• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!

How do United Methodists understand Holy Communion?

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟24,797.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
How United Methodists understand Holy Communion arose as part of another thread. I think we've sidetracked that thread enough, and that a thread specifically dedicated to that topic would probably be helpful for many.

Now there are many good places for instruction on this topic: The Book of Worship and This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion being probably the two most notable. But to get us jump started, I would like to quote from a smaller body of work, the section on Holy Communion as found in Journey To Discipleship: Confirmation Curriculum for United Methodists. (This comes from the teacher's guide, pages 89 & 90.)
The other sacrament [baptism being discussed first in this unit on the Sacraments] celebrated in the United Methodist Church is on that is know by many terms: the Lord's Supper, Communion, and "The Eucharist" (a Greek word meaning thanksgiving), among others. Jesus Christ gave the church this sacrament as a rememberance of his dying for sinful people so that by participation in it, the church has communion for fellowship with him

The "Words of Institution of the Lord's Supper", which are always read as a part of the celebration of this sacrament, are found in the Apostle Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:23-26):
"for I received from the Lord the teaching that Ipassed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took a piece of bread, gave thanks to God, broke it, and said, 'This is my body, which is for you. Do this in memory of me.' In the same way, after the supper he took the cup and said, 'This cup is God's new covenant, sealed with my blood. Whenver you drink it, do so in memory of me. This means that every time you eat this bread and drink from this cup you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."
The Lord's Supper, like Baptism, is an outward and visible sign of something inward and invisible. It is a sign of God's grace or forgiving love, given to us in order to strengthen and help us in the weakness of our faith. When Jesus took the common bread and wine and blessed them, and explained what they stood for, they became a sign and symbol of what he was about to do for all humankind on the cross.

Interesting views have been held throughout the church regarding the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper. The Medieval Roman Catholic Church taught that in the Lord's Supper, the "substance" of the bread and wine were changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. This doctrine is called "TRANSUBSTANTIATION". The change, they believed, did not alter the outward appearance of these elements but rather changed their "essence" or "substance" into the actual body and blood of Christ.

Rejecting the doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION, the Protestant Reformer, Martin Luther, taught a doctrine called "CONSUBSTANTIATION". Accordint to this doctrine, the "substance" of the bread and wine is not changed during the Lord's Supper but exists side by side with the substance of the body and blood of Christ.

A third view regarding the elements of the Lord's Supper was that Christ is really present as Host at the Lord's Supper, but that His presence is a spiritual one rather than a physical one. Methodists have generally had this understanding.

When you and I accept the bread and the wine today, we do it not just to remember Jesus, but to receive with a humble heart his love and salvation.

The frequency with which the Lord's Supper is celebrated is determined by each church's Administrative Board. The Lord's Supper, in United Methodist congregations, is "open". That means that all baptized Christians, regardless of their denomination, are invited to partake of this sacrament when it is celebrated.

[emphases such as CAPITALIZATION and the use of "quotation marks" are original to the author]


Of course, that which is written for a confirmation lesson is not going to be as in depth as one might go in seminary, or even in one's personal reading, but other than that I believe the Lutheran clergy I know would take exception to the author's portrayal of the Lutheran view of the sacrament, this seems fairly consistent as a summary of that teaching regarding the United Methodist understanding of Holy Communion which I received in seminary and subsequent examinations by my conference's Board of Ordained Ministry in preparation to be ordained an elder in the United Methodist Church.

What thoughts, questions, affirmations, and/or disagreements might the members of this forum have with the above view(s)?
 

Historicus

Follower of Jesus Christ
Apr 20, 2005
31,663
2,585
Ohio
✟62,935.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I hold the view that Holy Communion is a Holy Mystery. It is not defined as to how a change takes place. I find nothing wrong with the explanation given in Journey to Discipleship on a practical level. It doesn't say either that United Methodists reject the other views, or that one is required to hold the Spiritual view.

Methodists have generally had this understanding.

