Eating and drinking continued

There are a number of theories about how we truly eat and drink the body and blood.  The Reformed view is that Christ is not physically present here on earth, because he ascended to heaven, and there he will remain until he returns.  Nevertheless, the power of his resurrected immortality is truly communicated to us by the Holy Spirit, so that we truly eat and drink, albeit in a spiritual manner, not a gross corporeal manner.

When they (the Reformed) speak of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper, they do not mean that they are present upon earth, except with respect to faith], that is, that our faith, reminded and excited by the visible signs, just as by the Word preached, elevates itself and ascends above all heavens, and receives and enjoys the body of Christ, which is there in heaven present, yea, Christ Himself, together with all His benefits, in a manner true and essential, but nevertheless spiritual only. For [they hold that] as the bread and wine are here upon earth and not in heaven, so the body of Christ is now in heaven and not upon earth, and consequently nothing else is received by the mouth in the Holy Supper than bread and wine. Formula of Concord.

Another explanation is that we are taken up to heaven, where Christ is, and in this way we truly eat and drink the body where it is present.  I don’t know what to think about that, because no-one I know has ever been transported away during the Supper.  I am a literal thinker, and if we are taken to heaven then it has to be in the body, or it is just another figure of speech that I cannot make head or tail of.

… our faith, reminded and excited by the visible signs, just as by the Word preached, elevates itself and ascends above all heavens, and receives and enjoys the body of Christ, which is there in heaven present, yea, Christ Himself, together with all His benefits, in a manner true and essential, but nevertheless spiritual only. 

Luther – good man – taught that the corporeal body and blood are present in the Supper, and are consumed physically by means of the mouth.  He had a very dim view of the Reformed doctrine, which he held to the end of his life.

… we confess that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with the visible elements, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. For since Paul says: “The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ,” etc., it would follow, if the body of Christ were not, but only the Holy Ghost were truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but of the Spirit of Christ.  Formula of Concord.

Luther’s argument boiled down to one point, that there are no indicators in the words of institution that they are to be taken figuratively, and that they must must therefore be taken literally.

The essence of the Reformed position is that Christ is human, and that a human body cannot be in more than one place at a time.

Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ

As an IAOC denier, (sic), what is denied is that the Lord’s obedience to the
Torah is
imputed to us together with the satisfaction of the cross. The obedience of
Christ,
exegetically and biblically, and without a doubt, is the cross alone.

Christ’s death is his active obedience, properly speaking. See Norman
Shepherd’s
outstanding exegesis of the relevant passages.

What we *get* from the Lord’s sinless life is a sacrificial lamb without spot or
blemish,
which is the condition for the obedience of the cross.

If the IAOC as doctrinally defined is correct, it means that we have to fulfill
the Mosaic Law
to be saved, albeit a mediated obedience.

I am a Gentile, and God has never commanded the Gentiles to obey Torah! I don’t
need to
have Torah imputed to me in any form. Neither I nor my fathers have ever been
under
the Law. Its application to me in any form is redundant, null, and void.

I need to have my sins forgiven, which is a different thing.

When God forgives my sins, he in so doing declares me to be righteous, because
that is
the only alternative to being guilty. No neutral middle status. If I am now
without sin I am
necessarily righteous.

In sum, the cross is the full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, satisfaction,
and oblation, for
our full, perfect, and sufficient justification.

New Anglican Province and repentance

A new Anglican Province in North America came into being last week, consisting of various types and sizes of Anglicans who have a common objection to the ordination of homosexual priests and bishops.  

Listening to the inaugural sermon of the new body preached by Archbishop Duncan at Virtueonline, I was heartened to hear him insisting that we need to repent.  That is good theology, isn’t it?  

Those who identify with the English Reformation and its theology and practice must have a positive initial response to this development.

On the other hand the new Province ordains women, and has mechanisms in place safe-guarding it, but no mechanism for removing it, according to Robin Jordan.

What strikes me is that there is even a discussion about WO, and that a church that has removed itself from an apostate body would continue the practice.  It is so clearly forbidden in scripture that there is no doubt about the scriptural and biblical position.  Therefore, to ordain women, to allow them to preach to men and have authority over them, is a blatant and deliberate sin.  Repent indeed!

What repentance is this that obeys one clear command and deliberately disobeys another?  Is it serving the Lord with half a heart?  Giving with one hand and taking with the other?

The believing church is broken and weak because of sin.  Unless the Lord grants us collectively true repentance the downgrade will continue.