Lord's Day 31

Link to catechism questions 

Lord's Day Questions with proof texts

Link to audio recording of LD 31 Part 1

Link to audio recording of LD 31 Part 2

Summary (NotebookLM)

This section of the Heidelberg Catechism specifically addresses church discipline and the "power of the keys." It explains the nature of church discipline, including excommunication, its biblical basis, and its proper execution. The commentary distinguishes between church discipline and civil power, refuting objections to church discipline's necessity and authority. Finally, it details the proper process for church discipline, emphasizing love, due process, and the goal of repentance and restoration.

Chapter Content:

1. Introduction

This document provides an analysis of excerpts from the "Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism," specifically focusing on Lord's Day 31, which deals with the "Office of the Keys." This section of the catechism outlines the power and responsibility of the church in relation to the preaching of the Gospel and the practice of church discipline. The core concept revolves around how the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers and closed to unbelievers through these two means.

2. Main Themes and Ideas

The primary themes revolve around the nature and necessity of the Church's authority, particularly concerning:

• The Power of the Keys: This is defined as the authority Christ gave the church, which consists of two parts:

• Preaching of the Gospel: This involves declaring the grace of God and the remission of sins to the penitent and faithful, and denouncing God's wrath and eternal condemnation to the unrepentant. As the document states: "it is proclaimed and openly witnessed to believers, one and all, that as often as they accept with true faith the promise of the Gospel, all their sins are really forgiven them of God for the sake of Christ’s merits; and on the contrary, to all unbelievers and hypocrites, that the wrath of God and eternal condemnation abide on them, so long as they are not converted."

• Christian Discipline: This includes admonishment, and ultimately excommunication of those who err in doctrine or life and refuse to repent, and then the restoration of those who show genuine amendment. According to the text, "if any under the Christian name show themselves unsound either in doctrine or life... they are complained of to the church or to its proper officers, and, if they neglect to hear them also, are by them excluded from the Holy Sacraments and the Christian communion, and by God Himself from the kingdom of Christ."

• Necessity of Ecclesiastical Discipline: The commentary emphasizes that church discipline is necessary for multiple reasons:

• Biblical Command: Both the Old and New Testaments provide examples and commands for excluding the wicked from the fellowship of the faithful. Examples from the Old Testament include Numbers 15:30-31 and Deuteronomy 17:12; the New Testament shows this in Matthew 18:15-19 and 1 Corinthians 5.

• Glory of God: Allowing the unrepentant into the church brings reproach upon God and confounds his kingdom with that of Satan.

• Purity of the Church: Discipline prevents profanation of the sacraments, preserves doctrinal and worship purity, and provides safety to the church.

• Salvation of Sinners: Discipline is meant to bring offenders to repentance through admonishment and shame.

• Prevention of Scandal: It aims to prevent corruption of the weak within the church and to deter outsiders from joining without genuine repentance.

• The Order and Execution of the Power of the Keys:

• Preaching: The declaration of God’s will through the gospel is the sole responsibility of the ministers, and they declare that forgiveness comes through faith in Christ.

• Discipline: The whole church has a role in this, specifically through its designated leaders. The document explains that the "declaration of the favor and wrath of God is not made by any one privately, but by the whole church, or at least in the name of the whole church".

• Process of Discipline: This follows a prescribed order: (1) private admonition, (2) admonition by a few, (3) admonition by the church, and (4) excommunication as a last resort.

• Grounds for Excommunication: The unrepentant denial of faith, obstinate refusal to submit to God's commandments, and continued public sin are all grounds for excommunication.

• Purpose of Discipline: The aim is not to destroy the sinner but to lead them to repentance and salvation, and to protect the health of the community. “Christ has given to the church the power of excommunication, not for the destruction of the sinner, but for his edification and salvation.”

• Distinction from Civil Power: The commentary carefully differentiates between church discipline and civil power.

• Authority: Church discipline is exercised by the church, while civil power is exercised by judges or magistrates.

• Laws: The church judges according to divine law, while civil authorities judge according to civil and positive laws.

• Punishment: The church uses the word of God as its tool, and aims at reformation; civil power uses the sword and focuses on temporal punishments.

3. Key Quotes

• On the Power of the Keys: "The power of the keys which Christ delivered to the church, the preaching of the gospel and Christian discipline, by which the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers, and shut against unbelievers."

• On Preaching the Gospel: "it is proclaimed and openly witnessed to believers, one and all, that as often as they accept with true faith the promise of the Gospel, all their sins are really forgiven them of God for the sake of Christ’s merits; and on the contrary, to all unbelievers and hypocrites, that the wrath of God and eternal condemnation abide on them, so long as they are not converted."

• On Christian Discipline: "...if any under the Christian name show themselves unsound either in doctrine or life... they are complained of to the church or to its proper officers, and, if they neglect to hear them also, are by them excluded from the Holy Sacraments and the Christian communion, and by God Himself from the kingdom of Christ."

• On the Necessity of Discipline: "And surely if no country or city can exist without discipline, laws and punishments, then certainly the church, which is the house of the living God also needs some form of government and discipline, although it differs widely from civil power or jurisdiction."

• On the Purpose of Excommunication: “Christ has given to the church the power of excommunication, not for the destruction of the sinner, but for his edification and salvation.”

• On the Difference between civil and ecclesiastical power: "Ecclesiastical discipline is exercised by the church; civil power by the judge or magistrate... In the state, judgment is passed according to civil and positive laws; in the church, according to the divine law or word of God."

4. Important Facts

• The power of the keys is a metaphor from the role of stewards who manage a household.

• Church discipline is not arbitrary; it follows a specific process outlined in Matthew 18.

• Excommunication is the most severe form of church discipline and is not to be taken lightly.

• Ministers act as stewards declaring God's word, and it is through the Holy Spirit that God works, so the ministry is not a place of human authority alone.

• The commentary actively defends these ideas against objections, citing scripture and arguments to counter opponents of ecclesiastical discipline.

• The document acknowledges that the church’s exercise of power is imperfect and must be carried out in the spirit of love and with the goal of reconciliation.

5. Conclusion

Lord’s Day 31 of the Heidelberg Catechism, as expounded in this commentary, clearly articulates a robust view of church authority and responsibility. It emphasizes that the church has been given a specific mandate from Christ, with clearly defined boundaries, to proclaim the Gospel and to practice church discipline. The ultimate aim is the salvation of believers and the maintenance of God's holiness within the community, and it is imperative that these responsibilities be executed with both firmness and compassion, always with the goal of reconciliation. The commentary also provides a detailed defense of these doctrines against various objections, illustrating the careful and reasoned approach of the writers.

What are the key components of the "power of the keys" in the Heidelberg Catechism? 

The "power of the keys" in the Heidelberg Catechism refers to the authority given to the church to administer the Word of God and exercise Christian discipline. This power is metaphorically described as keys, symbolizing the ability to open and shut the kingdom of heaven. Here's a breakdown of its key components:

• Preaching of the Holy Gospel: This is one of the two main parts of the power of the keys. Through preaching, the church proclaims that God forgives the sins of believers who accept the Gospel with true faith, and that those who do not believe remain under God's wrath. The preaching of the Gospel both opens and shuts, binds and looses, by testifying to believers that their sins are forgiven and to unbelievers that they are condemned.

