Introduction
One of the most difficult statements Jesus made concerned the Lord’s Supper. Luke 22:19-20 reads, “And he took the bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’” And likewise, the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’”[1] Imagine reclining with the God-Word, fully God and fully Man, then suddenly He insists the bread and wine are now somehow equivalent to eating His flesh and drinking His blood. One might imagine the young John, in the background, contemplating Jesus turning water into wine, attempting to configure an element of relatability. If this was not confusing enough, Jesus then ends His statement by indicating the Supper as a sign of the new covenant. Thus, the Supper signifies Jesus’ propitiatory suffering in our stead for the good of the Church; meaning, there can be no true worship without a steady contemplation on the cross of Christ and His eternal benefit. In recent years a clamor has arisen which seeks to name the structure of the church and her observances as legalism (“religion”). It is my ambition to show the Supper as a means to experience the presence of Christ, not merely a religious practice. To accomplish this goal let us examine the Supper with a historical overview of the Reformational development of the Supper; present a relevant case study; then, concluding that the church’s obedience, remembrance, presence of Christ, and anticipating the return of our Blessed Hope is a four-fold benefit of the Lord’s Supper-for the church.
Historical Overview
The historical pursuit for an authentic Scriptural practice of the Lord’s Supper plays a significant part in the historical progression of God’s revelatory Word worked out in history. God’s providential timing to provide the Protestant Reformation era with the foundational truth of His Word, appropriate and God honoring, should not come as a shock. The path to and from transubstantiation[2] are providential works for the Church. To which the church owes a great debt a gratitude to God.
The Lord’s Supper in the Patristic and Medieval Periods
The Lord’s Supper during the Patristic period is rich. Michael A.G. Haykin conveys, the Supper is not absent from the minds of early church fathers.[3] Whether refuting false accusations of cannibalism or countering Gnosticism, early church fathers progressed in their understanding of the Supper. Justin Martyr (c. 100/110-c. 165), though he never clarified what kind of transformation[4] takes place with the bread and wine maintained that just as baptism was necessary as an entrance to Christian faith, the Supper served as a continual “thanksgiving”[5] One of Martyr’s students, Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-c. 200), who also studied under Polycarp, progressed Martyr’s thoughts considering the controversy of Gnosticism. Gnosticism boasted that the immaterial state of the human body could not mix with the material of God. Irenaeus responded to this Gnostic accusation of impurity, conveying, “The church’s Eucharist is “pure” as long as it is done ‘with a pure mind, and in faith without hypocrisy, in well-grounded hope, in fervent love.’”[6] Like Martyr, Irenaeus does not explain the transformation of the elements. Nevertheless, those who partake in the Eucharist are “nourished”[7] by their fellowship with God and the sure hope in the future resurrection of their bodies.
Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200-258) enters the discussion at odds with the aquarian Eucharist theory, which partook of water instead of wine. Cyprian begins by arguing against changing what the Lord has commanded through Scripture.[8] For Cyprian, the Lord commanded wine for use, and to advocate water rather than wine was to change the command of the Lord. Cyprian believed the wine commanded was intrinsic of the blood of Christ, as was the bread to His body. It is a semblance of Jesus as the “true vine.”[9] He then indicated the experiential earthly realities of the bread and wine with the spiritual realities of Christ. Foremost, the Supper served to distance believers from the temptations of the world,[10]and then associated the reality of earthly intoxication normally represented in wine with the joy Christian’s have in fellowship with God through the elements.[11] He also advocated for bishops or ministers to serve the Eucharist as representatives imitating what God has done for the church through Christ.[12] In the fourth century we find Ambrose (c. 339-97) who emerged during an initial peace for Christianity after Constantine Christianized Rome, then, under Constantine’s son Constantius II who persecuted supporters of the Nicene Creed.[13] Ambrose went further than his predecessors by arguing that a supernatural transformation took place in the elements. He maintained that prior to the consecration the bread and the wine were earthly, then after the consecration, the elements transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ.[14] Basil of Caesarea (c. 329-79). One of Basil’s concerns was the “mark of a true Christian,” to which the Supper was included: “The Lord’s table is for believers, then, who are walking in communion with their Lord. And their eating and drinking at the Lord’s table should be a perpetual reminder to them of the crucified and risen Christ so that ‘they live not for themselves but for him who died for them and rose again.’”[15] He believed believers should partake of the Supper daily as their reminder to their devotion and obedience to God.[16] Furthermore, those who take of the Supper who are not in Christ, or for those who are in sin, the celebration held no other power before God than “unworthily.”[17] Nevertheless, Basil never mentioned Christ’s presence in the Eucharist by way of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.