I think the key word is "generally" however.

When I kneel at the communion rail and partake of the consecrated bread and wine, I am partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. How it becomes/is the Body and Blood of Christ, I care not to try to explain, it is a Holy Mystery. I eat the bread and drink the wine in faith, thus by remembering his death, proclaiming his resurrection, and awaiting his coming again in glory, and knowing that Jesus is present, I partake of his Body and Blood in the Sacrament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: boswd
Upvote 0

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟24,797.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Certainly "generally" is an important word when speaking about anything in United Methodism. We are intentionally pluralistic and even welcome theological diversity. Thus, the best one can do with regard to nearly all of our beliefs is to say "generally".

I like what This Holy Mystery has to say about the term "mystery" itself. It does not refer to the idea of mystery as a type of theological "who-done-it." Rather, Gayle Carlton Felton writes:
The Greek word used in the early church for sacraments is mysterion, usually translated mystery. It indicates that through sacraments, God discloses things that are beyond human capacity to know through reason alone.... Holy Baptism and Holy Communion have been chosen and designated by God as special means through which divine grace comes to us.... In a sacrament, God uses tangible, material things as vehicles or instruments of grace. [John] Wesley defines a sacrament, in accord with his Anglican tradition, as "an outward sign of inward grace, and a means whereby we receive the same." Sacraments are sign-acts, which include words, actions, and physical elements. They both express and convey the gracious love of God. They make God's love both visible and effective. We might even say that sacraments are God's "show and tell," communicating with us in a way that we, in all our brokeness and limitations, can receive and experience God's grace.

So in this case a mystery is not something that is hidden, but something that is being disclosed. Specifically, it is the grace of God that is being revealed to us. When we remember what it was that Christ did, when we celebrate it, when we ourselves join in participating in it, we don't just learn (intellectually) about God's grace, but come to know it experientially and personally. In essence God and his grace is no longer a mystery to us, but revealed and present in our very lives because of our participation in the sacraments (sacred moments) he ordered for our edification and spiritual nurturance. I suspect this is why the longest section of This Holy Mystery is sub-titled "Christ Is Here: Experiencing the Mystery."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Historicus
Upvote 0

boswd

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2008
3,801
568
✟6,566.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
in the UMC I grew up in we def. did not go beyond "Mystery" in terms of the the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Most I would say believed in the spiritual Presence while there were some that believed in the Physical Presence as well as the Spiritual.

The one thing that we all agreed on was that when we took Holy Communion the bread became The Body and the Wine(grapejuice) became his Blood. We were partaking of Christ's Body and Blood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Historicus
Upvote 0

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟24,797.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
The one thing that we all agreed on was that when we took Holy Communion the bread became The Body and the Wine(grapejuice) became his Blood. We were partaking of Christ's Body and Blood.


What do you mean by "became"? To me that sounds like one thing, a transubstantiation type of change, but rather than me risk misinterpreting you, what do you mean by it?
 
Upvote 0

boswd

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2008
3,801
568
✟6,566.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
it was no longer just a piece of bread or just wine, it is now the body and blood.
Realizing that it is no longer just bread and wine doens't autmatically mean Transub. Even if you think his Presence is Spiritual that still no longer makes it "Just" bread and "Just" wine. If you believe that Christ is Present no matter what you view is, it has changed from being bread and wine to body and blood. anything else is holding a symbolic view of it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AngelusSax

Believe
Apr 16, 2004
5,252
426
42
Ohio
Visit site
✟22,990.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If I may chime in here, I just wanted to say thank you for this thread. It's good to learn more what the UMC "generally" believes about communion. I rather like the Mystery of it. It just "is", and any explanation of how it "is", well... is something that may be fun to try bt ultimately may not be so necessary.

