Basic HTML Version
628
an “increase of sanctifying grace, special actual graces, remission of venial sins, preservation
from grievous (mortal) sin, and the confident hope of eternal salvation.”
2. DURING AND AFTER THE REFORMATION.
The Reformers, one and all, rejected the sacrificial
theory of the Lord’s Supper, and the mediaeval doctrine of transubstantiation. They differed,
however, in their positive construction of the Scriptural doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. In
opposition to Zwingli, Luther insisted on the literal interpretation of the words of the institution
and on the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. However, he substituted for the
doctrine of transubstantiation that of consubstantiation, which has been defended at length by
Occam in his De Sacramento Altaris, and according to which Christ is “in, with, and under” the
elements. Zwingli denied absolutely the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, and gave
a figurative interpretation to the words of the institution. He saw in the sacrament primarily an
act of commemoration, though he did not deny that in it Christ is spiritually present to the faith
of believers. Calvin maintained an intermediate position. Like Zwingli, he denied the bodily
presence of the Lord in the sacrament, but in distinction from the former, he insisted on the
real, though spiritual, presence of the Lord in the Supper, the presence of Him as a fountain of
spiritual virtue and efficacy. Moreover, instead of stressing the Lord’s Supper as an act of man
(either of commemoration or of profession), he emphasized the fact that it is the expression
first of all of a gracious gift of God to man, and only secondarily a commemorative meal and an
act of profession. For him, as well as for Luther, it was primarily a divinely appointed means for
the strengthening of faith. The Socinians, Arminians, and Mennonites saw in the Lord’s Supper
only a memorial, an act of profession, and a means for moral improvement. Under the
influence of Rationalism this became the popular view. Schleiermacher stressed the fact that
the Lord’s Supper is the means by which the communion of life with Christ is preserved in a
particularly energetic manner in the bosom of the Church. Many of the Mediating theologians,
while belonging to the Lutheran Church, rejected the doctrine of consubstantiation, and
approached the Calvinistic view of the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.
C. SCRIPTURAL NAMES FOR THE LORD’S SUPPER.
While there is but a single name for the initiatory sacrament of the New Testament, there are
several for the sacrament now under consideration, all of which are derived from Scripture.
They are the following: (1) Deipnon kuriakon, the Lord’s Supper, which is derived from I Cor.
11:20. This is the most common name in Protestant circles. It seems that in the passage
indicated the apostle wants to make a pointed distinction between the sacrament and the
agapae, which the Corinthians connected with it and which they abused, thus making the two
virtually incongruous. The special emphasis is on the fact that this Supper is the Lord’s. It is not
a supper in which the rich invite the poor as their guests and then treat them niggardly, but a