Leading up to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which clarifies the work of Christ’s presence in it by using the word transubstantiation,[18] the fight for a pure and authentic Supper was forged by the Carolingian conflict. The Carolingian conflict centers around a disagreement of the Lord’s presence at the Supper. For Paschius Radbertus (785-865) who “followed Ambrose, concluding that the bread and wine present in the Eucharist were actually converted into the body and blood of Christ.”[19] However, his student Ratramnus of Corbie (d. 868) “followed Augustine, contending that while Christ’s flesh and blood were mysteriously present in the bread and the wine, the elements remained precisely what they were, bread and wine.”[20] Thereby, a division was set in motion. Given confusion and tension for how the real presence of Christ is present in the Eucharist, it was common during the Middle Ages for the Roman Catholic Church to withhold the Eucharist from its members. Then, solidified by the Fourth Lateran Council, the purpose of the Eucharist, according to the Roman Catholic understanding is “thanksgiving (to the Father), sacrifice (of the Son), and presence (by the Holy Spirit).”[21]There is real gratitude to be reflected to the Father for sending His Son and subsequent blessings; there is a real presence of Christ in the churches memorial to Christ in that the Eucharist acts as a real sacrifice just as Christ was sacrificed; and there is a real presence of Christ by the presence of the Spirit in the Eucharist.[22]
The Lord’s Supper and the Reformation
At the dawn of the Protestant Reformation there was a real sense of letting Scripture interpret Scripture. For Reformer’s Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, sola Scriptura included a Scriptural theology and ecclesiastical approach in partaking of the Supper. Jason G. Duesing reminds us that the road to establish a spiritual presence application to the meaning of Christ real presence in the Eucharist was motivated as “first a reaction to the Roman Catholic articulation of transubstantiation.”[23]
Martin Luther (1483-1546) lit a fire under the Roman Catholic Church which still burns today. Luther, considering the marks of the church named “the practice of baptism and the Lord’s Supper”[24] as central sacraments for worship. Holding to the view consubstantiation, which “is the view that Christ is present within the substance of the elements of the Lord’s Supper, but the bread and wine are not changed… for Christ is present with, or con, the substance of the bread and wine, but does not transform into the substance.”[25] Luther, while rejecting transubstantiation, explained a mysterious presence of Christ in the elements without change or transformation. Nevertheless, Luther did not emphasize the role of the Holy Spirit in the presence of Christ at the Supper, which we will see in Calvin.
Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531) held to the symbolic or memorial view, rejecting both transubstantiation and consubstantiation.[26] Luther’s understanding of Christ’ presence in the elements were in effect, the mystery of God’s omnipresence; Christ can be everywhere all at once, not limited to the human structure of time and space. Of course, Zwingli rejected this. He felt Luther’s use of omnipresence created a Christological error which “’drag Christ down from heaven and from his Father’s throne.’”[27] In turn, Zwingli preferred to symbolize the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, emphasizing remembrance as the key component. Duesing conveys, explaining, “Zwingli asserted that the point of the Lord’s Supper is to memorialize the sacrifice of Christ by the symbols he instituted.”[28]
John Calvin (1509-1564) sought to remedy this sacramental controversy, advocating for a spiritual presence view. Of course, Calvin rejected transubstantiation, articulating the presence of Christ by the mystery of the indwelling Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. Duesing notes, conveying, “Calvin did not advocate for a physical presence of Christ in the elements, but rather a spiritual presence brought about by God the Holy Spirit. Calvin reminded his readers that even though it seems impossible that Christ could be present in the Supper, it is foolish to measure the work of the Spirit, which is immeasurable.”[29] Thereby, Christ is not physically present, rather it is by the indwelling Holy Spirit which partakers of the Supper experience the presence of Christ. Unfortunately, the splinter of division over the Supper had already punctured the skin.
