1. READ AND  RESPOND TO EACH POST  POST UNDER EACH.

2.  PLEASE CRITIQUE THIS CLASS.  POST UNDER CRITIQUE.

The term “Eucharist” comes from the Greek word meaning “to be thankful” and is being used more and more widely today. Some evangelicals might prefer other designations, of which there are many:

• Communion
• Holy Communion
• The Lord’s Supper
• The Table of the Lord
• The Breaking of the Bread

In Roman Catholicism it is called The Mass and Eastern

Orthodoxy knows it as The Divine Liturgy.

The New Testament contains four accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Of these, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 is the oldest. Each of the Synoptic Gospels contains words of institution: Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:14-23.

  How many Nazarenes would agree the Eucharist is “the central act of the church’s worship”? Probably not very many. Evangelicalism typically views the sermon as the center point of Christian worship.

 The company we keep in table fellowship says a great deal not only about our theology, but about our entire approach to living. Not all Christians have been able to rally around a common understanding of the Lord’s Supper. Nazarenes have typically practiced “open Communion,” meaning participation is possible for anyone who testifies to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ whether they are a member of the local church or not.

 Not all churches practice open Communion. Progress has been made toward a broader agreement among all Christians regarding the meaning of the Eucharist, although much remains to be done. Within the Body of Christ-the Church-participating in Communion should be a place where we come together in what we believe, in Whom we believe.

Historical Approaches to the Eucharist

 Areas of Agreement

 Pelikan mentions four broad areas of agreement regarding eucharistic practice:

1. This sacrament is “a memorial action in which, by eating and drinking, the church calls to remembrance what Jesus Christ was, said, and did.”

2. “Participation in the Eucharist enhances and deepens the communion of believers not only with Christ but also with one another.”

3. Sharing in the Eucharist brings to mind the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross.

4. “Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist in some special way,” although there continues to be disagreement regarding how, when, where, and why Jesus is present.

 Five Basic Approaches

 Transubstantiation

This is the Roman Catholic position, wherein the elements of the bread and

wiine are ‘transubstantiated’ in the body and blood of Christ; that is, their whole substance is converted into the whole substance of the body and blood, although the outward appearances of the elements, their ‘accidents,’ remain.

 This teaching developed in the Middle Ages. Alexander of Hales, a theologian from that time, defined transubstantiation as the action “by which an actual being, without being destroyed or annihilated, is changed according to its whole substance into another actual being.” Many Catholics base their belief in transubstantiation on the realistic language of John 6, for example in verse 53: “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.”

 Most Protestants would view this theory as “a superstitious bit of magic,” to use Staples’ phrase in Outward Sign and Inward Grace. John Wesley rejected this teaching, calling it a “senseless opinion,” that is “attended with consequences hurtful to piety,” and also contrary to Scripture, tradition, reason, and the senses.

 Transubstantiation teaches that with each new observance of the Mass, the body and blood of Jesus Christ are “re-presented” or offered once again as an atoning sacrifice. For Protestants, one such offering is sufficient.

 newer approaches to transubstantiation have departed from the traditional “substantialist” view toward a more relational one. Now the substance of anything is viewed as conveying the “meaning and purpose of the thing.”

Consubstantiation

 This is the view associated with Martin Luther and Lutheranism, which “unequivocally affirmed the real presence of the body and blood of Christ ‘in, with, and under’ the bread and wine in the Eucharist.” This doctrine is one step removed from the literalism of transubstantiation.

 staples explains:

 In this theory, the bread and wine do not miraculously become the body and blood of Christ. They remain what they are-bread and wine. But in the Lord’s Supper, the presence of Christ is in, with, and under the elements. When we receive the elements, we also receive the body and blood of Christ, which comes ‘with’ them (hence ‘con- substantiation,’ i.e., ‘with the substance’).”

 Luther desired to retain some sense of the bodily presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, as opposed to only a spiritual sense. “For Luther,” Staples writes, “Christ’s risen body has no location in heaven that is distinct from its location on the table. There is no need therefore for Luther to overcome a spatial separation between Christ’s body in heaven and the bread and wine on the table.”

 The Christological doctrine known as the “communication of properties” was appropriated by Luther to explain consubstantiation. This asserts that the deity of Jesus Christ shared the qualities of His humanness, and vice versa. This sharing does not violate the completeness and perfection of both Jesus’ divinity and His humanity. Luther could therefore assert, “this bread is my body; this wine is my blood,” and vice versa.