• Christian Discipline: The second part of the power of the keys is Christian discipline, which includes the practice of excommunication. When members of the church show themselves to be unsound in doctrine or life, they are to be admonished. If they refuse to turn from their errors, they may be excluded from the sacraments and Christian fellowship. Conversely, if they repent, they are to be received back into the church.

  • Excommunication: This is a key aspect of Christian discipline, and it is the act of excluding an openly wicked and obstinate offender from the communion of the faithful. This is done with the aim of shaming the offender into repentance. Excommunication is not just an exclusion from the sacraments but from the entire Christian community.

  • Reinstatement: When an excommunicated person demonstrates genuine repentance and amendment of life, they should be received back into the church.

The power of the keys is exercised by ministers and the church, but it is ultimately derived from Christ. The ministers declare the will of God through the preaching of the Gospel, while the church, or its designated officers, exercise discipline. This power is not arbitrary, but it is based on the Word of God and is to be used for the edification and salvation of individuals, not for their destruction.

It is also important to note the distinction between the two parts of the power of the keys. In the preaching of the Gospel, the keys first loose and then bind, but with Christian discipline, they first bind and then loose. The keys can also loose and bind different people by the preaching of the Gospel, while Christian discipline binds and looses the same persons.

Ultimately, the "power of the keys" serves to maintain the purity of the church, guard the sacraments, and lead sinners to repentance.

How does the Heidelberg Catechism define the "Office of the Keys"?

The Heidelberg Catechism defines the Office of the Keys as the preaching of the Holy Gospel and the practice of church discipline. Through these two actions, the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers and shut against unbelievers.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Preaching of the Holy Gospel:

  • The church, through its ministers, proclaims that God forgives the sins of believers who accept the Gospel with true faith, based on Christ's merits.

  • Conversely, the church declares that the wrath of God and eternal condemnation remain on unbelievers and hypocrites as long as they do not repent.

  • This declaration of the Gospel serves as a witness, and God's judgment will align with this witness both in this life and the life to come.

• Christian Discipline:

  • When members of the church display unsoundness in doctrine or life, they are to be admonished.

  • If, after repeated admonitions, they refuse to turn from their errors, they are to be reported to the church or its officers.

  • If they still refuse to listen, they are to be excluded from the sacraments and Christian communion, thus being excluded by God himself from the kingdom of Christ.

  • However, if they show genuine repentance, they are to be received back as members of Christ and His Church.

The "power of the keys" is a metaphor derived from the idea of stewards who are given the keys to a house. In this context, the church is seen as the house of God, and ministers are the stewards. The keys represent the authority to declare the will of God and to administer the sacraments. It is called the power of the keys from the efficacy of this power.

The office of the keys is also described as the power to "open and shut, to bind and loose". This power is exercised by the church through the Word of God and in the name of Christ, with the Holy Spirit working effectively through the Word. The power of the keys is exercised in the name of Christ and by the authority of the Holy Spirit.

This power of the keys is not arbitrary; it is based on Christ's command and is intended for the edification and salvation of individuals. It is meant to keep the church pure, guard the sacraments from profanation, and lead sinners to repentance.

It is important to note a distinction in how the two parts of the keys work. The preaching of the Gospel first looses and then binds; whereas, Christian discipline first binds and then looses. In the preaching of the Gospel, the keys can loose and bind different people. Christian discipline, however, only binds and looses the same persons.

Why is ecclesiastical discipline considered necessary?

Ecclesiastical discipline, also called Christian discipline, is considered necessary for a variety of reasons, according to the sources. These reasons can be categorized as follows:

• Divine Command and Scriptural Basis:

  • God commands guarding against the profanation of the sacraments in both the Old and New Testaments.

  • In the Old Testament, God did not allow the wicked and obstinate to be included among His people. God commanded the exclusion of the rebellious from the Jewish commonwealth.

  • The New Testament also indicates that only those who confess their sins and repent are to be admitted to baptism.

  • Christ commanded that all submit to God's commandments before approaching the sacraments.

  • The apostles also commanded the church to withdraw from those who walk disorderly.

  • Christ himself does not permit the sacraments, which he instituted for the faithful alone, to be administered to the unfaithful.

  • The Scriptures contain many declarations that command that the openly wicked be excluded from the church and the use of the sacraments.

• Maintaining the Purity and Integrity of the Church:

  • Ecclesiastical discipline is necessary to ensure that the sacraments are not profaned by the wicked, and that the church does not give to the wicked in the supper what is denied to them in the word.

  • It is necessary to preserve the purity of doctrine and worship.

  • The church is the house of God, and it needs some form of government and discipline.

  • The church should be kept separate and distinct from all the various sects and adherents of the devil.

  • The faithful are not to be confounded with those who are aliens from the church.

• For the Glory of God:

  • Reproach is cast upon the name and cause of God if all, including blasphemers and the notoriously wicked, are regarded as children of God without any distinction.

  • The kingdom of God should not be confused with that of Satan.

• Safety and Salvation of the Church and Individuals:

  • God will punish the church if it knowingly and willingly profanes the sacraments or permits them to be profaned.

  • Discipline is necessary for the salvation of sinners so they may be brought to repentance.

  • It is also necessary so that scandals may be prevented in the church.

  • Discipline prevents the weak from being corrupted by bad examples.

  • It prevents scandals on the part of those outside the church.

  • It is necessary so that the name of God is not blasphemed and evil spoken of by others.

  • Discipline is necessary to avert punishment from the wicked. If the ungodly are permitted to come to the sacraments of the church, they bring upon themselves the judgments of God.

• Distinction from Civil Power:

  • The church needs a form of government and discipline, though it differs widely from civil power or jurisdiction.

  • The church’s discipline is based on the word of God, while civil power employs the sword.

  • The church aims for the reformation and salvation of the offender, while the magistrate seeks the execution of justice and public peace.

In summary, ecclesiastical discipline is considered necessary because it is commanded by God, it is rooted in both Old and New Testament scripture, it maintains the purity of the church, protects the sacraments from profanation, safeguards the church, helps lead sinners to repentance and brings glory to God.

How does the order of applying the keys differ between preaching and discipline?

The order in which the "keys" are applied differs between the preaching of the Gospel and the practice of Christian discipline.

• Preaching of the Gospel: In the preaching of the Gospel, the keys first loose and then bind. This means that the Gospel first offers the promise of forgiveness and salvation to believers. It declares the remission of sins and the grace of God for the sake of Christ's merits to the faithful and penitent. Then, it declares that unbelievers and hypocrites remain under God’s wrath and condemnation as long as they are unconverted.

• Christian Discipline: In Christian discipline, the keys first bind and then loose. This means that discipline first addresses the sins and errors of church members by excluding them from the sacraments and Christian community if they are unrepentant. If the individual shows true repentance and amendment, then they are loosed from this binding, and are received back into the church.