The Marburg Colloquy (1529) was a gathering requested by Phillip of Hesse (1504-1567), led by Zwingli and Luther with the hope of unifying Lutheran’s and Swiss German reformers.[30] Their primary purpose was to unify the Reformers over and against “Roman Catholic advance.”[31] The Colloquy was a success, except for what to do with the presence of Christ in the Supper. Duesing elaborates, writing, “Luther asserted Christ was present and Zwingli argued such belief was illogical. The disagreement resulted in a schism between the two movements and a failure to unify as Protestants.”[32] Though Calvin’s Spiritual view, expanded on from Martin Bucer (1491-1551), was a successful move, it was already too late to unify the forementioned fracture.
Case Study: The Council of Trent Versus Protestant Reformation Confessions Concerning the Lord’s Supper.
In the years leading up to the Protestant Reformation, reform was in the air. Issues concerning Papal authority, indulgences, along with doctrines of justification, authority of the Word, and tradition were all points of tension. The Protestant Reformation inevitably delivered a gut-wrenching schism. Nevertheless, many Roman Catholic’s seeking reform without schism fought to support a middle ground reconciliation for the sake of the Church. In 1541, at the Colloquy of Regensburg, the Roman Catholic Church gathered in hopes to achieve such a unity. Unfortunately, while progress was made pertaining the doctrine of justification, Roman Catholics refused to budge on “the authority of the pope and church tradition.”[33] Justin Holcomb reminds readers to consider the position of the Roman Catholic Church, conveying, The Roman Catholic Church’s attempt to unify the church was a real attempt for reform, not merely a passive attempt to keep the peace.[34] However, along with the reformers rejection of papal authority, issues related with church tradition, and what many reformers considered to be a shallow compromise over the doctrine of justification, the Roman Catholic Church was further pressed to defend itself by answering Reformational objections.
The Council of Trent. As early as the 1530s Pope Paul III saw the need for a church council gathering. Holcomb notes that the popes’ hope for a council was ignored due to the infancy of the Reformation.[35] Apparently there were many Catholics holding out for the Reformational movement to disintegrate. Unfortunately, as Holcomb conveys, papal bias will prevail toward the preservation of papal authority; who knows what might have been without papal bias?[36] The Council of Trent required three gatherings which spanned over an eighteen-year period (1545-1563): “’In attendance for the opening session were four archbishops, 22 bishops, and five generals of religious orders along with three papal legates, Cardinals Giovanni Maria del Monte and Marcello Cervini, who were both future popes, and Cardinal Reginald Pole, who was to depart early because of ill health.’”[37] Clearly, the Council was not treated like a knee-jerk-reaction. Pertaining to our subject, the Council of Trent clarified and defended transubstantiation.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was something of a prodigy in philosophy and theology. Using an Aristotle philosophical approach, Thomas explained the mystery of Christ presence in the Eucharist as a substantial presence.[38]Meaning, though mysterious, and not physical, Christ is present in this miraculous elemental change. However, Aquinas maintained Christ presence in this change, being not physical, was a change of the mind, not physical senses.[39]Aquinas’ writings sealed the deal on many attributes of the Council of Trent, including the Roman Catholic Church’s fixation with transubstantiation. Even though Trent corrected issues of clergy abuse, authority between Scripture and tradition, and core doctrinal truths such as the doctrine of justification, as Holcomb writes, “All in all, the Council of Trent did not repair the fractures between the Catholics and Protestants.”[40] As one may observe, this set the stage for a reformed theology and ecclesiology for the Lord’s Supper among the Reformed tradition.
Heidelberg Catechism. With the infancy of the Protestant Reformation maturing into adolescence, controversy over the Lord’s Supper clearly took precedence. Holcomb reminds readers of the intense relationship between “politics and religion,” namely, it was nearly impossible to “’agree to disagree.’”[41] To keep the peace in Heidelberg, ruler Frederick III “charged the theology faculty to develop a new catechism to lay to rest the often-heated debates over the Lord’s Supper and at the same time provide a tool for teaching all of the basic doctrines of the broadly Reformed Protestant faith.”[42] The unique priority of the Heidelberg Catechism is it mostly non-argumentative approach. It’s aim was to provide the diverse expressions of Protestant Reformation theology with a unified statement to which all could “gather around.”[43] The Catechism is comprised of 129 questions, of which “Ursinus said that the overarching goal… is to lead to salvation (“the enjoyment of the highest good”), and comfort (“the assurance and confident expectation of the full and perfect enjoyment of this highest good, in the life to come, with a beginning and foretaste of it already, in this life”).”[44] Even though the catechism wrought many wonderful truths to center unity around, it failed to quench the ongoing debate.[45]
Heidelberg attempted to unify Protestant Reformation theological and ecclesiological conviction across the spectrum. Holcomb notes, however, it left Lutherans isolated, and further, though it “is clearly influenced by the developing Calvinist position as a third way between the Lutheran and Zwinglian stalemate,”[46] it leaves too much room between the camps for the sake of unity. Its compromise for unity left a good and bad taste between the respected camps.
