Given recent discussions around the blogosphere regarding the Calvinist doctrine of the holy Eucharist, I thought it might be beneficial to briefly highlight some concepts which seem to me to need frequent clarification whenever discussing the matter with others. This is by no means anything ground breaking, but I think these are some basic points which are essential to a proper understanding of Calvinist Eucharistic thought.
1. Sacrament/Eucharist— It is vital to keep in mind with regard to these terms that the Reformed do not define a sacrament as, or equate it with, the sacramental elements. The sacraments consist of the entire rite, which includes, but is not limited to, certain essential things: the minister, the congregation, the Word, the sacramental elements (bread, wine, water), the presence of the reality signified by the elements. Thus, the Reformed will often speak of a presence of Christ in the sacrament, by which we do not mean to indicate a presence localized within the elements, but rather within the rite. Likewise, when we deny that Christ is physically present within the elements, we emphatically are not denying his real presence in the sacrament, taken as a whole.
2. Spiritual–When the Reformed speak of a “spiritual presence” of Christ in the Eucharist, we emphatically do not mean a presence of Christ’s Spirit, as though Christ is present in some sort of disembodied sense, which would run us into something akin to a Nestorian separation of Christ’s natures. Rather, what we mean to point out by speaking of a “spiritual presence” of Christ in the Eucharist is that the whole Christ–divinity and humanity, body and spirit–is really and truly made present in the Eucharist by the operation of the Holy Spirit.
3. Eating and Drinking–For the Reformed, the eating and drinking of the reality signified (Christ’s body and blood) by the Eucharistic elements is by faith. Thus, while Christ is truly present and objectively offered to all, those who refuse the gift by unbelief refuse the reality offered them in the sacrament, and therefore do not partake of the substance of the sacrament: Christ’s body and blood. They receive only the signs, to their own judgement. Those who receive the elements in faith, however, are truly united to Him, and thereby partake of the substance of Christ’s very body and blood, having their whole persons nourished and vivified by the life-giving substance of Jesus Christ himself. Christ is therefore in the Eucharist objectively present and truly offered to all, but only received by faith.
No. 1 is a big point of misunderstanding, not the least of which by Calvinists!
Jonathan,
Given (3), I believe that I can see your basis for rejecting paedocommunion, but what theological or exegetical warrant is there for affirming that those who receive the Eucharist without faith do not receive Christ?
NeoC,
As I state above, the Reformed hold that the reception of Christ is by faith, and that this is the means by which his flesh and blood are eaten and drunk in the sacrament. Those without faith receive Christ only “sacramentally,” that is, in the form of the sign only, but not truly and substantially, as they refuse to receive the gift offered them.
There are a few exegetical and theological principles at work here. But I think it sufficient to focus on the vital principle of faith, and the fact that those who eat Christ’s flesh and blood truly have life.
We see this played out in the discourse of John 6:35-51, which begins with Jesus proclaiming that he is the bread of life, after which he makes it clear that the means by which we avail ourselves of this bread (his flesh) is by coming to him and believing in him. After this he declares himself to be the true manna from heaven, but the Jews grumbled. Jesus proclaims in the face of this grumbling that he will not lose any of those given him by the Father. After these things Jesus states in v. 51 that He is “the living bread bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” It would seem to me that by beginning this discourse with a statement about “coming” and “believing,” that these are really the essential features involved in “eating” and “drinking,” and consequently, the means by which we “will live forever.” This is especially the case since the reader of John’s Gospel already has read the words of John 3:16-21.
Those who believe have life. Those who do not, are condemned. Those who eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood have life. Those who do not, have no life. All this to me implies that faith is the means by which we eat. And to eat is to be assured of eternal life.
In saying this I do not mean to take the eating and drinking out of the context of Eucharist, as this is the rite in which the reality of union is most fully realized.
I should also for the sake of clarity add that when I (and as I read him, Calvin) speak of faith as the means by which we eat, I am not talking about conjuring up within ourselves an ability to “think really hard about Jesus.” Feeding on Christ by faith in the sacrament means nothing more or less than a confident embrace of the Gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection as offered us therein.
Jonathan,
I certainly see how that interpretation might follow from Reformed presuppositions, but I do not think that John 6 teaches that the orientation of the receiver alters the properties of what is received, only the mode/effects of its reception. Christ’s body-soul-divinity is ineffably present in the Eucharist whether or not the person receiving it orally believes it or not. Body & soul are fed by the Eucharist. How God’s grace is received or used by the human agent doesn’t nullify its actual presence. The holiness of the ground doesn’t turn on whether or not Moses decides to take off his sandals.
I think this is an area where Calvin is more open than he seems.
He makes the distinction between Christ as life-giving bread and Christ as judge. The faithful get the former, the faithless get the latter.
But in reality, the two are the same “thing.” Christ is the substance of both. He has different effects.
Calvin may be molding his rhetoric to fit the specifics of his dispute, or he may be simply over-stating his case. Either way, the structure of his view allows for us to wiggle a bit on how we explain who gets what.
NeoC,
We disagree about whether Christ is contained within the elements, and this is what conditions our divergence. A manducatio impiorum is mandated if you locate the presence in the elements themselves. But the Reformed view carries no such necessity, as Christ’s presence is not contained within the elements, but among the congregation. The elements are thus instruments of grace, but not containers of grace. The efficacy of the sacrament is dependent upon the mystical union of the believer with Christ.
Jonathan,
“The elements are thus *instruments* of grace, but not containers of grace.”