Another distinction is that the keys, through preaching, can loose and bind different people, while Christian discipline binds and looses the same people. In the preaching of the gospel, the message is directed broadly to all, and the response of each individual determines whether they are loosed (forgiven) or bound (condemned). Christian discipline, however, focuses on specific individuals within the church who have been identified as being in error, and it is concerned with their specific journey to repentance and restoration.

What are the potential abuses of church discipline and how can they be avoided?

The sources identify several potential abuses of church discipline and provide guidance on how to avoid them. Here are some key points:

• Neglecting Proper Admonition: One potential abuse is failing to follow the prescribed steps of admonition. The process should not begin with the final step of excommunication, but should start with private admonition. The proper order, as described by Christ, includes:

  1. Private brotherly admonition.

  2. Admonition by a few (one or two more).

  3. Admonition by the whole church.

  4. Public sentence of the church, which is excommunication, as a final resort.

  These steps should not be skipped, and the order should not be inverted by beginning with the last step.

• Lack of Brotherly Love: Church discipline should be carried out with evidence of brotherly love and a genuine desire to benefit and secure the salvation of the person who has erred. The person should be regarded as a brother, and not as an enemy, even while being admonished. The goal is to bring the offender to repentance, not to drive them to desperation.

• Unjust or Insignificant Causes: Discipline should be based on just, weighty, and necessary causes, not on those that are unjust, doubtful, or of small importance. Excommunication should not be based on slight suspicion, but on urgent necessity, such as errors that subvert the foundation of faith, or flagrant crimes that are persistently and obstinately continued. It is comparable to a physician not using a knife unless absolutely necessary.

• Individual Authority: Decisions about discipline should not be made by a single person or even by the ministers alone. The decision must be carefully considered by all the elders and approved by the whole church, although the execution of the decision is often left to a few. This ensures that it is not the tyranny of a few, but rather the collective wisdom of the whole community. The consent and decision of the church provides greater authority, prevents any one person from being injured, and prevents the ministry from becoming an oligarchy.

• Creating Schism: The process of discipline should not cause a schism or scandal in the church. If the minister sees or fears that the discipline will cause these problems, then they should not proceed. It is important to prevent division and maintain unity.

• Neglecting the Goal of Edification: The power of excommunication given to the church is not for the destruction of the sinner, but for their edification and salvation. Therefore, the design of church discipline should not be to establish the sovereignty of the ministers of Christ.

In summary, avoiding the abuses of church discipline requires a commitment to following the proper steps of admonition, exercising love and compassion, focusing on just and weighty causes, involving the entire church, preventing schism, and keeping the goal of edification at the forefront of the process.

Lord's Day 30

Link to catechism questions 

Lord's Day Questions with proof texts

Link to audio recording of LD 30 Part 1

Link to audio recording of LD 30 Part 2

Link to audio recording of LD 30 Part 3

The Mass: a Catholic Perspective (using contemporary sources)

Summary (NotebookLM)

In this section Ursinus contrasts the Lord's Supper with the Catholic Mass, highlighting key theological differences regarding the nature of Christ's sacrifice, Christ's location, and the proper form of worship. The commentary also addresses who should partake in the Lord's Supper, emphasizing the necessity of faith and repentance. Furthermore, it explores the historical origins and symbolism of the Passover and its relationship to the Lord's Supper as its replacement. Finally, it clarifies points of agreement and disagreement among various Protestant denominations concerning the sacrament.

Chapter Content:

• Central Theme: The primary focus of this section is a sharp contrast between the Protestant understanding of the Lord's Supper and the Roman Catholic Mass. It argues for the abolition of the Mass due to its perceived errors and abuses.

• Key Differences (Summarized):

• Sacrifice: The Lord's Supper is a memorial of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice on the cross, providing full forgiveness. The Mass, however, teaches that Christ is daily re-offered by priests for the sins of the living and the dead, effectively denying the sufficiency of Christ's single sacrifice.

• Quote: "The Lord’s Supper testifies to us, that we have full forgiveness of all our sins by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He Himself has once accomplished on the cross...But the Mass teaches, that the living and the dead have not forgiveness of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is still daily offered for them by the priests..."

• Presence of Christ: The Lord's Supper affirms that Christ is present spiritually, residing in heaven at the Father's right hand. The Mass asserts that Christ is bodily present under the forms of bread and wine, to be worshipped in them.

• Quote: "...and that by the Holy Spirit we are engrafted into Christ, who with His true body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father, and is to be there worshiped...But the Mass teaches, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and is therefore to be worshiped in them."

• Worship: The Lord's Supper directs worship to Christ in heaven. The Mass, ascribing bodily presence to Christ in the elements, directs worship toward the consecrated bread and wine, which is deemed idolatrous.

• Quote: "The mass teaches, on the other hand, that Christ is to be worshipped in the bread, which worship is, without doubt, idolatrous."

• Origin of the Term "Mass": The text explores various theories regarding the etymology of the word "mass" (missa), ultimately concluding that it is likely derived from the Latin word "missio" (sending away), possibly referring to the dismissal of catechumens before the Lord's Supper.

• Quote: "...the term missa, which is doubtless a Latin word, seems to be taken from the Fathers, who used remissa for remissio... so they also seem to have used missa for missio, which is derived from mittendo."

• Condemnation of the Mass: The document unequivocally states the Mass is a denial of Christ's one sacrifice and an "accursed idolatry." It argues the Mass corrupts the Lord's Supper, distorts its meaning, and establishes an idolatrous worship of the elements. It is deemed necessary to abolish the Mass.

• Quote: "And thus the Mass at bottom is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and passion of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry."

• Further Differences: The document expands on the differences, emphasizing that the Mass promotes justification by works, asserts a bodily entrance of Christ into believers, and denies the ascension of Christ by positing his body is on the altar. It also highlights the transubstantiation teaching as denying the nature of sacraments as signs, rather than replacing the signified things.

• Ubiquitarians: The text also addresses a related debate with the Ubiquitarians, who claim Christ is present in the bread to be eaten, not adored. The document argues this is a false distinction, as the presence of Christ warrants worship, and rejects their claim that Christ’s human nature is present everywhere.

II. Who Should Partake of the Lord's Supper (Question 81)

• Theme: This section defines who is eligible for the Lord's Supper and warns against unworthy participation.

• Eligible Participants:Those who are displeased with their sins and trust in Christ's forgiveness.

• Those who desire to strengthen their faith and amend their lives.

• Those with true faith and repentance, shown through a peace of conscience and a desire to obey God's commandments.

• Those who have examined themselves (as per 1 Corinthians 11:28).

• Quote: "Those who are displeased with themselves for their sins, yet trust that these are forgiven them, and that their remaining infirmity is covered by the passion and death of Christ; who also desire more and more to strengthen their faith and amend their life."

• Unworthy Participants:Impenitent individuals and hypocrites.

• Those who do not have faith.

• Those who come without self-examination and repentance.

• They eat and drink judgment to themselves (1 Corinthians 11:29), becoming guilty of the body and blood of Christ.

• Quote: "But the impenitent and hypocrites eat and drink judgment to themselves."

• What the Wicked Receive: The wicked receive only the signs of bread and wine to their own condemnation; not the actual spiritual benefits of Christ. This is because they lack faith, the means by which Christ is truly received.