I eat the bread and drink the wine in faith,

I have no problem with this, of course, but I must ask, what is the UMC position on wine? Or rather, alcohol? I thought it was one of abstinence, but has that changed, or was I mistaken? Or was wine just used here as a word and it's really grape juice, or... well, help a confused brother out, please? :wave:
 
Upvote 0
L

Lovely Lane

Guest
it was no longer just a piece of bread or just a wine, it was the body and blood.
Realizing that it is no longer just bread and wine doens't autmatically mean Transub. Even if you think his Presence is Spiritual that still no longer makes it "Just" bread and "Just" wine. If you believe that Christ is Present no matter what you view is, it has changed from being bread and wine to body and blood. anything else is holding a symbolic view of it.
I can understand that the Holy Spirit is present, but Christ is seated in Heaven so I have read.
So, why is communion simply not a symbol to be celebrated?
 
Upvote 0

Historicus

Follower of Jesus Christ
Apr 20, 2005
31,663
2,585
Ohio
✟62,935.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I have no problem with this, of course, but I must ask, what is the UMC position on wine? Or rather, alcohol? I thought it was one of abstinence, but has that changed, or was I mistaken? Or was wine just used here as a word and it's really grape juice, or... well, help a confused brother out, please? :wave:

The United Methodist Book of Worship says the following...

"Although the historic and ecumenical Christian practice has been to use wine, the use of unfermented grape juice by The United Methodist Church and its predecessors since the late nineteenth century expresses pastoral concern for recovering alcoholics, enables the participation of children and youth, and supports the church's witness of abstinence."

The word "wine" is used because of it's biblical usage, but yes, it generally refers to grape juice and not wine itself.

 
Upvote 0

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟24,797.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
it was no longer just a piece of bread or just wine, it is now the body and blood.


So, I know from what you wrote that you don't mean symbolically. But in what why has it become the body and blood: literally?, physically?, spiritually?, representatively?, figuratively?, metaphorically?, something else?, perhaps even more than one of these ways simultaneously?
 
Upvote 0

boswd

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2008
3,801
568
✟6,566.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
So, I know from what you wrote that you don't mean symbolically. But in what why has it become the body and blood: literally?, physically?, spiritually?, representatively?, figuratively?, metaphorically?, something else?, perhaps even more than one of these ways simultaneously?


Literally,spiritually and physically. If I believed it was figuratively and metaphorically then I would believe that the Holy Communion is only a symbolic event. And that is not what I believe.

Don't know what you want from me. It becomes Christ's Body and Blood.

Its a mystery. in every sense of the word.
If you don't think there is a change then that is how you view it. I will just have to agree to disagree.
I just find it very strange if you believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine but still think they still remain "Just" bread and only "Just" wine.
It just doesn't make sense. If Christ is present then in some way shape or form a change takes place.
If you don't think a change takes place then I don't see how you can think of it other than it only being symbolic.

What I believe is when I take the Bread and Wine I take in Chriist Body and Blood physically and spiritually.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Qyöt27

AMV Editor At Large
Apr 2, 2004
7,879
573
39
St. Petersburg, Florida
✟89,359.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The United Methodist Book of Worship says the following...

"Although the historic and ecumenical Christian practice has been to use wine, the use of unfermented grape juice by The United Methodist Church and its predecessors since the late nineteenth century expresses pastoral concern for recovering alcoholics, enables the participation of children and youth, and supports the church's witness of abstinence."

The word "wine" is used because of it's biblical usage, but yes, it generally refers to grape juice and not wine itself.

I don't know exactly, but I could have sworn that I heard once that while grape juice is certainly the most common (99%, yay for improvised statistics), that it is still permissible to use actual wine for Communion. I would think that those who do are of the nearly-Anglican variety, but that it could happen. On a side-note, I am pretty sure that the AME church we visited during Confirmation class used actual wine. It didn't taste like grape juice, is all I know.