 In clearer terms, Luther used the analogy of the iron put into the fire. The iron and the fire are here united into one, and yet each maintains its own identity. This stops short of transubstantiation, which would assert that the iron becomes the fire.

 John Wesley did not accept consubstantiation either. For him, a real and bodily presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist was unacceptable.

 The Memorialist View

 To one degree or other, both transubstantiation and consubstantiation draw upon the “reality” of the blood  and body of Jesus Christ as present in the holy Communion. With the memorialist stance, this changes. This view is chiefly associated with Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), whose reforms unfolded among Switzerland’s German speakers. He viewed the Eucharist “from the standpoint of the worshiping believer who in the sacrament commemorates Christ’s death and its benefits and openly gives expression to personal faith

 Zwingli believed in predestination, and therefore God’s electing grace was applied to the believer through divine election, not through the sacraments. Staples suggests that for Zwingli

the sacraments did not convey grace for salvation but were a sign of grace that had already been received by the individual through faith. They constitute a public confession of faith and of allegiance to the church. They have no supernatural content but are merely an external sign of something that has already been accomplished inwardly.

 Simplicity marks Zwingli’s approach to the Eucharist. There is no elaborate theory of transubstantiation. Instead, the Lord’s Supper is primarily a time of fellowship shared between the believer and Jesus Christ and with fellow followers. “Christ is present in the Supper,” Staples analyzes, “not in essence or reality, but only by the contemplation of faith. We ‘eat’ the body of Christ when we believe. If we were to take the ‘eating’ of Christ’s body more literally, we would come into conflict with the Johannine assertion that the flesh counts for nothing’ (Jn 6:63).”

z

wingli viewed the Lord’s Supper as

• Confessing belief in Jesus Christ in the company of other witnesses, thereby obligating one to live a holy life.
• A memorial that would remind us of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This is a “remembrance by reenactment.” However, this reenactment did not

mean for Zwingli, as for Luther and Roman Catholics, a “Real Presence.” It may not be fair to Zwingli to caricature his views as “the real absence,” but it remains true that “he did fail to see the Supper as a real feeding on Christ, as a real means of grace. What was lacking was an understanding that at the table there is a real communion with the living Christ, and a real reception of the body and blood of Christ, albeit in a spiritual, and not physical, manner.”

What Wesley Believed

Wesley held to the “real presence” of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, and yet went beyond the mere “memorialist” position. Following Calvin, this real presence is not a physical one that can be understood in a corporeal, bodily, or physical way. It is therefore a living spiritual presence.

“Where God acts, there He is” might be one way to summarize Wesley’s view. The presence of Jesus Christ is real because it is a “Living Presence.” Christ is objectively present in the Lord’s Supper, but this is not the static presence of an object, but rather as that of a living and acting person working through the means.”

Let us consider five understandings of the theological substance of the Eucharist.

Thanksgiving to the Father

In its original setting the Eucharist was at least as much a festive time as a solemn one. The true meaning of the Lord’s Supper is fiesta, not funeral. Biological families are happy when they eat together. How much more should Christians be at the table of the Lord?

The meaning here is thanksgiving for what God has accomplished in the history of salvation, including works of creation and redemption. There is some continuity here with the Jewish roots of Christian worship.

Thanksgiving points ahead to our thanks at the future coming in fullness of the kingdom of God.

The first recorded Eucharistic prayers are prayers of thanksgiving.

The Eucharist is emblematic of what God desires to happen to the entire world, namely, “an offering and hymn of praise to the Creator, a universal communion in the body of Christ, a kingdom of justice, love and peace in the Holy Spirit.”

Commemoration of Christ

The meaning here is commemoration, memorial, and remembrance. William Barclay called the Eucharist “the sacrament of memory.”

Jesus told us to remember Him by doing what we do thrice daily, namely, eating and drinking.

We should not only remember backward, to the past, but remember forward also, the future, especially the promise of Jesus’ coming again.

We also implore God the Father to remember the work Jesus Christ wrought for the world’s redemption.

The New Testament words of institution of the Lord’s Supper are filled with the idea of sacrifice (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25).

The sacrifice we bring is of ourselves, a spiritual sacrifice. Luther believed we do not offer Jesus Christ as a sacrifice, which is the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation, but rather Christ offers us as living sacrifices. Luther said that in the Eucharist “we lay ourselves on Christ by a firm faith in his testament and do not otherwise appear before God with our prayer, praise, and sacrifice except through Christ and his mediation.”