• Quote: "Hypocrites, and such as turn not to God with sincere hearts coming to the Lord’s supper, receive not the things signified, viz.: the body and blood of Christ, but the naked signs of bread and wine, and these to their condemnation."

• Lawful Use: The document explains the lawful use of the Lord's Supper is to retain the proper rites, by those who are faithful, for the intended purpose of remembrance of Christ's death and the confirmation of faith.

• Quote: "The lawful use of the Supper is, when the faithful receive in the church the bread and cup of the Lord, and show his death, so that this receiving may be a pledge of their union with Christ..."

III. Who Should Be Excluded from the Lord's Supper (Question 82)

• Theme: This section discusses the responsibility of the church to exclude certain individuals from the Lord's Supper.

• Exclusion: Those who openly demonstrate unbelief and ungodliness through their confession and lives are to be excluded from the Lord's Supper. This is to prevent the profaning of God's covenant and avoid his wrath being brought on the congregation.

• Quote: "No; for by this the covenant of God is profaned, and His wrath provoked against the whole congregation; wherefore the Christian Church is bound, according to the order of Christ and His Apostles, by the office of the keys to exclude such persons, until they amend their life."

• Reasons for Exclusion:

• Profaning God's Covenant: By administering the Supper to those who are not in the covenant.

• Provoking God's Wrath: As God is angered by the sacrilege of giving communion to the unrepentant.

• Following Christ's Command: Christ instituted the Supper for His disciples alone.

• Church Discipline: The church has a duty to maintain the purity of communion by excluding those known to be unrepentant or openly sinful. They must, however, admit those who profess faith and repentance, whether those individuals are sincere or not.

• Quote: "Those, however, are not to be admitted to the Lord’s table, who simply declare that they believe all these things, while they continue to lead ungodly and sinful lives..."

IV. Theses Concerning the Lord's Supper

• Theme: A comprehensive set of theological statements regarding the Lord's Supper, summarizing its purpose, meaning, and proper administration.

• Key Points:

• The Lord’s Supper is instituted to remember Christ’s death and testify that he feeds believers unto eternal life.

• There are two kinds of food – external (bread and wine) and internal (Christ’s body and blood). There is a corresponding double eating, external (receiving bread and wine) and internal (spiritual union with Christ through faith).

• The signs are bread and wine; they are not changed into the body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine are a symbol of Christ's body.

• The bread is called the body of Christ, because it is a symbol of Christ's body, and because those who partake in faith receive the spiritual benefits of Christ's sacrifice and are joined to Christ through the Holy Spirit.

• The lawful use of the supper is for the faithful, to strengthen their faith and gratitude.

• Unbelievers receive only the signs to their condemnation, not the spiritual benefits of Christ.

• The Supper confirms the believer’s union with Christ.

• Comparison with Baptism: The section draws a comparison of the Lord’s Supper with baptism. It notes differences in their rites, operation, who they should be administered to, how often they should be administered and the order in which they should be received.

• Critique of Roman Catholicism: The document condemns specific Roman Catholic practices and doctrines as corruptions of the Lord's Supper: transubstantiation, the worship of bread, the offering of a propitiatory sacrifice, and the denial of the cup to the laity. These are considered reasons to abolish the mass.

V. Comparison With The Passover

• Theme: This section discusses the Passover in light of the Lord's Supper, making points of comparison and contrast.

• Passover's Nature: The Passover was the solemn eating of a lamb, given to the Israelites as a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt and as a type of Christ's sacrifice.

• Purposes of the Passover:Sign of God's passing over the houses of the Israelites.

• Type of Christ's sacrifice.

• Memorial of Israel's deliverance from Egypt.

• Bond of unity in the public assembly.

• Distinguishing factor between God's people and other nations.

• Resemblances Between Paschal Lamb and Christ: There is a detailed comparison of the paschal lamb and Christ.

• Quote: The text presents a table listing various comparisons between the Paschal Lamb and Christ including that a lamb from the flock corresponds to Christ being a true man, that the lamb without blemish corresponds to Christ being without sin, and that the lamb being slain and roasted corresponds to Christ suffering and dying.

• Abolition of the Passover: The Old Testament Passover was abolished with the coming of Christ and is succeeded by the Lord's Supper.

• Quote: "That the ancient Passover, with all the other types which prefigured the Messiah which walls to come, was abolished at the coming of Christ, is evident..."

VI. Conclusion

The document demonstrates a strong Reformation-era perspective, arguing that the Mass is a corruption of the Lord's Supper. It defines the proper recipients of communion as those who have true faith and repentance, and it charges the Church with a duty to exclude those known to be unrepentant. It offers a detailed theological understanding of the Lord’s Supper. It also outlines the differences between the Lord’s Supper and the Passover, explaining how the Supper replaces the old Passover in the New Testament.

This briefing document should provide a thorough overview of the information and arguments presented in the provided text.

How does Ursinus contrast the Lord's Supper and the Mass?

According to Ursinus, the Lord's Supper and the Mass differ in several key aspects:

• Justification: The Lord's Supper testifies that the sacrifice of Christ alone justifies, while the Mass, according to Popish priests, claims that the Mass itself justifies through the work that is done.

• Redemption: The Lord's Supper teaches that Christ has redeemed us by offering himself, while the Mass asserts that we are justified by Christ being offered by priests.

• Salvation: The Lord's Supper says that salvation is accomplished by Christ's one-time sacrifice on the cross, but the Mass maintains that salvation is accomplished through the frequent repetition of the Mass.

• Union with Christ: The Lord's Supper teaches that we are engrafted into Christ through the Holy Spirit by faith, but the Mass deceives by claiming that Christ enters into us corporally, or that we are engrafted into Christ by his entering into us corporally.

• Christ's Location: The Lord's Supper teaches that Christ ascended into heaven after his sacrifice, while the Mass teaches that he is present on the altar, as to his body.

• Substance of Elements: In the Lord's Supper, the bread and wine remain unchanged in substance, as sacraments do not change the substance of the signs. Conversely, the Mass teaches that the substance of the bread and wine is annihilated, and only the accidents remain.

• Purpose: The Lord's Supper aims to confirm our faith in Christ and his sacrifice, while the Mass is designed to confirm the opinion concerning works that are done, and constitutes a denial of the sacrifice of Christ.

• Worship: The Lord's Supper teaches that Christ is to be adored in heaven, but the Mass-mongers adore him under the forms of bread and wine.

These differences, according to Ursinus, prove that the Mass is essentially a denial of Christ's sacrifice and an act of idolatry.

Ursinus seems contradictory in asking why ubiquitarians do not worship the elements, yet derides the Catholics for worshiping Christ in the elements.

The seeming contradiction you've identified regarding the worship of the elements in the Lord's Supper and the Mass stems from differing views on the presence of Christ and the nature of worship, as explained in the sources. Here's a breakdown:

• Ubiquitarians and the Presence of Christ: Ubiquitarians believe that Christ's human nature is present everywhere, thus it would be in the bread. However, they argue that Christ is in the bread to be eaten, not adored, and that he did not command adoration of the elements. The source points out that this argument is a "mere begging of the question" because if Christ is present in the bread, he should be worshiped, referencing the general command to worship God.