AngelusSax said:
I have no problem with this, of course, but I must ask, what is the UMC position on wine? Or rather, alcohol? I thought it was one of abstinence, but has that changed, or was I mistaken?
As was already mentioned, for Communion it is generally grape juice and 'wine' is used out of tradition. The UMC's general position on alcohol, however, is one of cautious moderation. It recognizes the historical focus on abstinence, and keeps with grape juice for Communion out of that POV, but also emphasizes that those who do partake in drinking alcohol do so mindfully. This is the relevant page on the UMC's website. ("...and, with regard to those who choose to consume alcoholic beverages, judicious use with deliberate and intentional restraint, with Scripture as a guide.")

It is still possible, if not moderately common, to find teetotalers in the congregations, but I know I enjoy the occasional Grasshopper or Kahlua-based drink - nor do I find anything wrong with that. I do think it would be kind of cool to have some absinthe in April when the next version of Ubuntu launches, but that's just because I like the idea of commemorative puns (Lucid, the descriptor in the 10.04 release's codename, is also a brand of French absinthe that has legal approval to be sold in the U.S.).
 
Upvote 0

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟24,797.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Literally,spiritually and physically. If I believed it was figuratively and metaphorically then I would believe that the Holy Communion is only a symbolic event. And that is not what I believe.

Don't know what you want from me. It becomes Christ's Body and Blood.

Its a mystery. in every sense of the word.
If you don't think there is a change then that is how you view it. I will just have to agree to disagree.

And agreeing to disagree is certainly something that we United Methodists do all the time. Unlike some denominations, we are not a creedal church, and beyond affirming faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior there is very little that we require in terms of dogma of those who belong to the UMC. But this does not mean that the church doesn't have particular teachings that we hold as being our Wesleyan understanding. We do.

Among those is our view with regard to the sacraments.

You say:
I just find it very strange if you believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine but still think they still remain "Just" bread and only "Just" wine.
It just doesn't make sense. If Christ is present then in some way shape or form a change takes place.
If you don't think a change takes place then I don't see how you can think of it other than it only being symbolic.
Well, allow me to let others in the United Methodist Church speak to that:

F. Belton Joyner, Jr. United Methodist Questions, United Methodist Answers: Exploring Christian Faith, p. 54

If our Lord is host, he must be present! The theological language for this reality is "real presence." Unlike Roman Catholic tradition, which speaks of transbutantiation--the bread and wine are changed in substance to the body and blood of Jesus; and unlike the Lutheran understanding of consubstantiation, which instructs that Jesus is in, with, and under the bread and wine; and unlike the Anabaptist understanding that this meal is simply a memorial of something that happened "back then," with Christ only symbolically present now, the United Methodist claim and experience is that our Lord is really present as a spiritual presence. It is no less real because it is spiritual, because United Methodists believe spiritual reality is real!



Thomas S. McAnally, Questions & Answers About The United Methodist Church, p. 29

Q. In the Communion service, what is meant by the "body and blood of Christ"?
A. The bread and wine represent the body and blood of Jesus as he spoke of them at the last supper with his disciples before being crucified. We do not believe that the elements literally turn into the body and blood of Christ.



Ted A. Campbell, Methodist Doctrine: The Essentials, p.74ff

The second sacrament affiremd by Methodists along with the historic Christian community is the sacrament of the Lord's Supper (we sometimes call it "Holy Communion," and in ecumenical texts, the "Eucharist"). ...we may consider the Lord's Supper in relation to the following four historical understandings:
1. Some churches maintain that the Lord's Supper is merely a memorial or reminder of Christ's sacrifice and a sign of Christian fellowhship. Many Evangelical churches and a minority of Reformed churches have this "Zwinglian" understanding of the Supper.
2. Historic Reformed churches maintain that although Christ's body ascended to heaven, the Supper of the Lord, when received with true faith, conveys a unique spiritual power. Because the Latin tern for this spiritual power is virtus, this perspective is sometimes described as "virtualism."
3. Lutheran churches maintain that Christ's true, human body is present with the elements of bread and wine in the celebration of the supper. This persepctive is often described as believe in the "corporeal" (bodily) presence of Christ.
4. Historic Roman Catholic teaching maintains not only that Christ's human body is present, but that the essence of bread and wine are changed, with only their physical, visible reality persisting. This perspective is historically described as "transubstantiation."