Westminster Confession. The Westminster Confession comes off the heels of England’s distancing from Lutheranism. This is best seen in the documents, Cranmer’s Forty-Two Articles (1553) and the revised Thirty-Nine Articles (1571). Essentially these documents sought to solidify the Church of England (Anglican Church), both as an institution and especially for practical societal use.[47] Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556), with the favor of king Edward VI was to be a key proponent in this endeavor. Cranmer’s Forty-Two Articles were complete in 1553, however, before they could be published, Edward VI died, leaving the staunchly anti-Protestant Mary I as ruler.[48] Mary I used her short reign to reestablish England as Roman Catholic. Less than a decade later, Mary I had at least 283 heretics (Protestants) burned to death for heresy; including Thomas Cranmer.[49] When she unexpectedly died, her half-sister Elizabeth I was given the throne. Elizabeth I reverted back to Protestantism. Her ambitions, says Holcomb, was like Cranmer’s, though she revised the articles from forty-two to thirty-nine. The hope of her reform was to be a “middle way” between Roman Catholicism and the more radical Protestant movements such as the Anabaptist.[50] The Thirty-Nine Articles, with its “middle way,” was close to Cranmer’s evangelicalism, “but it was also much more self-consciously traditional than Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin.”[51]Given we are dealing with an English ruler, the articles are best understood as a national political-religious document, and while denying papal authority, in and of itself, it gave Elizabeth I a similar position as the leader of the church.[52] The articles gravitate toward Protestantism, rather than Catholicism, and are evangelical and moderately Calvinistic.[53]Moderately in that is calls for gracious dealings with one another while working through the difficult doctrines of grace and predestination.
Ove time the Thirty-Nine articles became more familiar as an upper-class engagement. The state controlled political-religious alignment pushed movements like the Puritans to reconsider their allegiance to the Anglican system. In the wake of the 1642 civil war in England, puritan parliament sought to establish itself before the church of Rome could sneak their way back into England. The Westminster Confession was drafted by an assembly of 121 theologians (1646) in hopes of “a Reformed confession… Intended to set the doctrinal standards for the Church of England.”[54] Historically, the Westminster Confession has influenced Protestant believers all over the world. Later on, when Anglican proponents regained control of England, Puritans and Presbyterians alike kept the Westminster Confession as their own, while the Anglican Church reestablished the Thirty-Nine Articles.[55] With the intent of informing society at large, “they were thinking about how to build a society based on their ideals.”[56] The Confession supports Calvinist predestination, giving thirty-three chapters to the subject.[57] To counter ecclesiastical tribalism, the Confession also emphasizes the importance of human will concerning human responsibility.[58] Stephen Brett Eccher notes, writing, “Arguably, the most important shift made by Westminster was its elevation of the concept of covenant to confessional status… a covenant of grace.”[59]This covenant of grace focused on salvation as through faith in Christ alone, without the need for papal or state authority.[60]
For our purposes, the Westminster Confession rejected both Lutheran and Roman Catholic forms of the Lord’s Supper. As Holcomb conveys, “the confession holds to a largely spiritual version of the Lord’s Supper, stating that the bread and the wine are not merely symbols or literal flesh and blood but are a gateway to actual contact with God.”[61]After all, the Confession sought to provide an applicable relevance between theology and the everyday layperson. How much more, over and against especially Roman Catholicism, the means of grace by which all believers may partake of the Lord’s Supper. Furthermore, rather than a state led call to biblical obedience, the Supper is foremost an individually based corporate celebration of what the Lord has done, and what He will do when He comes again. The presence of Christ in the Supper, then, according to the confession is for intimate connection with God by the mystery of the indwelling Holy Spirit. And if the covenant of grace, graciously centered upon the mercy of God, even above the theological fact for intelligence’s sake, is for the practical use for all believers, then the Supper itself is part of such a covenant of grace.