• Rejection of Localized Worship: The text argues that worship in the New Testament is not to be restricted to any particular place. This is why the worship of God at the ark in the Old Testament was acceptable, because God had commanded it, but worship at other places, like the high places, was idolatrous.

• Critique of the Mass and its Idolatry: The text argues that the Mass is idolatrous because it teaches that Christ is to be worshiped in the bread. The text posits that this practice directs worship to a physical place (the bread) where Christ is allegedly more present than elsewhere, as if worship were to be directed to a specific spot, such as the ark of the covenant. This is problematic because the worship of God, according to the text, should be spiritual and not tied to a physical location.

• The Nature of Christ's Presence: The text states that in the Lord's Supper, Christ is present spiritually, and his body and blood are received by faith, not physically in the elements. It also notes that Christ's human nature is in heaven at the right hand of the Father. In contrast, the Mass teaches that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, which are then physically present in the elements. It is this physical presence of Christ in the elements which the Mass argues justifies their worship.

• Rejection of Corporal Presence: According to the text, the idea of Christ's "corporal presence" in the bread, whether through transubstantiation or consubstantiation, is the foundation of the idolatrous worship of the Papists.

• Worship in Heaven: The text emphasizes that Christ should be worshiped in heaven, at the right hand of God, not in the bread. The Lord's Supper points to this worship of Christ in heaven rather than any localized worship.

In summary, the author argues against both the ubiquitarians and the Catholic position on worship in the eucharist. The author's view is that the ubiquitarians contradict themselves by arguing that Christ's body should not be worshiped in the elements if it is there, because the author believes that the general command to worship God requires worship if God is present. The Catholic position on the other hand is rejected because it is based on the claim of Christ's localized physical presence in the elements, which the author argues is not biblical. The author also notes that the Bible commands that Christians are to worship God in spirit, not tied to any physical object.

According to the Catechism, there are three key distinctions between the Lord's Supper and the Mass:

• Forgiveness of Sins: The Lord's Supper testifies that we have full forgiveness of sins through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. This sacrifice was accomplished once. In contrast, the Mass teaches that forgiveness of sins for both the living and the dead is not obtained through Christ's sufferings unless Christ is offered daily by priests. The Mass suggests that Christ must be repeatedly offered for sins.

• Location and Nature of Christ: The Lord's Supper testifies that Christ, in his human nature, is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father. He is not concealed under the forms of bread and wine, but is spiritually present and is received by faith. The Holy Spirit engrafts believers into Christ so that they may abide in him. The Mass, on the other hand, teaches that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ through consecration. The Mass further teaches that Christ's body and blood are brought down from heaven and are bodily present under the forms of bread and wine. The Mass claims that Christ's body is handled by the minister, carried about, and eaten by communicants.

• Worship: The Lord's Supper teaches that Christ is to be worshipped in heaven at the right hand of the Father. The Lord's Supper does not overthrow the doctrine that Christ is to be sought and worshipped above. The Mass teaches that Christ is to be worshipped in the bread, which is considered idolatrous. This is because worship should not be restricted to any particular place, but should be spiritual. The text further argues that the idea of Christ’s “corporal presence” in the bread is the foundation of the idolatrous worship of the Papists.

Lord's Day 29

Link to catechism questions 

Lord's Day Questions with proof texts

Link to audio recording of LD 29 Part 1

Link to audio recording of LD 29 Part 2

"Transubstantiation in the Catholic Tradition" - Brett Salkeld 

NotebookLM Summary of Salkeld on Transubstantiation

Summary (NotebookLM) 

Lord's Day 29 addresses the theological debate surrounding the Lord's Supper. It refutes the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, arguing that Christ's words "This is my body" are sacramental metaphors. The commentary supports a symbolic interpretation, emphasizing the spiritual communion with Christ offered through the sacrament and highlighting the analogy between earthly sustenance and spiritual nourishment. Numerous scriptural passages and quotes from early church fathers are used to bolster this argument.

Overview of Chapter:

This section of Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, delves into the complex theological question of the Lord's Supper. The central issue revolves around the interpretation of Christ's words, "This is my body," and "This is my blood." The text systematically refutes the doctrines of transubstantiation (Catholic) and consubstantiation (Lutheran), advocating instead for a sacramental understanding. This view sees the bread and wine as signs and pledges that represent and convey the spiritual reality of Christ's sacrifice and the believer's union with him.

II. Main Themes

• Rejection of Literal Interpretations (Transubstantiation & Consubstantiation): The document argues strongly against literal interpretations of Christ's words that would imply a physical transformation of the elements (transubstantiation) or a co-existence of Christ's body and blood in, with, or under the elements (consubstantiation). These views are considered additions to and distortions of Christ's simple words, and ultimately, a perversion.

• Transubstantiation: The text criticizes the Catholic view of a complete change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, with only the "accidents" remaining. It states, "The Papists imagine that by virtue of the consecration the bread is changed, or converted into the body of Christ, the accidents only remaining. This change they call transubstantiation."

• Consubstantiation: It also criticizes the Lutheran view that the body and blood of Christ are "co-existent" with the bread and wine, stating, "There are others again, who contend that there is a consubstantiation, or co-existence of the body of Christ in, or with the bread."

• Sacramental Metonymy: The preferred interpretation is that the language used in the Lord's Supper is sacramental, employing metonymy (a figure of speech where one thing is referred to by something associated with it). This is a common understanding in the Scriptures. It is argued that the bread and wine are called the body and blood of Christ because they are signs and seals of his sacrifice and of believers' spiritual participation.

• "For in all these instances the name of the thing signified is attributed to the sign by a sacramental metonymy."

• Spiritual Eating: The emphasis is on a spiritual communion with Christ, received by faith. The physical act of eating the bread and drinking the wine is a means of receiving and strengthening the believer's spiritual union with Christ and all of his benefits.

• "The true sense and interpretation then of the words of Christ, This is my body, which is given for you, is, this bread which I break and give unto you is the sign of my body, which was delivered unto death for you, and is a certain seal of your union with me, so that whosoever shall believe and eat this bread, does, in a certain sense, really and truly eat my body."

• The Nature of Sacraments: A significant portion of the text is dedicated to explaining the nature of sacraments in general and how they function. Sacraments are seen as:

• Signs and Seals: They are visible signs and pledges of invisible grace, corresponding to the promises of the gospel.

• "The gospel no where promises any corporal or oral eating... sacraments declare, exhibit, confirm and seal the same thing which the word promises."

• Spiritual: The things signified are not received or understood corporally, but spiritually. "The nature of all sacraments requires that the signs be taken corporally, while the things signified must be understood spiritually."

• Analogical: There is a correspondence between the visible signs and the spiritual realities they signify.

• Critique of Idolatry: The view of the Eucharist advanced in the text sees the concept of the physical presence of Christ in the bread or wine as leading to the possibility of idolatry because then, God would be worshipped through a physical object and not in spirit and truth.

• "If Christ be in the bread in a corporal manner, and be given by the hands of the minister, then forgiveness of sins ought to be sought from the hands of God on account of that which is in the bread... This is that shocking idolatry which is practiced in the Popish mass..."