(1) Is this indicative of your understanding of the relation between nature and grace? They are extrinsically related with the latter using the former as a passive instrument? I believe that Christ’s CREATED body and soul *possess* immortality, which is a divine energy. I really want to understand the theological presuppositions that motivate your use of terms.
(2) Do believers partake orally of the whole Christ in the Eucharist? Are they fed spiritually *and* materially?
I am somewhat ignorant of the nuances of the Reformed position in addition to the inner mechanics of the theological methodology at work here so for now I’ll restrict myself to question on matters I perceive to be substantive.
Jonathan,
This is a fine little summary. Anyone who wishes to understand the Reformed teaching should pay very close attention to the distinctions you’ve drawn here; it would save them a great deal of confusion.
peace
Peter
NeoC,
1. It is not indicative of my understanding of the intrinsic relationship between nature and grace, just how sacraments function: as visible signs of invisible realities. There will come a time (O hasten the day!) when we will no longer be in need of sacraments, for in that day the supernatural will have become fully natural, as it has in Christ’s own person. But that day is not yet.
I completely agree with you that Christ’s created body and soul possess immortality, as they are hypostatically united with the eternal Logos. I just don’t think that this necessitates transferring this quality to bread and wine. The bread and wine signify and convey to us the presence of the whole Christ–and by taking and eating them we partake of His life giving flesh and blood–but they do not contain him.
2. Emphatically, yes. In a mysterious manner, they partake of the whole Christ–body and soul, divinity and humanity–though not orally. They become one with him in the Eucharist in both body and soul. This is even more *real* and *material* than if they were to consume him with the mouth. Ask me how this is possible, and I will answer, “I don’t know.” It is a mystery, after all.
Jonathan,
So you know that (a) Christ’s divinity & humanity is somehow spiritually present, (b) not IN the elements, (c) not received orally, and (d) that this is somehow more “real” than what I’m asserting, *but* then everything else is a mystery? I find the appeal to mystery within this context ad hoc, especially given the theological methodology employed within Reformed theology. I’m still in the dark, dogmatically speaking I have trouble seeing what you have to gain by denying what I’m affirming.
“This [spiritual feeding without oral reception] is even more *real* and *material* than if they were to consume him with the mouth.”
What does this mean?!
NeoC,
First, I wouldn’t quite put it that “I know…” This is solely what I *think*, not what I *know*. It is what registers best with me in light of Scripture and the history of the Church’s reflection thereon. I don’t *know* that Christ is not located within bread and wine. I gladly allow for the possibility. I just don’t *think* that this is what occurs in the Eucharist of the Church. Nor do I think that Scripture or tradition mandate such an understanding. I would hold that there should be sufficient leeway to allow for a variety of views as to the *mode* of presence, so long as no one denies the *fact* of presence. That is all.
Call my recourse to mystery and insufficient understanding ad hoc if you want. I call it just being honest about the fact that I don’t have everything figured out. If I am certain about any one thing with regard to our Redemption in Christ, it is this: We will never fully comprehend things which are truly ineffible mysteries.
But as to your questions:
What I have to gain is a Christ who is received by faith, whose union with us is by faith, whose physical presence among us is not shut up in (though it is signified by) things that are seen with our eyes, touched with our hands, and chewed with our teeth.
What I mean in the above comment which you quote in #12 is that things which are consumed in a carnal manner (chewed, digested, and thence eliminated) are not as real and lasting as things communicated to us in a spiritual manner.
Let me also say this…
In an ideal world I would be happy and content to just say, “Jesus said, ‘Hoc est corpus meum’, and this is enough for me. I will take the bread and believe that I have received his body. I will take the wine and believe that I have received his blood.” For this is what I truly believe our Lord willed for us to understand by his words.
But we don’t live in such a world. We live in a world where we are always expecting terms to be defined, and wanting to define them ourselves. “Do you believe Christ is present?” “Yes.” “Do you believe that you consume his body and blood?” “Yes.” “Ahh, but where do you think he is located? And what is the manner by which you consume him?” So on, and so on… we are pressed for answers, and we press others for answers in return.
So I offer you my answers. Woopdy freakin’ doo. In reality, I know nothing.
I’d rather we all just say: “Christ our passover lamb is sacrificed. Thereofore let us keep the feast!” And bring glory and honor to God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ through our oneness with Him and with each other in the communion of the Holy Spirit.
But Alas!
Call me a hopeless Romantic if you want. I suppose that is just what I am.
Jonathan,
I have no problem with you confessing mystery; it’s just that you keep making positive assertions that cross the allegedly impenetrable epistemic barrier and that you’re committed to a theological tradition and methodology that does so.
NeoC,
Fair enough.
I would contend though that with all things divine, there comes a point where speculation must cease, regardless of tradition or methodology. You can assert that the Reformed tradition leaves no place for mystery. I would disagree. Calvin continually confesses an inability to comprehend and/or speak adequately about a topic. In fact, he confessed this about the mystery of Eucharist most of all.
One thing I tried to make clear in #14 is that I’d rather just confess mystery from the start and be done with it. But given our historical and ecclesial circumstance this is just not possible. We are forced to either affirm or deny certain things. It is what it is.
Alright, that’s fair. I did glean some insights from this conversation, I’ll say.
[…] and Language If the Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist (see here for a brief refresher) states that Christ is truly present in the sacrament, but at the same time […]
Thank you for this post, Jonathan. I think it does a good job of making some things clear that are often discussed in an imprecise and messy fashion. This is good, concise, helpful clarification!
FYI: “Eucharistic Presence in Calvin” by Dr Phillip Cary.