For the Church
The Lord’s Supper is one of remembrance and communion with the presence of Christ through the actual presence of Christ by the mystery of the indwelling Holy Spirit.[62] This is a corporate act of obedience.[63] However, let not the word obedience intimidate. What a wonderful obedience it is. Jeremy M. Kimble writes, saying, “The Triune God by means of redemption is gathering a people dedicated to glorifying his name. And God has called these people to live as a kingdom of priests set apart for his purposes.”[64] The Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is indicative of the necessary fruits of sacrificial humility. Meaning, it requires a great deal of grace and humility to faithfully practice the Lord’s Supper. To be a kingdom of priests, by means of grace, begets delighting in the God-given corporate remembrance and experience of Christ in the Supper. It means truly walking in gracious humility with one another. In it we graciously delight in the instruments God has given to the church to experience Christ together. Uniquely, there are few biblical instructions which level out our humanity, as one corporate body, to remember what Christ has done for us and will do at His second advent. The Lord’s Supper asks the individual to join the corporate body of Christ in putting the God-Word first. Meaning, as a kingdom of priests, we imitate our great high priest, Jesus Christ. The Lord’s Supper in Scripture represents the Gospel of Christ at every partaking. Furthermore, it is in putting our central focus on Christ that the church fulfills its worship to God and relationship with our fellow saints. When practiced appropriately, as a memorial and hopeful expectation of Christ presence by the Spirit, and of the second advent of our blessed hope, the church demonstrates love toward one another. After all, our hope is in Christ alone. Therefore, it is a means of grace for which the church loves one another and struggles together. The anti-religious crowd who cry legalism at every turn, though not always without warrant, is missing a most delightful and holy participation in the Lord’s Supper when it seeks to dismiss its corporate identity. The church is by no means perfect as Christ will make her perfect in the age to come. And this is true of the individual as well. The Lord’s Supper is a wonderful obedience, which when appropriately celebrated has the means to draw the corporate aspect of church together. Let us put off vain divisions. For when we partake of the Lord’s Supper together, we are caught up in the story of redemption; with Christ, and the body which we worship Christ with.
[1]ESV. English Standard Version. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2001. Print.
[2]Gregg R. Allison. Thomas R. Schreiner and Matthew R. Crawford. The Lord’s Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until He Comes. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2012. P. 160. Print. The Council of Trent summarizes, saying, “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God… that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Ibid., Allison. P. 160).
[3]Ibid., Haykin. P. 103.
[4]Ibid., Haykin. P. 107.
[5]Ibid., Haykin. P. 106.
[6]Michael A.G. Haykin. Thomas Schreiner and Matthew R. Crawford. The Lord’s Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until HE Comes. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010. P. 110. Print.
[7]Ibid., Haykin. P. 112.
[8]Ibid., Haykin. P. 114.
[9]Ibid., Haykin. P. 114.
[10]Ibid., Haykin. P. 115.
[11]Ibid., Haykin. P. 115.
[12]Ibid., Haykin. P. 117.
[13]Michael A.G. Haykin. Thomas Schreiner and Matthew R. Crawford. The Lord’s Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until HE Comes. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010. P. 118. Print.
[14]Ibid., Haykin. P. 119. “When consumed in the Lord’s Supper they are the body and the blood of Christ” (Ibid., Haykin. P. 119).
[15]Ibid., Haykin. P. 122.
[16]Ibid., Haykin. P. 123.
[17]Ibid., Haykin. P. 123.
[18]Zachery M. Bowden. Jason G. Duesing. Historical Theology: For the Church. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2021. P. 132. Print. “According to Aquinas, after the priest provided the words of consecration, the elements are mysteriously transubstantiated, or transformed, into the body and blood of Christ” (Ibid., Bowden. P. 134).
[19]Zachery M. Bowden. Jason G. Duesing. Historical Theology: For the Church. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2021. P. 122. Print.
[20]Ibid., Bowden. P. 122.
[21]Gregg R. Allison.Thomas Schreiner and Matthew R. Crawford. The Lord’s Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until HE Comes. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010. P. 158. Print.