• Importance of Remembrance: The Lord's Supper is seen as a memorial of Christ's sacrifice, as in Christ's words "Do this in remembrance of me." This emphasis on remembrance underscores the spiritual nature of the sacrament, pointing to Christ's historical sacrifice.

• "Remembrance is not of things bodily present, but absent. Christ instituted this sacrament to his remembrance."

III. Key Arguments and Facts

• Biblical Interpretation: The text bases its arguments on careful interpretation of biblical passages, particularly the words of institution ("This is my body...") and other relevant passages from John and Paul.

• The words "This is my body" are argued to be a figurative manner of speech, not to be taken literally (especially in light of John 6:62-63 which explains the spiritual nature of eating the flesh of Christ).

• The text emphasizes that the cup is called the "New Testament," not the actual New Testament, indicating a symbolic meaning.

• Arguments Against Transubstantiation:Christ broke bread, not his body.

• The bread was not given to death for us, but Christ's body was.

• The words of institution don't use terms like "under the forms" or "change into," rather the words are "This is my body."

• Transubstantiation destroys the correspondence between the sign and the thing signified.

• Arguments Against Consubstantiation:Christ's body is in heaven after the ascension; therefore, it cannot be "in, with, or under" the bread.

• The words of Christ are "This is my body", not "in, with, and under this bread is my body".

• The illustrations of a purse with money, or a cask of wine do not work, because in those instances, the content is clear, while the nature of Christ in the bread is not.

• The doctrine is based on the "ubiquity" of Christ, which this text rejects.

• Arguments for the Sacramental View:The nature of sacraments is to be symbolic and spiritual.

• This interpretation is supported by Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the rule of faith.

• It honors the analogical nature of sacraments, emphasizing how bread strengthens physical life, and Christ strengthens spiritual life.

• Testimonies of the Fathers: The text quotes numerous Church Fathers like Augustine, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Chrysostom, to support its interpretation. These sources also use figurative language to explain the Eucharist, and emphasize a spiritual eating.

• The Nature of Christ's Body: The text emphasizes that Christ's human nature is finite. It argues that His ascension to heaven means his body is not physically present in the bread, as is the Catholic and Lutheran view.

IV. Quotes Illustrating Key Concepts:

• On Sacramental Metonymy: "It is in the same way that we must understand Paul, when he says, This is my body which is broken for you, because he attributes the property of the sign (which is to be broken) to the thing signified."

• On Spiritual Eating: "The true sense and interpretation then of the words of Christ, This is my body... is, this bread... is the sign of my body... and is a certain seal of your union with me, so that whosoever shall believe and eat this bread, does, in a certain sense, really and truly eat my body."

• On the Nature of Sacraments: "The nature of all sacraments requires that the signs be taken corporally, while the things signified must be understood spiritually; and that the things which are visible are not the things signified, being only the signs and pledges of them."

• On Remembrance: "Remembrance is not of things bodily present, but absent. Christ instituted this sacrament to his remembrance."

• On the Body of Christ: "The body of Christ was born of the Virgin; bread is made out of meal. It is not, therefore, really the body of Christ."

• On the Rejection of Consubstantiation: "For neither is the bread by itself, nor the bread with the body of Christ concealed in it, properly the body of Christ; as a purse, whether full or empty, is not properly and without a figure of speech called money."

V. Implications

This text emphasizes a Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper, emphasizing the spiritual nature of the sacrament, the importance of faith, and the symbolic meaning of the elements. This has implications for how believers approach the Lord's Supper - as a moment of spiritual communion, of remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice and a pledge of their union with Christ. It's also a refutation of both Catholic and Lutheran views, and calls them a form of idolatry.

This document from "LD29.txt" provides a thorough explanation of a complex theological issue, offering a nuanced interpretation of the Lord's Supper. It shows the historical importance of this theological debate and how the author understands and defends his Reformed point of view.

Timeline of Main Events and Ideas

• Ancient Times - Early Church:

• Early Church Fathers, such as Augustine, Cyprian, and Chrysostom, used figurative language when discussing the Eucharist. They emphasized a spiritual understanding of partaking in Christ, rather than a literal or physical one.

• Emphasis on remembrance and memorial aspects of the breaking of bread as a sacrifice for Christ.

• Later Development of Doctrine:

• Papists (Roman Catholics): Developed the doctrine of transubstantiation, arguing that the bread and wine are converted into the actual body and blood of Christ (the substance or essence changes while the accidents or appearance remains the same), through consecration. This view is said to be a literal interpretation of the scriptures. Consecration must follow a strict formula, including exact verbage.

• Ubiquitarians (primarily Lutherans): Defended the idea of consubstantiation, arguing that the body and blood of Christ coexist with the bread and wine, also a literal interpretation of scriptures. This view is also presented as being consistent with the ubiquity of Christ's divine nature.

• These two views were described as adding or changing the meaning of Christ's words.

• Reformation Era

• The text rejects both transubstantiation and consubstantiation, claiming they are not literal interpretations.

• The text proposes that Christ’s words "This is my body" are to be understood sacramentally and figuratively. This means that the bread and wine are signs of the body and blood of Christ, not the literal body and blood itself.

• The text emphasizes the importance of remembering Christ's sacrifice and of spiritual communion with him through faith.

• Discussion and refutation of arguments of both sides, using scripture, logic, and appeals to the early Church fathers

• Focus on the nature of sacraments. Emphasis on the idea that in all sacraments, the signs (like water in baptism or bread and wine in the Lord's Supper) are earthly and visible, while the things they represent are spiritual and not physically present. Sacraments are seals and confirm our union with Christ.

• Arguments Against Transubstantiation & Consubstantiation

• Christ's body is finite and in heaven. It cannot be present in multiple locations on Earth simultaneously.

• Scripture calls the bread bread, not merely an illusion.

• The bread is a sign, a representation of the body of Christ, not the literal body.

• Emphasis on the spiritual nature of the communion with Christ. Faith is what connects us with Christ during the sacrament, not any physical change in the elements.

• Transubstantiation and consubstantiation were seen to be inconsistent with the nature of sacraments and with other aspects of Christian teaching, including the ascension of Christ, his human nature, and the nature of worship.

• These views are claimed to lead to idolatry, by focusing on physical elements of the Supper instead of Christ's sacrifice and the promises of grace that it represents.

• Emphasis on Spiritual Communion

• The Lord's Supper is a spiritual meal, nourishing the soul.

• The faithful are joined with Christ by the Holy Spirit through the sacrament.

• Emphasis is placed on partaking in Christ by faith. The sacrament is a visible seal or pledge of this spiritual union.

• The bread and wine provide a visible pledge that we truly partake in Christ's body and blood through the Spirit and that we receive the full benefit of Christ's sacrifice.

• The Lord's Supper serves as a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice and our own.

• By consuming the bread and wine with faith, it is seen that we affirm our union with Christ in his sacrifice.

Cast of Characters

• Augustine: An influential early Church Father. The text references his teachings on the use of figurative language in Scripture and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist, especially distinguishing it from literal interpretations.

