even bother to listen to what some anti-Catholic reformers had to say about the Eucharist 1600 years after the facts, when the Church had already figured it out since the very beginning. All apostolic fathers agree: the Eucharist is indeed the flesh and blood of Christ. Period.

Sorry to bring this to your attention but when it comes to Baptism and Communion, trying to get a concise Protestant stance is like trying to catch smoke. Each denomination has a stance, and the mainline churches (Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, etc.) are descriptive in their confessions of faith or catechisms. Baptist and Evangelicals on the other hand are almost always memorialist. But, Dr. Ortlund here is an example of a more traditional Reformed Baptist. Because of that,I wouldn't take what he says to represent Baptist beliefs as a whole. Lastly, he is definitely a maverick leading the charge to bring the Reformed Baptist Church back to us roots

@@Godfrey118 Thank you for taking the time to explain this perspective. The catching smoke analogy was also helpful.

The Lord's Supper is more a living gospel for believers. It is definitely not for non-believers. You need at least a rudimentary understanding and need to be in the body of Christ to take communion. That's why it's also called Holy Communion. 15I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the [e]communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread. 1 Cor. 10:15-17

For this sacrament...

@@schmi146 Please elaborate on your point.

Calvin believed in baptizing infants. So that's 50% similarity with regards to the sacraments.

@@schmi146 haha yes, a Calvinist is more than somebody who believes in the sovereignty of God. Helpful to point out! Historically, Baptists and Calvinists/Reformed were distinguished.

@@schmi146 Fair point. But I wanted to know if Dr. Ortlund is a Calvinist. I was talking about soteriology.

Good question: (Only thru Apostolic succession) Only a priest ordained thru the sacrament of the Holy Orders can consecrate the host of the communion and absolve a sin in the sacrament of confession. Not even an angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, can consecrate the host and absolve our sin - “what you bind on earth is bound in heaven” St. John Chrysostom: "On the Priesthood" "The Paraclete Himself, instituted this vocation, and persuaded men while still abiding in the flesh to represent the ministry of angels."

All believers are priests according to the New Testament. Your view is more of developed tradition than obeying the Lord by faith. Acts 2:42-43 seems to suggest the participation of all believers, even the unfortunate passage in 1 Corinthians 11. If the "yoke" of "ordained class of priests", in my view was the norm in the New Testament Church, it would have been difficult to partake of the Lord's supper under heavy persecution the Church went through. The leadership in the Church evolved or developed slowly, abandoning the apostolic New Testament type of a group of elders leading the Church ~ who were normally chosen from the congregation with their own families and living among their own community to a monarchical hierarchy of a single Bishop in a post apostolic era.

Maybe I'm missing something -- I only have a beginner's knowledge on the topic of the Eucharist -- but I think it's plainly given that they are "straying away from any hint of ... real presence". That being said, they would affirm that Christ is "spiritually there" in a really generic way (just like he promises to be with us when we read the Scriptures or gather in his name).

They are stating a bare memorialist view. I don't know how dogmatic they would be on the point though as the Supper isn't generally a controversy in SBC churches. And there are Reformed SBC churches which holds to the Second London Confession which disagrees with BFM on the Supper. I guess the SBC isn't actively policing that point of doctrine. Edit: the Supper is only controversial for Southern Baptists when it comes to using wine (ie observing correctly) as hinted by "fruit of the vine" above.

@@LeoRegum fruit of the vine is still a non-alcoholic wine : culturally wine was not a problem in Jesus day; grape juice isn't a difference like the Mormon water. The Plymouth Brethren even use wine for their kids but I don't know what age they start this practice : they must be born again and have had believers baptism. Most likely this happens anywhere from 8- 12 years old.

Apostle Paul also quotes the institute of slavery, and does not condemn it. Every generation has its cultural contexts and backgrounds. Nowadays, what do you think about a chinese worker that works more than 14h/day and earns a montlhy payment less than 100 dollars? He is a slave also, unfortunatelly. So... far from justifying slavery, my point is to show that all these social problems existed and still exist these days. And that said, it doesn't downplay the importance of what a Christian have written at the time he/she was living in.

