Westminster Larger Catechism (Q 170)

Dear Church Family,

I hope everyone has a happy and restful Thanksgiving! This past Sunday, in our weekly Sunday school lessons in the Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC), we studied and discussed question 170. Here is a brief review.

WLC 170  How do they that worthily communicate in the Lord’s supper feed upon the body and blood of Christ therein?
A. As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper, and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses; so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner, yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death.

Drawing upon the teaching of Scripture that after His resurrection Christ bodily ascended into heaven (e.g., Acts 3:19-21), together with those passages that describe and instruct us concerning the practice of the Lord’s supper (e.g., Matthew 26:26-28; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:24-29), this catechism question and answer begins by refuting several false notions regarding the presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper. Both the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (the idea that the substance of the elements of bread and wine are changed into the substance of Christ’s body and blood) and the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation (the idea that Christ is physically present in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine) are refuted.

John Calvin writes, “They are greatly mistaken in imagining that there is no presence of the flesh of Christ in the Supper, unless it be placed in the bread. They thus leave nothing for the secret operation of the Spirit, which unites Christ himself to us. Christ does not seem to them to be present unless he descends to us, as if we did not equally gain his presence when he raises us to himself. The only question, therefore, is as to the mode, they placing Christ in the bread, while we deem it unlawful to draw him down from heaven. Which of the two is more correct, let the reader judge. Only have done with the calumny that Christ is withdrawn from his Supper if he lurk not under the covering of bread. For seeing this mystery is heavenly, there is no necessity to bring Christ on the earth that he may be connected with us.” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.17.31)

As Calvin seeks to present the biblical view of the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper – over and against the superstitious view of the physical presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper – the essence of Calvin’s argument is that Christ’s resurrected body is now in heaven and man is not able to draw His physical body down from His heavenly throne, as the Roman Catholic and Lutherans assume. Rather, as He is seated at the right hand of God on His heavenly throne, Christ spiritually draws His people into heaven where they spiritually feed upon Him, gaining strength and sustenance.

Four Views Concerning the Present of Christ in the Lord’s Supper

In his Summary of Christian Doctrine, Louis Berkhof helpfully summarizes four different views of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper. Below, I have cut and pasted the relevant section from his book, a free digital copy of which may be found online (Summary of Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1938), 174-176. Free digital book available online at: https://www.monergism.com/summary-christian-doctrine-ebook).

However, it might be helpful to summarize the two main points of the Calvinist view (the same view which is taught in the Westminster Larger Catechism, and which I would argue is the biblical position). First, in contrast to the physical presence of Christ (the Roman Catholic and Lutheran views) or the mere-memorial non-presence of Christ (the Zwinglian or Anabaptist view), Calvin taught that Christ is spiritually present in the Lord’s supper. Second, in contrast to the idea of the priest offering up a sacrifice (the Roman Catholic view) or the Lord’s supper as an act of profession on the part of believers (the Zwinglian or Anabaptist view), Calvin saw the Lord’s supper as a sign and seal of God’s promises and redeeming work on behalf of His people (see also WLC 162).

Here, now, is the summary of four different views regarding the presence of Christ in the Lord’s supper, from Berkhof’s book:

————————————BEGIN QUOTATION—————————————-

Chapter 27: The Lord’s Supper

The Lord’s Supper was instituted at the time of the passover shortly before the death of Jesus, Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19-20; 1Cor. 11:23-25. The new sacrament was linked up with the central element in the paschal meal. The bread that was eaten with the lamb was consecrated to a new use, and so was the wine of the third cup, “the cup of blessing.” The broken bread and the wine symbolize the Lord’s broken body and shed blood; the physical eating and drinking of these point to a spiritual appropriation of the fruits of the sacrifice of Christ; and the whole sacrament is a constant reminder of His redemptive death.

1. THE LORD’S SUPPER AS A SIGN AND SEAL. Like every other sacrament, the Lord’s Supper is first of all a sign. The sign includes not only the visible elements of bread and wine, but also their eating and drinking. It is a symbolical representation of the Lord’s death, 1Cor. 11:26, and symbolizes the believer’s participation in the crucified Christ and in the life and strength of the risen Lord. In addition to this it is also an act of profession on the part of those who partake of it. They profess faith in Christ as their Savior, and allegiance to Him as their King. But the Lord’s Supper is more than a sign; it is also a seal, which is attached to the thing signified and is a pledge of its realization. It gives believing partakers the assurance that they are the objects of the great love of Christ revealed in His self-surrender to a bitter and shameful death; that all the promises of the covenant and all the riches of the gospel are theirs; and even that the blessings of salvation are theirs in actual possession.
2. THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE LORD’S SUPPER. The question as to the nature of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper is one that has long been debated, and one on which there is still considerable difference of opinion. Four views come into consideration here.
3. THE VIEW OF ROME. The Church of Rome conceives of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper in a PHYSICAL SENSE. On the ground of Jesus’ statement, “this is my body,” it holds that bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ, though they continue to look and taste like bread and wine. This view is open to several objections: (1) Jesus, standing before the disciples in the flesh, could not very well say that He had His body in His hand; (2) Scripture speaks of the bread as bread even after the supposed change has taken place, 1Cor. 10;17; 11:26-28; and (3) It is contrary to common sense to believe that what looks and smells and tastes like bread and wine is indeed flesh and blood.
4. THE LUTHERAN VIEW. Lutherans maintain that, while bread and wine remain what they are, the whole person of Christ, body and blood, is present IN, UNDER, and ALONG WITH, the elements. When Christ had the bread in His hand, He held His body along with it, and therefore could say, “this is my body.” Every one who receives the bread also receives the body, whether he be a believer or not. This is no great improvement on the Roman Catholic doctrine. It ascribes to Jesus’ words the unnatural meaning “this accompanies my body.” Moreover, it is burdened with the impossible notion that the body of Christ is omnipresent.
5. THE ZWINGLIAN VIEW. Zwingli denied the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, while admitting that He is spiritually present in the faith of believers. For him the Lord’s Supper was mainly a mere sign or symbol, a memorial of the death of Christ, and an act of profession on the part of believers. Some of his statements, however, seem to indicate that he also regarded it as a seal or pledge of what God does for the believer in Christ.
6. CALVIN’S VIEW. Calvin took an intermediate position. Instead of the physical and local, he taught the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. In distinction from Zwingli he stressed the deeper significance of the sacrament. He saw in it a seal and pledge of what God does for believers rather than a pledge of their consecration to God. The virtues and effects of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross are present and actually conveyed to believers by the power of the Holy Spirit.

————————————END QUOTATION—————————————-

Conclusion

In the next questions and answers of the WLC, we will study how we ought to prepare to partake of the Lord’s supper. I hope you will join us on Sunday mornings at 9:15 am in our continuing study of the Westminster Larger Catechism!

The Lord be with you!
Pastor Peter M. Dietsch