• Cyprian: Another early Church Father. The text includes his writings on the symbolic use of the cup in the Lord's Supper and the joining of the divine and human through the Eucharist, also describing how this relates to our union with Christ.

• Chrysostom: An early Church Father cited for his figurative language when describing the Eucharist, comparing it to fondling a loved one rather than literal eating of the flesh. Also included as a witness for the idea that Christ ate and drank during the first supper as an example to his disciples, and not that he was actually eating himself.

• Irenaeus: Early Church Father, whose views are mentioned in regards to the nature of the bread and wine in the Eucharist being both of earthly and heavenly origin, thereby refuting the purely physical change in transubstantiation.

• Tertullian: Early Church Father. Quoted as saying the bread in the supper is a "figure" of Christ's body, not the body itself.

• Clement of Alexandria: Early Church Father, whose teachings on the Lord's Supper are invoked to support the view that to drink Christ's blood is to be made a partaker of his immortality, which again refutes a more physical interpretation of the supper.

• Council of Nice: An early church council, whose canons are invoked as support for symbolic representation of the Lord's Supper.

• Basil: An early Church Father, quoted for his view that in the Eucharist, we have the "antitypes" of the holy body and blood of Christ, supporting a more symbolic interpretation.

• Hilary: An early Church Father, quoted on the effect of partaking in the Eucharist being that we are in Christ and Christ in us, which is taken as a spiritual rather than physical idea.

• Gregory Nazianzus: An early Church Father, quoted for his view that the Eucharist contains "antitypes" of the body and blood of Christ, reinforcing a symbolic interpretation of the Supper.

• Ambrose: An early Church Father, whose writings on the Eucharist are presented to support a more figurative meaning, highlighting it as a representation of Christ's sacrifice, not a literal consumption.

• Theodoret: Early Church Father quoted as saying Christ changed the names of the signs in the Lord's Supper, thereby giving honor to the signs with the title of body and blood, not changing their nature, which supports the symbolic or sacramental understanding.

• Macarius (the Monk): Early church figure whose view of the Eucharist is presented as a "type" or "figure" of the body of Christ, who is received spiritually in the Lord's Supper.

• Lombard: A medieval theologian. The text mentions his exposition of different views on transubstantiation and consubstantiation.

• Guitmund: A medieval theologian. The text mentions him attributing the view of consubstantiation (or 'impanation') to Berengarius.

• Walrame: A medieval theologian (the text calls him the originator of consubstantiation) against whom Anselm wrote.

• Rupert: A medieval theologian. The text mentions him as another of the early defenders of the consubstantiation view, shortly after Guitmund.

• Peter of Cambray: A cardinal who lived around 1416, who was said to favor consubstantiation over transubstantiation, before the Church of Rome ruled otherwise.

• Luther: The text describes how Luther came to accept a view of consubstantiation, which he had initially seen as a non-essential article of faith. The text then outlines how his views on the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper would come to be a cause for future division.

• James Andreae: A theologian whose views on the Lord's Supper are shown to be inconsistent and contradictory, and his arguments used to show the weaknesses of consubstantiation.

• Eutychians: An early heretical group who believed that the divine and human natures of Christ were mingled into a single new nature, thereby having some similarities with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

• Schwenckfelders: Followers of Kaspar von Ossig Schwenkfeld, who was seen as a mystic whose views were similar to those of the Quakers.

What arguments refute transubstantiation and consubstantiation doctrines?

Arguments Against Transubstantiation:

• Literal Interpretation of Christ's Words: The doctrine of transubstantiation is based on a literal interpretation of Christ's words, "This is my body," claiming that the bread and wine are converted into the actual body and blood of Christ. However, the sources argue that if these words were to be understood literally, it would lead to contradictions of Christian faith. For example, if the bread were the body of Christ in a proper sense, then it would follow that it was crucified for us, which is not the case.

• Change in Substance: The idea of transubstantiation involves a change in the substance of the bread and wine, with only the accidents remaining. However, Christ does not say that the bread was made or being made his body, but rather that the bread is his body. The sources argue that Christ's words, understood literally, do not allow for a change in substance. The view that the bread is changed into the body of Christ is an invention.

• The Nature of Sacraments: According to the sources, a sacrament consists of two parts, the sign and the thing signified. Transubstantiation, by changing the substance of the bread and wine, removes the sign from the eucharist. In addition, the signs in the eucharist should confirm faith in heavenly things, but a mere shadow of bread and wine cannot do this.

• Analogy between Sign and Thing Signified: The doctrine of transubstantiation destroys the analogy between the sign and the thing signified. For example, bread nourishes the body, and the body of Christ nourishes the soul. However, the mere accidents of bread cannot maintain this analogy.

• Scriptural Basis: The idea of transubstantiation cannot be supported by scripture. Christ does not say that his body is contained under the form of bread and wine, and to say so is a perversion of his words.

• Idolatry: Transubstantiation leads to idolatry by directing thoughts and affections to the bread.

Arguments Against Consubstantiation:

• Addition to Christ's Words: Consubstantiation adds to Christ’s words, proposing that his body is "in, with, and under" the bread, which Christ did not say. The true simplicity and property of words is that to which nothing is added, taken away, or changed.

• Literal Sense of Words: The literal sense of Christ's words is "this bread is my body", not "in, with, and under this bread is my body". The sources argue that consubstantialists do not retain the literal and true meaning of Christ's words, as they substitute their own words in place of Christ's.

• Two Substances in One Place: Consubstantiation proposes the co-existence of two substances in the same place, which the sources describe as an absurdity.

• Ubiquity: Some supporters of consubstantiation appeal to the doctrine of ubiquity, arguing that Christ's body is everywhere present. However, the sources note that the ubiquity of Christ's body is not affirmed in the scriptures, and that it is a quality of the Godhead alone.

• Misinterpretation of Christ's Words: Consubstantialists change the meaning of "this" in the phrase "this is my body," which should only refer to the bread, to also refer to the body of Christ concealed within the bread.

• Analogies Fail: Analogies used to support consubstantiation, such as a purse of money or a cask of wine, are not similar to the bread of the eucharist because it is not apparent that the body of Christ is in the bread as it is that the money is in the purse.

• Scriptural Basis: Consubstantiation cannot be supported by scripture. The words of Christ, interpreted correctly, indicate that the bread is the body of Christ in a mystical or sacramental sense, not a literal one.

In summary, both transubstantiation and consubstantiation are rejected by the sources for adding to or changing the literal and true meaning of Christ's words, for misinterpreting the nature of sacraments, for failing to adhere to the rules of Biblical interpretation, and for leading to faulty doctrines and even idolatry. Instead, the sources propose that the bread and wine are signs of the body and blood of Christ that signify the spiritual nourishment that Christians receive through faith, and by partaking in communion.

How does Augustine define the proper interpretation of scripture?

According to the sources, Augustine provides a rule for determining whether a Scriptural phrase should be taken in a proper or figurative sense. This rule is applied to the specific instance of eating the flesh of Christ, and the rule itself states:

• A Scriptural phrase should be taken in a proper sense if it can be properly referred to some moral duty, or be made to harmonize with the true faith.