The eighteenth Article of Religion [see below] explicity rules out the medieval formulation of the latter doctrine (transubstantiation), and the introduction to this Article as well as the Wesleys' own eucharistic devotion would seem to call the first option into question. Certainly, Charles Wesley's hymns evoke fiath in more than a merely symbolic presence of Christ....

Sometimes Charles Wesley utilized the precise language of virtualism.... The Article (18) can be read as allowing for either virtualism or belief in corporeal presence. Our Anglican sisters and brothers often avoid the need for the distinction by referring to the "real presence" of Christ in the sacrament, since "real presence" can denote either of these views, although this term has not been used in historic Methodist doctinal sources. Without the need for a precise definition of this, we should nevertheless approach Communion in such a way that we expect to meet Christ in the sacrament.



Articles of Religion, Article XVIII (paragraph 103 of the Book of Discipline)

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves on to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of the bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many supersititions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.


What I believe is when I take the Bread and Wine I take in Chriist Body and Blood physically and spiritually.
I understand that you do. But I question whether that is in fact a United Methodist or a Wesleyan understanding. I recently had lunch with my District Superintendent and some fellow pastors. I shared your view (honestly I did my best to present it as you have given it), only to have it met with raised eyebrows. And that is why I have continued this discussion with you. As best as I understand you, your view comes closest to the Roman Catholic view, for not even Lutherans would claim that there is actually a physical change in the elements of communion. They claim they become the body and blood of our Lord, so much so that Christ is "in, with, and under" the bread and wine, but as my senior pastor in the Lutheran Church also said, "how this happens we make no claims, the molecules of the bread don't physically change, he just believe Christ is present as he promised he would be." Or reading from the Lutheran's Book of Concord: "in the Holy Supper the two essences, the natural bread and the true, natural body of Christ, are present together here on earth in the ordered action of the sacrament, though the union of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine is not a personal union, like that of the two natures of Christ, but a sacramental union." So, you see, not even Lutherans assert what I understand you to assert that there is a change in the essence or nature of the bread and wine -- only Catholics (and you, if I understand you correctly) make that claim. And I think you are stuck there because it seems that you perceive anything other than this to be symbolic only.

What those of us at lunch today would like to suggest to you is that there is another option. To claim that Christ is spiritually present is more than Communion being just a memorial and the elements more than just a symbolic represenation. They are that, but they are more. In the words actually voted on by our General Confernce:
United Methodists, along with other Christian traditions, have tried to provide clear and faithful interpretations of Christ's presence in the Holy Meal. Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord's Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial. We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, though we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. We understand the divine presence in temporal and relational terms. In the Holy Meal of the church, the past, present, and future of the living Christ come together by the Holy Spirit so that we may receive and embody Jesus Christ as God's saving gift for the whole world.

This Holy Mystery, approved by 2004 General Conference, p. 25

Gayle Carlton Felton's commentary on that section of the document highlights how it is the spiritual essence of Christ, not the physical elements, that we United Methodist are considering when we speak of Christ's "real presence" for of them she writes: "The divine presence is not in the elements of bread and wine."


I just find it very strange if you believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine but still think they still remain "Just" bread and only "Just" wine.
OK. You find it strange. But as you can see, among United Methodists, I am not alone in that view.
 
Upvote 0

boswd

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2008
3,801
568
✟6,566.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Hi Grace thanks for the detailed response.

First point I would like to make, i don't think it come off very clear, is even if you believe their is a spiritual presence in the host then the host can no longer be just bread or just wine. Does that make sense? IOW's i'm not just speaking of it only can be a physical presence for a change to take place. I also believe if the presence is spiritual only it is no longer only bread because Christ is now present in the Host. So Yes a change does still take place.