Through our worship of God we offer up to Him a sacrifice of praise. God’s grace preveniently enables us to worship Him truthfully and completely. Prayer is defined in the Westminster Shorter Catechism as “an offering up of our desires unto God, for things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies.”

 Fellowship of the Faithful

 Eucharist is for koinonia, meaning fellowship, sharing, communion, participation. See 1 Corinthians 10:16-17.

 Dr. Leupp writes, “As missionaries living in the unsanitary conditions of the third world, my wife and I sometimes calculated the risks to our health of eating at an after-church fellowship meal in an indigenous church. The dilemma was real enough: Break koinonia or expose ourselves to parasites that would wreak havoc in our digestive tract? Most of the time we stayed and ate with the local people, trying to minimize the risk factors, but at least one time we did not.”

 From a biblical perspective, this is the most important meaning of the Eucharist. Let’s consider 1 Corinthians

11:26 and Ephesians 1:10.

William Barclay has written, “there is nothing in Christian worship which so looks to the past, the present and the future, as the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper does.”

 The early Christian prayer “Maranatha!”-”Come, Lord Jesus!”-has a eucharistic meaning. In early Christian liturgy, Eucharist is linked with the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the eating and drinking with Him in the kingdom of heaven.

 Eucharist and eschatology refer especially to the messianic banquet, the hope for the Second Coming, and the firstfruits of the Kingdom.

 Older and more traditional meanings of the Eucharist have stressed the past, whereas newer ones look more to the future.

 Older Views

• The cross and death of Jesus
• Sacrifice as the theme of the atoning, saving death of Jesus
• Memorial and recollection as modes of our participation
• The past and our sin and guilt, which are relieved by Jesus’ sacrificial death
• Communion as personal meeting with Jesus Christ
• The supper as a somber event where we recall death on the Cross, our sin, and the costly salvation provided for us

 Newer Views

• Resurrection, emphasizing the Risen Christ
• Banquet of joy and festivity
• The presence of Christ as the host of a present celebration
• The future and coming kingdom of God
• Communion as fellowship, our meeting together in

Christ

• The supper as a luminous, happy event where we celebrate in a festive mood

“To ask if baptism does the baby any good is to ask the wrong question. The right question is ‘How is the Church proclaiming the gospel?’ Baptism is not primarily an act of the parent or of the child, but of the Church, and of Christ in the Church. The Church contradicts herself when she preaches the gospel of grace and then withholds baptism from her own children. Infant baptism is the visible proclamation of the gospel.”

Rob Staples

“The Eucharist . . . is a time for celebration, for praise, and for thanksgiving to God for His works in creation and in redemption. In the Eucharist, the Church speaks on behalf of the whole creation, for the world that God has created is represented at every Supper-in the bread and the fruit of the vine, products of the earth and of human labor; and in the people of the faithful, who make intercession for all humanity. The Eucharist thus signifies what God desires the whole world to become-an offering of praise to God the Creator, a universal communion in the Body of Christ, and a kingdom of justice, love, and peace in the Holy Spirit.”

ob Staples

In Favor of Infant Baptism

 from the outset it must be said that Rob Staples is a strong supporter of infant baptism. A broader practice of infant baptism in the Church of the Nazarene would, he believes, serve several useful purposes:

• A return to what John Wesley believed, even at the expense of contradicting the typical practice of most Holiness churches.

 A more certain appreciation that in any sacramental activity, the actions of God are of far greater moment and consequence than our human responses.

 Has implications for Christian education. If we believe our children are under the umbrella of prevenient grace, then why at some point in their religious instruction is there a dramatic shift to reckon them as sinners?

 A return to what John Wesley believed, even at the expense of contradicting the typical practice of most Holiness churches.

 A more certain appreciation that in any sacramental activity, the actions of God are of far greater moment and consequence than our human responses.

 Has implications for Christian education. If we believe our children are under the umbrella of prevenient grace, then why at some point in their religious instruction is there a dramatic shift to reckon them as sinners?

s taples supports infant baptism because he believes it is in keeping with the principles of grace that lead to the saved life

. T. Forsyth states:

 The New Testament Church practice . . . is that of a missionary Church. But its principles are those of a universal, settled, and triumphant Church. And when, early in its history, the practice of the Church changed to infant Baptism, it was not departing from New Testament principles. It was applying them in a changed way to changed conditions-especially such a principle as the sanctity of the children of the saved (1 Cor 7:14).

 Prevenient grace is God’s offering of His very self in Jesus Christ, an offer humans may embrace or spurn. This must mean that all baptism, including especially that of infants, is first and foremost an act of God.