Agreed. But to be fair, this is essentially similar to what Luther would say is the relationship between Word and Sacrament as well.

@@matthewlamaster342 But while the sacraments "derive" their meaning and power from the Word (both written, in terms of institution and incarnate by way of command)... the Word can also rightly be called "sacramental" (there is grace/power in the Word), thus their relation is less derivative and more reciprocal. This is why I don't see them as competitive, at least not in regards to the "altar vs pulpit" tension. There is no tension, they are both central, the Liturgy of the Word (synaxis), and the Liturgy of the Eucharist (meal) -- both informing each other. The Reformers merely brought _equal weight_ to the sermon (lacking in the Middle Ages) while maintaining the Medieval importance of the supper.

@@vngelicath1580 Yes, about the alter vs. pulpit tension. I've noticed that Catholic like to use the fact they have an alter for their worship, rather than a mere pulpit, but they use it as a bully pulpit.

Good question. I'm not Gavin, but I would say at the very least using the Lord's words of institution and the elements of bread and wine. One could add a validly ordained celebrant, the epiclesis (calling upon the Holy Spirit),...the list could get quite long.

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes …I don’t think they have enough evidence to make this claim. Justin Martyr in 155AD outlined the Mass, including the Eucharist. The words of institution were not mentioned, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. Much of the documents from that time period did not survive…

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes Thanks for that interesting point! Sometimes a longstanding practice can be assumed to be at the core of a liturgical act when in fact it is not. I'm curious, Prof. Nemes, do you know if there was a discernable oral tradition that predates our earliest Eucharistic liturgies? There must have been something spoken, right? Do we know the general shape of that?

@@mj6493 thanks for your response. Would believing the doctrine of “real presence” in the Lord’s Supper be necessary? In other words, is there an objective reality which unfolds no matter the subjective belief of the one who says these words (the words of the Lord’s consecration)?

@“Words of Life” with Dr. Steven Nemes I'm not sure if you want to call it a formula, but Paul clearly says, "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,..." in his letter to the Corinthians in relation to the verba. And when exactly would he have received this from the Lord? Does he mean he received it from Peter in Damascus? I'll leave it to the scholars.

@@baygol_doegh77 thanks for this question, I think what I mean by the word central is just what is “primary & foremost in the regular gathering of the Saints” or “most integral to the regular gathering.” I would guess that’s what Dr O means by centrality too but could be off slightly

@@baygol_doegh77 To be honest this was a pretty on my way out the door sort of comment, so I will have to think a little harder about this and probably should have before commenting. If you're talking about what is essential to Christian ecclesiology in general that would be a fun kind of hermeneutics discussion to have - like what constitutes a church - but I'm not sure that's quite what you're asking. Off the top of my head I think one criteria when looking at Scripture would be something like “what typically happens in the NT when Christians are together and what does Paul seem to really emphasize & reiterate when talking about what he thinks should be happening in Christian ministry .” For my criteria regarding the historical people tho, I’m really just quoting historians, like Mark Dever who mentions Augustine & J Chrys in his Pastor’s Talk Podcast episode discussing Francis Chan; I'm not a scholar, so if I’m wrong about these two I’ll have to ask Mark why he doesn’t know his history lol, but I think my Calvin criteria is more of an impression I’ve got listening through various sources and commentary on him. I thought it was common knowledge that Calvin thought preaching was essential, but to prove that I guess I would have to go back and look at some stuff. Sorry I know this does not help advance the discussion very much… what would your criteria be for establishing biblical precedent and historical precedent to determine what was/is essential?

@Aidan Jones This is such an excellent question, Aidan. I wonder about that too, and hope maybe Dr. Gavin can speak into this. The only times I hear someone having that kind of experience is from those who have converted to the Orthodox church, especially when it comes to their initial experiences. I'm not Orthodox myself, but it does make me want to understand why this is, and whether or not it's even something from God. Of course, the unsatisfactory answer they often give is that it's because they're the only true church, so there's that to work through as well!