In regards to the Lutherans view, it's more like the RCC and Eastern Orthodox than you think. They do also believe that their is the actuall body and blood but where they differ is they believe it does not take the place of the bread and wine but join with the host.
The Eastern Orthodox believe as the RCC but without the term Transubstantiation. To them how the change happens is only a Mystery and does not need any termanology to describe the change.
Which is basically what alot of what you quoted is referring too. Many don't like the word in regards to the feel it's micro-manging how Christ is Preseant in the Eucharist.
I'm not saying that some don't believe in the presence being only spiritual.

I would admit that my view is in the camps of the RCC and EO's but I do like the Lutheran's view as well. either case I do believe that Christ's Body and Blood and presenence.

I found some readings about John Wesley again on the Eucharist, I dont' think is solidfy's my view about where what his view were but it is interesting none the less

if you scroll down past the part of Confirmation it gets into it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=x3D...mation&f=false
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AngelusSax

Believe
Apr 16, 2004
5,252
426
42
Ohio
Visit site
✟22,990.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In regards to the Lutherans view, it's more like the RCC and Eastern Orthodox than you think. They do also believe that their is the actuall body and blood but where they differ is they believe it does not take the place of the bread and wine but join with the host.
(Hope you don't mind, I'm only trying to clarify a bit of the Lutheran side here since it was brought up)

It would be slightly inaccurate to say that Lutherans view it as Christ joining with the elements of bread and wine. We simply say Christ is present (this is physical and spiritual, both). "Join" kinda has a "becomes" connotation, or a "starting point" when it happens. While we would say we are sure it is true after the Words of Institution are spoken, we don't know that this is only when it happens.

IOW, a lot of it is left to mystery still. Christ is present, and further than that, we just let be what is and try not to explain it too much, since we don't really know. Most of us shy from "becomes" or "joins", though, for that reason. (Not that they ARE wrong, but we don't know).

Edit to add:
How this relates to the UMC position is one more of splitting hairs than anything, it seems. I know the UMC may stress physical presence less, if at all, but to me, it is sufficient to say Christ is present, and leave it at that.
 
Upvote 0

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟24,797.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
And while I believe in the real presence, I stop short of the Lutheran view, because I don't believe that Christ's presence is "in" the elements at all. I believe Jesus is present in the sacrament, in that sacred moment, not in the physicallity of the elements used. So, the elements really are unchanged, they remain just bread and wine, but, to me at least, that doesn't mean Christ is any less present. And because some Lutherans are able to accept this as being a sufficient understanding of real presence, I was pleased to be employed on synod staff for a number of years.
 
Upvote 0
L

Lovely Lane

Guest
gosh, I do not know what to make of this. Different ideas and opinions, but I haven't seen any scripture reference, so I'm guessing that Church Tradition is being proclaimed which the Reformation set about to change.

still confusing, for I have read of a Methodist Lay Leader article he wrote on his web page (layleaderwadeDOTcom/sacraments) that he too believes that some how God's presence is in the bread and cup.

Have the Protestants come full circle?
 
Upvote 0

Historicus

Follower of Jesus Christ
Apr 20, 2005
31,663
2,585
Ohio
✟62,935.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
gosh, I do not know what to make of this. Different ideas and opinions, but I haven't seen any scripture reference, so I'm guessing that Church Tradition is being proclaimed which the Reformation set about to change.

still confusing, for I have read of a Methodist Lay Leader article he wrote on his web page (layleaderwadeDOTcom/sacraments) that he too believes that some how God's presence is in the bread and cup.

Have the Protestants come full circle?

Actually Scripture itself doesn't clarify this. That is why it has even tended to divide Christians over the past two thousand plus years. United Methodists follow what is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral theologically. It is similar to the process of theology known as the "three-legged stool" in Anglicanism. Wesley added "Experience" in determing things of a theological nature.

Scripture is always primary since of course it is the written word of God. It's always the final rule of faith and practice. Below Scripture is Tradition, then Reason, then Experience. The United Methodist Church (and it's predecessors) have never accepted "Sola Scriptura" or "Scripture Alone"in the Protestant sense like Lutherans and Baptists for example.
 
