My scriptural knowledge of communion is almost zero. I look forward to this discussion with support from scripture. I lean toward the memorialism view.
Steve | 07.14.04 - 1:09 pm | #

Some of the key features of the Calvinistic doctrine that I appreciate include:

1. Calvin's rejection of virtualism — we receive Christ Himself, not just His benefits.
2. Calvin's claim that we partake of the human nature of Christ and do not merely experience His divine presence.
3. Calvin's rejection of occasionalism — his belief that the bread and wine are truly instruments by which we receive Christ's body and blood. The 'sign' and the 'reality' are closely bound together.
4. Calvin's treatment of the eucharistic signs as those exhibiting a present reality (comparing them to the dove at Jesus' Baptism) and not the signs of something absent.
5. The manner in which Calvin's doctrine avoids the fetishization of the elements and the depersonalization of the Supper.
6. Calvin's support for regular celebration of the Supper.
7. The manner in which Calvin protects the eschatological tension that exists within the Church by maintaining a real absence due to the ascension alongside his insistence on real presence in the Supper.

If only Calvin had been in favour of paedocommunion...
Al | Homepage | 07.15.04 - 7:14 am | #

The major reason I have for believing that communion is more a symbol/memorial than transubstantiation is that the first Lord's supper happened when He was still alive. I find it hard to believe that while He was fully man, his physical body was being eaten. That said, I totally agree that the Lord is present in communion in a different way than prayer or preaching. I think there is a distinct spiritual presence during communion and I feel that we are each examined by Our Lord in the same fashion that He looked at His disciples at the Last Supper. He looks to see who will betray him, who has been/will be faithful, etc.

Beyond this, I can't really say anyhting else for sure. I look forward to your series. Even when I disagree with you/your exegesis, it is always thought provoking.
Matt | 07.15.04 - 8:10 pm | #

I look forward to your series on communion. One thing I am puzzled about is that reading the Bible's narratives and apostolic teachings of/to the early church, I am left with the distinct impression that the Lord's supper was served at least weekly. It also seems that a certain grace is conveyed through communion, although I'm not sure exactly what that is, but I would think it has something to do with intimacy between the church and Jesus. So, why would we not want more of this?

Why would we not observe communion at least weekly? I hope you can work this into your blogs.

Thanks!
Renee | 07.15.04 - 9:55 pm | #

Hi David,
I'm very much looking forward to your comments on this subject. I say I have to agree with your random thoughts there. There is something more than just memorialism to communion. There is something entirely supernatural about it. I differ from many evangelical Christians in that regard, I suppose. And I would even say I believe that some special grace is given through taking it. I can't wait to see the next post on this.
Casey Petersen | Homepage | 07.16.04 - 8:36 am | #

I hope you get some discussion going on around this topic. I do think that it is important more than we imagine. Yes, the real presence.

While I do think that Catholics go too far in their expressions of communion, I think we Evangelicals don't go far enough.
Matt O | 07.23.04 - 7:45 pm | #