I suspect it's because we hope to experience something divine in the mechanics of taking the Eucharist into ourselves. The divine encounter w/ the Eucharist is a spiritual sense. That's why you feel this divine connection through other means of worship like song, or physical worship, and through the hearing of the word. I too hoped for a mystical experience w/ the Eucharist. I was praying for the truth of transubstantiation to be revealed, while going to Catholic Mass. I didn't want to miss out, if there was a deeper truth we protestants have been missing. The closest I came to that divine experience was in talking about taking it, w/ a Catholic deacon, at the parish I'd been going to. I got very emotional, and realized I'd come to a deep love and appreciation for the Eucharist, that I hadn't had before, in having it taught as a mere memorial. It had become something more to me. Something deeply spiritual, something ineffable and mysterious. I was honest w/ the kind deacon about not being able to connect w/ transubstantiation though. Through my tears and broken voice, he could tell my deep reverence and connection to it. He told me to keep taking it. I was very grateful, because usually Catholics don't want protestants to partake w/ them, because of our differences in beliefs about it. My belief was only nominally different at this point.

I think this is an inaccurate statement. The early reformers all had sacramental theology. Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopals, Methodists, Presbyterians all believe in some form of real presence. The more recent in history you go, the more sacraments are dropped for “Bible only” denominations.

@@billmartin3561 bill, first, Lutherans and Anglicans should be distinguished from the historic reformed churches and reformed confessions (Methodists as well). The “Reformed” are distinguished from the Anglicans, Lutherans, Anabaptists, etc. in multiple ways for multiple reasons. Many have seemed to lose that distinguishing classification today. The primacy of the preached word was central to the growth and doctrine of the Reformation. Also, as a Reformed Presbyterian who subscribes to the original Westminster Standards, I do not deny a high view of the Lord’s Supper. It is not a bare memorial, the Reformed repudiate that. Just because Reformers and Reformed confessions held the primacy of the preached word does not mean they diminished the sacraments. It’s not inaccurate to say the Reformed churches held the primacy of the preached word while maintaining a high view of the sacraments, it’s what the reformers and reformed confessions attested to. I’m not arguing on behalf of Lutherans or Anglicans or Baptists or Methodists, I’m simply reiterating what the Reformed branch of the Reformation heralded. It’s what the ministers were primarily commissioned to do in the first place 2 Tim 4:2

Jacob, I concur with your well-written assessment: it is quite clear that Calvin believed in the primacy of the Word preached. I think Dr. Ortlund may be misreading Watson, though I haven't read a ton of Watson myself. Bill, when we are discussing anything "Reformed", we are not discussing "Bible only". The latter is the result of a degeneration of primarily baptist theology and has a different origin and history.

@@jacobcarne8316 I appreciate your qualification there, not claiming to speak for all Protestants. As a Lutheran, and influenced by Anglicanism greatly (liturgically and otherwise), I can with some authority represent the "other side" of the Reformation. It is true that the Reformers as such emphasized the primacy of the Word in an age that held primacy to the sacraments (and the sacrifice of the mass, more specifically)... yet, I see this not as an attempt to "put the sacraments in their place", but to elevate the [preached] Word to the same level that the sacraments enjoyed in the Middle Ages (thus restoring, rather than introducing the ancient balance between the synactic Liturgy of the Word, and the Eucharistic Liturgy). Their relationship is one of reciprocity, not subordination. The sacraments are "visible words" (to quote St Augustine) but the Word -- preached -- is rightly understood as having sacramental effect (vocal sounds carrying the grace of the Holy Spirit to the hearers); hence why we Lutherans have always classified Holy Absolution within Private Confession, as a "third sacrament" despite no obvious _visible_ sign.

The last supper (Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) was the central part of the Christian faith until 1517 - scripture has always had a prominent role because Christianity is a liturgical faith, and so the liturgy of the Word is incredibly important - but scripture should never have replaced the centrality of the Eucharist, which as Jesus says in John 6 is true food and true drink, and as he says in the last supper narrative, that the offering of the Eucharist is for the forgiveness of sins - what the reformers did was a complete travesty and disaster.