 Rob Staples continues his position:

 How can we say that baptism is an act of God? Surely it is obvious that in baptism, whether adult or infant, human agency and action are quite centrally involved. The adult comes to baptism, the parents or guardians bring the child to baptism, and the minister sprinkles or pours the water or immerses the candidate under it. These are all human actions.

 But wait! Is not Jesus Christ the Incarnation of God? And is Christ not the Head of the Church? And is not the Church the Body of Christ? And did not the Head command the Body to baptize? If all this is true (and who will say it is not?), then when the Church, in obedience to its Head, baptizes a person,God is then and there performing an action in His world!

 Wesleyan theology is always tuned “in the key of salvation,” and the entire drama of salvation-from first to last-is a symphony of grace, and in particular prevenient grace. If the preeminence of God’s grace is admitted, then Staples’ support of infant baptism falls easily into place. He writes:

 The crucial theological principle concerns the nature of the gospel. Specifically, with regard to infant baptism, the question is this: In baptism, who does what? Is baptism merely a human action, a visible human word in which the person baptized gives testimony to his or her faith and acceptance of the benefits and obligations of the covenant of grace? Or is baptism something more than that? Is baptism, in some way, the visible action (and word) of God? These questions apply equally to adult and infant baptism, but the answer given to them will determine the validity of the latter.

 Consider this statement:

 It is important that we understand that it is God’s prevenient grace that saves us. Long before a child can understand or believe-even before the child exists-God initiated that child’s salvation. But isn’t this true of adults also? Certainly it is. And in a sense, all baptisms are really “infant” baptisms . . . Baptism is a sign of our repentance and faith, but this is not its primary significance. Primarily, it is a sign of divine grace-not a sign of anything we do at all. It is a covenant sign, and therefore a sign of the work of God in our behalf that precedes and makes possible our own response. When infants are baptized, it is right and necessary that when they come to maturity, they make their own confession of faith. But they do so with the clear witness that it is not their confession alone that saves them, but the work of God already done for them long before they ever believed.

 Staples favors infant baptism over infant dedication, and believes much is lost when dedication takes the place of baptism. Among his reasons:

• Focus is removed from God’s gracious initiative to human activity and volition.
• It relates faith to an intellectual activity based on age.
• It negates trust in God’s promise and power over the helpless.
• It fails to understand God’s love for the child in sending His Son so this child might become one with the body of Christ.

The normal New Testament pattern is that one will first come to faith in the Resurrected Christ, and then in testimony to this faith will be baptized.

Staples explains: In the New Testament, to say the least, the road into the Christian life is wet! Not that the mere ritual of “getting wet,” by itself, saves a person- the New Testament does not teach that. Salvation is by God’s grace through faith (Eph 2:8). But if we are to follow the New Testament pattern, our inward response of faith will be accompanied by the outward symbol of baptism, which is the covenant symbol of God’s prior grace. Baptism makes visible our faith response, but this is only secondary to its primary function of making visible God’s action toward us.

Baptism in the New Testament is not discretionary or an optional extra. For the Early Church the experience of saving faith and baptism were almost synonymous. Although saving faith and baptism might be nearly synonymous, this is not to say they are interchangeable. To be baptized is thus a general rule for entering into Christian fellowship, but a rule that does admit some exceptions. John Wesley believed baptism was the ordinary means of coming into the kingdom of God, but under certain conditions it might be difficult if not impossible for someone to be baptized.

What might some of these conditions be?

While baptism is necessarily enjoined upon all Christians for whom it is possible, this is not to endorse the idea of “baptismal regeneration.” Emphatically we receive new life in baptism, but that is not to say there is anything magical or mechanical about being exposed to water that is a “sure fire” means of regeneration.

The new life is the resurrection life of Jesus Christ sealed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.

Receiving the Spirit of Christ

Through the sacrament of baptism, the presence of the Holy Spirit is offered to us in a permanent and abiding Way. Baptism gives two inseparable gifts:

• the forgiveness of sins
• the presence of the Holy Spirit

 Rob Staples asserts:

Although baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit stand in close relation in the New Testament Church, allowance must always be made for the freedom of God in bestowing His Spirit. The important element in baptism is not the exact manner in which the rite is carried out but that to which the rite points-the work of the Spirit in the person who acknowledges the claim of the crucified and risen Christ over his or her life.