• If a Scriptural phrase cannot be properly referred to some moral duty or be made to harmonize with the true faith, then it should be understood figuratively.

Augustine uses the example of Christ's statement: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood you have no life in you". He explains that because this statement, taken literally, would seem to enjoin a shameful crime, it must be understood figuratively. Instead, this passage teaches that believers must partake of the passion of Christ and remember that his flesh was wounded and pierced for them.

Additionally, Augustine emphasizes that sacraments have a correspondence with the things they signify and often receive the names of those things. He states that, "the sacrament of the body of Christ, is, after a certain manner, the body of Christ, and as the sacrament of the blood of Christ is his blood, so the sacrament of faith is faith". He also notes that in sacraments, "one thing is seen, and another is understood". What is seen has a corporal form, while what is understood has a spiritual benefit.

In summary, Augustine's approach to interpreting scripture involves considering whether a passage can be understood in a way that aligns with moral duty and true faith, and if not, it must be understood figuratively. He also emphasizes that sacraments, though they use physical signs, point to a spiritual reality.

What are the four types of arguments used to support the sacramental view?

The sources outline four types of arguments used to support the sacramental view of the Lord's Supper, which posits that the bread and wine are signs or symbols of Christ's body and blood rather than the literal body and blood. These arguments are used to refute the doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation, and are as follows:

• Arguments from the text and circumstances of the institution of the Lord's Supper. These arguments focus on the specific words and events surrounding the first Lord's Supper to demonstrate that a literal interpretation of Christ's words is not possible.

  • The human nature of Christ was at the table at the first supper, not in the bread, and is now in heaven. Thus, it cannot be corporally in the bread.

  • Christ did not take and break his body, but the bread.

  • The body of Christ was born of the Virgin, while bread is made of meal, and therefore they cannot be the same.

  • Christ said "This is my body" of the visible bread and "This cup is the New Testament in my blood" of the visible cup, therefore, the literal interpretation of transubstantiation and consubstantiation are not supported by scripture.

  • The body of Christ was delivered to death and crucified, which cannot be said of the bread.

  • The cup is the New Testament in the same way that the bread is the body of Christ.

  • If the bread were the literal body of Christ, then at the first supper, the blood would have been separated from the body before Christ died, which is impossible.

  • Christ himself ate and drank the bread and wine, so it cannot have been his literal body and blood.

  • Remembrance is of things absent, not present, and Christ instituted the supper as a remembrance.

  • The celebration of the supper must continue until Christ comes again, implying that he is not yet bodily present in the bread.

  • The first supper was not the literal body of Christ, and so it is not now either.

• Arguments from the nature of sacraments. These arguments focus on the nature of sacraments as signs of spiritual realities, and how this definition contradicts both transubstantiation and consubstantiation.

  • The language used in the Lord’s Supper is figurative and sacramental, attributing the name of the thing signified to the sign.

  • Sacraments do not signify the corporal presence of the things in the signs, but a correspondence between them and the sealing of the things by their signs, as well as a union of the two in their proper use.

  • In all sacraments, the signs are taken corporally, while the things signified must be understood spiritually.

  • Sacramental phrases must be understood sacramentally. Christ himself uses a sacramental phrase, “Do this in remembrance of me”.

  • The supper can only seal what the gospel promises, and the gospel does not promise a corporal or oral eating of Christ's flesh.

  • A corporal presence of Christ under the bread is repugnant to the character of sacraments, because it is neither the sign nor the thing signified.

  • The sacraments are visible signs, and thus the invisible flesh of Christ cannot be a sacrament, which requires an external sign.

  • The communion promised in the word, and sealed in the sacraments, is spiritual not corporal.

  • All sacraments of the Old and New Testament signify the same thing and the same spiritual communion with Christ.

• Arguments from the analogy of the articles of faith. These arguments show that the doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation are inconsistent with other core Christian doctrines.

  • The human nature of Christ is finite and cannot be in many places at once.

  • Christ ascended into heaven, and therefore his body is not on earth, including in the bread.

  • The communion of saints with Christ is spiritual, not corporal.

  • The eating of Christ is the same as his dwelling in us, which is spiritual, not physical.

  • Forgiveness of sins should be sought from God because of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and not for the sake of Christ in the bread.

  • Christ is not to be worshipped in the supper with our thoughts turned to the bread.

• Arguments from parallel passages of scripture. These arguments use other scriptural texts to interpret the meaning of the Lord's Supper and demonstrate that the language used in it is similar to other metaphorical language in the Bible.

  • Similar phrases in scripture, in which names or effects of things signified are attributed to signs, have the same interpretation, such as circumcision being the covenant of God and the Passover lamb being the Lord's Passover.

  • The blood of Christ is the New Testament in the same sense that the cup is, which is sacramentally.

  • The bread is the communion of the body of Christ in the same sense that it is his body, that is, sacramentally.

  • The words of Christ in John 6 reject the eating of his flesh with the mouth, which establishes a spiritual manducation.

  • To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ is to believe in him, dwell in him, and have him dwell in us.

  • The eating and drinking in the Lord's Supper are spiritual, since the same spiritual communion is common to all believers in both the Old and New Testaments.

These four types of arguments are presented to support the sacramental view of the Lord's Supper and to counter the interpretations of transubstantiation and consubstantiation. They emphasize the symbolic nature of the bread and wine as signs that point to a spiritual reality.

Why does Christ use sacramental language?

Christ uses sacramental language for two main reasons: to teach through analogy and to assure believers of their participation in Christ's body and blood. The text explains that Christ attributes the names of the things signified (his body and blood) to the signs (bread and wine) because of this analogy and to confirm the spiritual benefits of partaking in the sacrament.

• Analogy: There is a correspondence between the bread and wine, and Christ's body and blood.

  • Just as bread and wine sustain physical life, Christ's body and blood are the true nourishment for the soul leading to eternal life.

  • Similar to how bread and wine are received by the mouth, the body and blood of Christ are received by faith, which is the "mouth of the soul".

  • Bread is not consumed whole, but broken, which is analogous to how Christ’s body was sacrificed and broken on the cross.

  • Just as bread and wine only benefit those who have an appetite for them, the body and blood of Christ are received by those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.

  • As many grains make one loaf, and many grapes are pressed into wine, believers become one body with Christ and with one another through the sacrament.

• Assurance: The use of sacramental language serves to confirm the faith of believers.

  • The signs of bread and wine declare that the sacrifice of Christ is complete and effective for salvation.

  • These signs assure believers that they are as certainly fed with the body and blood of Christ as they are certain that they receive the bread and wine.

  • This language is a pledge that all of Christ’s sufferings and obedience are as certainly for the believer as if they had suffered and done all in their own person.

  • The sacraments act as a visible sign and pledge that believers are truly partakers of Christ’s body and blood through the Holy Spirit, just as they receive the tokens of the bread and wine by mouth in remembrance of Christ.

In summary, Christ's use of sacramental language is not meant to be taken literally, as in the doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation, but is intended to use the visible, tangible signs of bread and wine to represent spiritual truths and to assure believers of their participation in Christ’s sacrifice.