Upvote 0

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟24,797.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Matthew 26
26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." 27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.


Mark 14
22While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body."
23Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. 24"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.


Luke 22
17After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you."
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." 20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."


John 6
32Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

34"Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread." 35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."
48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."


1 Corinthians 10
16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.


1 Corinthians 11
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.



There you have it. All the scripture that people propose relates to the subject at hand. The problem is not what does scripture say, but what does scripture mean? Does Jesus mean literally what he says, that he was giving his body and blood to his disciples to eat and drink that day? If not then, then how would it be so today? And if he does mean for us to take it literally, then what other passages of scripture need we to perhaps take at the same literal level. For instance:

Ephesians 1
7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace.

Hebrews 9
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!


If, as some interpret the Corinthian passages, to not recognize the elements as being the literal body and blood of Jesus (vs. merely being representative of them) is to take them in an unworthy manner, then what is proclaimed is that to recognize them for what they are (at least in their opinion), as the literal body and blood of Jesus is to receive them in the appropriate and worthy manner the scriptures require. But I submit to you that if we continue to be so literal in our understanding then, by recognizing that I am partaking of the blood of Christ, would not through his blood I find redemption in accordance with a literal understanding of Ephesians and Hebrews?

I'm not really arguing for the above, but trying to illustrate that simply to say, "What does the Bible say?" isn't really a solution, for people see different things in and infer still more different things from the Biblical text. All of the traditions have begun by reading the Bible and yet they have arrived at different conclusions as to the nature of Christ's presence in Holy Communion.
 
Upvote 0

GraceSeeker

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
4,339
410
USA
✟24,797.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
When it comes to our Methodist heritage, I think it can be instructive to read Wesley's notes that he made on these passages:


Matthew 26
[26] And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Jesus took the bread — the bread or cake, which the master of the family used to divide among them, after they had eaten the passover. The custom our Lord now transferred to a nobler use. This bread is, that is, signifies or represents my body, according to the style of the sacred writers. Thus Genesis 40:12, The three branches are three days. Thus Galatians 4:24[, St. Paul speaking of Sarah and Hagar, says, These are the two covenants. Thus in the grand type of our Lord, Exodus 12:11, God says of the paschal lamb, This is the Lord's passover. Now Christ substituting the holy communion for the passover, follows the style of the Old Testament, and uses the same expressions the Jews were wont to use in celebrating the passover.

[27] And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
And he took the cup — Called by the Jews the cup of thanksgiving; which the master of the family used likewise to give to each after supper.

[28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
This is the sign of my blood, whereby the new testament or covenant is confirmed.
Which is shed for many — As many as spring from Adam.




Mark 14
[24] And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
This is my blood of the New Testament — That is, this I appoint to be a perpetual sign and memorial of my blood, as shed for establishing the new covenant, that all who shall believe in me may receive all its gracious promises.

[25] Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, till I drink it new in the kingdom of God — That is, I shall drink no more before I die: the next wine I drink will not be earthly, but heavenly.



Luke 22
[17] And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
And he took the cup — That cup which used to be brought at the beginning of the paschal solemnity, and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I will not drink - As if he had said, Do not expect me to drink of it: I will drink no more before I die.

[19] And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
And he took bread — Namely, some time after, when supper was ended, wherein they had eaten the paschal lamb.
This is my body — As he had just now celebrated the paschal supper, which was called the passover, so in like figurative language, he calls this bread his body. And this circumstance of itself was sufficient to prevent any mistake, as if this bread was his real body, any more than the paschal lamb was really the passover.

[20] Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
This cup is the New Testament — Here is an undeniable figure, whereby the cup is put for the wine in the cup. And this is called, The New Testament in Christ's blood, which could not possibly mean, that it was the New Testament itself, but only the seal of it, and the sign of that blood which was shed to confirm it.