 Becoming the Body of Christ

 The four preceding understandings might be taken to support an individualistic and private piety. It is now important to counteract that dangerous tendency. When the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost, He might have come to each one individually, but He came as they were knit together in common unity and a common obedience. In this unity was this bestowal truly efficacious and fruitful.

 ”There is one body and one Spirit-just as you were called to one hope when you were called-one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and ALL.

 The fact that the Trinitarian baptismal formula-”in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”-is so widely used around the Christian world is rich testimony to the oneness permeating Christian baptism.

Bearing the Mark of Christ 

Parallels between God’s marking of Cain (Gen 4:15) and baptism are instructive, although not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament. The reality of grace provides one parallel: “In His grace, God finds us where He found Cain-lonely, fearful, guilty, and estranged from the community by our own waywardness.”

Baptism also bears some resemblance to circumcision under the old covenant. Like circumcision, baptism “is a mark of the agreement between God’s grace and our response. Not of His grace alone, but ‘through faith.’ Not of our response alone, but ‘the working of God.’ It is the seal stamped both on His initiative and our response.”

 Baptism is a powerful reminder that God is a God who makes and keeps covenants with His people. Through the use of a physical reminder, God bound himself to His covenant people. The sign given to Moses was the Passover (Exodus 12) and to Noah the rainbow (Gen 9:8-17). To Abraham was given the sign of circumcision, and this sign is continued in the New Testament by baptism, as sign in the covenant of grace.

To bear the mark of Christ is at the same time to bear His name. Staples makes mention of the fact that the first Christian baptisms, in the Acts of the Apostles, were in the name of Jesus Christ, and not in the “thrice-blessed” name of the Holy Trinity. There is no conflict here, because baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and in the triune name, refer to the same person.

Dying the Death of Christ

 We often neglect to link baptism with the cross of Jesus Christ, supposing that only the sacrament of holy Communion can bring us into the presence of the Crucified One. On the contrary, Staples writes:

 We must let the water and the Blood bind us to Calvary. Failure to remember that water as well as blood flowed from His wounded side has, for many people, made baptism a less-meaningful symbol than the Lord’s Supper. When the water of baptism is separated from the blood of the Cross, baptism loses its significance for many Christians, and the focus of attention wanders from Christ to the skill of the minister, or the structure of the baptistry, or the wet clothing after immersion . . . Such “missing of the mark” is nothing short of tragic.  

Noted Bible scholar Oscar Cullman sees the “general baptism” of Jesus Christ as an indicator of prevenient grace made available for everyone. This grace is given to all, regardless of how anyone might or might not respond to grace by faith. Cullman believes the baptismal grace provided by Jesus Christ “is offered in entire independence of the decision of faith and understanding of those who benefit from it. Baptismal grace has its foundation here, and it is in the strictest sense ‘prevenient grace.’”

 Jesus Christ underwent a baptism of blood through His crucifixion. Jesus lamented, “I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!” (Lk 12:50). “This is the one who came by water and blood-Jesus Christ” (1 Jn 5:6). “The baptismal death of Jesus completed once for all on the Cross becomes the foundation for Christian baptism.” Is the simple act of baptism itself enough to save a person from sin? Staples suggests, “the act of being baptized does not of itself forgive and cleanse me. But the One who was baptized for me by the death of the Cross, and in whose name I am baptized-He forgives me from the guilt of sin and delivers me from its power.”

John Wesley’s sermon “The Means of Grace” is well worth consulting. Therein he names the chief means of grace as prayer, whether in secret or with the great congregation; searching the Scriptures (which implies reading, hearing, and meditating thereon) and receiving the Lord’s Supper, eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of him; and these we believe to be ordained of God as the ordinary channels of conveying his grace to the souls of men.

At other times Wesley also numbered fasting and “Christian conference,” meeting with likeminded Christians, among the means of grace. Toward the close of his sermon he writes that these means of grace “are varied, transposed, and [may be] combined together in a thousand different ways.” This means there is no limit to the creativity of the Holy Spirit in making grace available to the thirsting soul.

1. PLEASE CATCH UP, BE SURE TO COMMENT ON OTHERS COMMENTS.

2. READ THE CHURCH IS AND COMMENT ON EACH AUTHOR’S DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH.  POST BELOW THE STRING.

3. FORMULATE AND WRITE YOUR OWN DEFINITION/DESCRIPTION OF THE CHURCH.  POST UNDER A GLORIOUS CHURCH.

4. READ AND COMMENT ON THE REST OF THE STRINGS. POST UNDER THE APPROPRIATE STRING.