[22]Ibid., Allison. Pp. 160.
[23]Jason G. Duesing. Historical Theology: For the Church. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2021. P. 243. Print.
[24]Ibid., Duesing. P. 234.
[25]Ibid., Duesing. P. 243.
[26]Ibid., Duesing. P. 244.
[27]Ibid., Duesing. P. 244.
[28]Jason G. Duesing. Historical Theology: For the Church. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2021. P. 244. Print. “Zwingli stated, ‘As Christ is broken, that is, put to death for us, so in remembrance of him we offer one another the bread and break it, each representing and communicating with each other, as Christ did for us all’” (Ibid., Duesing. P. 244).
[29]Ibid., Duesing. P. 244.
[30]Ibid., Duesing. P. 235.
[31]Ibid., Duesing. P. 235.
[32]Jason G. Duesing. Historical Theology: For the Church. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2021. P. 235. Print.
[33]Justin S. Holcomb. Know the Creeds and Councils. Grand Rapid, MI: Zondervan, 2014. P. 99. Print.
[34]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 99.
[35]Justin S. Holcomb. Know the Creeds and Councils. Grand Rapid, MI: Zondervan, 2014. P. 99. Print.
[36]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 100.
[37]Ibid., Holcomb. Pp. 100, 101.
[38]Zachary M. Bowden. Jason G. Duesing. Historical Theology: For the Church. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2021. P. 134. Print.“According to Aquinas, after the priest provided the words of consecration, the elements are mysteriously transubstantiated, or transformed, into the body and blood of Christ” (ibid., Bowden. P. 134).
[39]Ibid., Bowden. P. 134. Bowden elaborates, writing, “Observing the bread and the wine with one’s senses, they still look, feel, smell, and taste like bread and wine. In other words, their accidents, or what can be ascertained through one’s senses, have not changed. Nevertheless, the substance of elements-what makes them what they are, and which can only be perceived by the mind-has changed to the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine. It is this substantial change that can only be seen through the eyes of belief, not one’s physical senses” (Ibid., Bowden. P. 134).
[40]Justin S. Holcomb. Know the Creeds and Councils. Grand Rapid, MI: Zondervan, 2014. P. 101. Print.
[41]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 114.
[42]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 115.
[43]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 115.
[44]Justin S. Holcomb. Know the Creeds and Councils. Grand Rapid, MI: Zondervan, 2014. P. 116. Print.
[45]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 117.
[46]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 115.
[47]Ibid., Holcomb. Pp. 124, 125.
[48]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 125.
[49]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 125.
[50]Justin S. Holcomb. Know the Creeds and Councils. Grand Rapid, MI: Zondervan, 2014. P. 125. Print.
[51]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 126.
[52]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 126.
[53]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 127.
[54]Justin S. Holcomb. Know the Creeds and Councils. Grand Rapid, MI: Zondervan, 2014. P. 132. Print. “It became a powerful force in the Church of Scotland and has influenced Presbyterian churches all over the world” (ibid., Holcomb. P. 132).
[55]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 132.
[56]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 132.
[57]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 132.
[58]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 134.
[59]Stephen Brett Eccher. Jason G. Duesing. Historical Theology: For the Church. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2021. P. 225. Print.
[60]Ibid., Eccher. P. 225.
[61]Ibid., Holcomb. P. 135.
[62]J. Todd Billings. Remembrance, Communion, and Hope: Rediscovering the Gospel at the Lord’s Table. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2018. Print. “The importance that the Reformed tradition places upon the sacraments as a sign of God’s promise to be received in faith is particularly significant for evangelicals… this emphasis upon Christ’s powerful presence by the Spirit at the Supper can go along with a theology and practice that have much in common with global evangelicalism: a high sense of Scripture’s authority and the call to repentance and faith, combined with an embodied, affective, Spirit-based sense of worship and communion with God” (Ibid., Billings. P. 63).
[63]Ibid., Billings. P. 61. “Michael Welker summarizes key points of this common declaration, including that Jesus Christ is the giver and the gift in the Supper, communicating himself to those with faith, and that the Lord’s Supper is ‘a communal meal, a meal that grounds community.’”
[64]Jeremy M. Kimble. Jason G. Duesing. Historical Theology: For the Church. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2021. P. 357. Print.