John 6
[32] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
Moses gave you not bread from heaven — It was not Moses who gave the manna to your fathers; but my Father who now giveth the true bread from heaven. Psalms 78:24.

[33] For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
He that — giveth life to the world - Not (like the manna) to one people only: and that from generation to generation. Our Lord does not yet say, I am that bread; else the Jews would not have given him so respectful an answer, John 6:34.

[34] Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
Give us this bread — Meaning it still, in a literal sense: yet they seem now to be not far from believing.

[35] And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
I am the bread of life — Having and giving life: he that cometh - he that believeth - Equivalent expressions: shall never hunger, thirst - Shall be satisfied, happy, for ever.

[50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Not die — Not spiritually; not eternally.

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
If any eat of this bread — That is, believe in me: he shall live for ever - In other words, he that believeth to the end shall be saved.
My flesh which I will give you — This whole discourse concerning his flesh and blood refers directly to his passion, and but remotely, if at all, to the Lord's Supper.

[52] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Observe the degrees: the Jews are tried here; the disciples, John 6:60-66, the apostles, John 6:67.

[53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man — Spiritually: unless ye draw continual virtue from him by faith. Eating his flesh is only another expression for believing.

[55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Meat — drink indeed - With which the soul of a believer is as truly fed, as his body with meat and drink.

[57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
I live by the Father — Being one with him.
He shall live by me — Being one with me. Amazing union!

[58] This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
This is — That is, I am the bread - Which is not like the manna your fathers ate, who died notwithstanding.



1 Corinthians 10
[16] The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
The cup which we bless — By setting it apart to a sacred use, and solemnly invoking the blessing of God upon it.
Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ — The means of our partaking of those invaluable benefits, which are the purchase of the blood of Christ. The communion of the body of Christ - The means of our partaking of those benefits which were purchased by the body of Christ - offered for us.

[17] For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
For it is this communion which makes us all one. We being many are yet, as it were, but different parts of one and the same broken bread, which we receive to unite us in one body.



1 Corinthians 11
[20] When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
Therefore — That is, in consequence of those schisms.
It is not eating the Lord's supper — That solemn memorial of his death; but quite another thing.

[21] For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
For in eating what ye call the Lord's supper, instead of all partaking of one bread, each person brings his own supper, and eats it without staying for the rest. And hereby the poor, who cannot provide for themselves, have nothing; while the rich eat and drink to the full just as the heathens use to do at the feasts on their sacrifices.

[22] What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
Have ye not houses to eat and drink your common meals in? or do ye despise the church of God - Of which the poor are both the larger and the better part. Do ye act thus in designed contempt of them?

[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
I received — By an immediate revelation.

[24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
This is my body, which is broken for you — That is, this broken bread is the sign of my body, which is even now to be pierced and wounded for your iniquities. Take then, and eat of, this bread, in an humble, thankful, obediential remembrance of my dying love; of the extremity of my sufferings on your behalf, of the blessings I have thereby procured for you, and of the obligations to love and duty which I have by all this laid upon you.

[25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
After supper — Therefore ye ought not to confound this with a common meal.
Do this in remembrance of me — The ancient sacrifices were in remembrance of sin: this sacrifice, once offered, is still represented in remembrance of the remission of sins.

[26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Ye show forth the Lord's death — Ye proclaim, as it were, and openly avow it to God, and to all the world.
Till he come — In glory.

[27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
Whosoever shall eat this bread unworthily — That is, in an unworthy, irreverent manner; without regarding either Him that appointed it, or the design of its appointment. Shall be guilty of profaning that which represents the body and blood of the Lord.

[28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
But let a man examine himself — Whether he know the nature and the design of the institution, and whether it be his own desire and purpose throughly to comply therewith.

[29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
For he that eateth and drinketh so unworthily as those Corinthians did, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself - Temporal judgments of various kinds, 1 Corinthians 11:30. Not distinguishing the sacred tokens of the Lord's body - From his common food.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0