Theological Insights on Christ's Presence in the Eucharist

 

Summary

In our exploration of the Lord’s Supper, we delved into the profound theological debates that arose during the Protestant Reformation, particularly concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This discussion is deeply rooted in Christology, focusing on how Christ's body and blood could be present in multiple locations simultaneously. This question was not merely philosophical but was fundamentally about the nature of Christ Himself.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 addressed heresies that threatened the orthodox understanding of Christ's nature. The Monophysite heresy, proposed by Eutyches, suggested that Christ had a single, blended nature, neither fully divine nor fully human. In contrast, Nestorius argued for two distinct persons within Christ, corresponding to His two natures. The church, however, affirmed that Christ is "Vera homo, vera deus"—truly human and truly divine—rejecting both heresies by asserting that Christ has two distinct natures united in one person.

The Council of Chalcedon introduced the "Four Negatives" to clarify this union: the two natures are united without mixture, confusion, separation, or division. This means that while the divine and human natures are distinct, they are not to be mixed or separated. Each nature retains its own attributes, ensuring that the divine nature remains immutable and omnipresent, while the human nature remains localized and finite.

The Roman Catholic Church's doctrine of transubstantiation, which suggests that Christ's body is present in multiple locations during the Eucharist, was seen by reformers like Calvin as violating Chalcedon's principles. The concept of "communication of attributes" was used to explain this, suggesting that divine attributes could be transferred to the human nature. However, this was rejected by the reformers as it implied a deification of the human nature, thus confusing the two natures.

In conclusion, the Reformed Church sought to understand the true presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper without compromising the distinct natures of Christ as defined by Chalcedon. This theological exploration underscores the mystery of the incarnation and the profound nature of Christ's presence in the sacrament.

Key Takeaways

- The debate over Christ's presence in the Eucharist is fundamentally Christological, focusing on how Christ's body and blood could be present in multiple locations simultaneously. This question is not merely philosophical but deeply rooted in the nature of Christ Himself. [00:34]

- The Council of Chalcedon affirmed that Christ is truly human and truly divine, rejecting both the Monophysite and Nestorian heresies. This affirmation is crucial for understanding the distinct yet united natures of Christ. [05:50]

- The "Four Negatives" of Chalcedon—without mixture, confusion, separation, or division—clarify the union of Christ's two natures. Each nature retains its own attributes, ensuring the divine nature remains immutable and omnipresent, while the human nature remains localized and finite. [10:03]

- The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, suggesting Christ's body is present in multiple locations during the Eucharist, was seen by reformers as violating Chalcedon's principles. The concept of "communication of attributes" was rejected as it implied a deification of the human nature. [20:03]

- The Reformed Church sought to understand the true presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper without compromising the distinct natures of Christ. This exploration underscores the mystery of the incarnation and the profound nature of Christ's presence in the sacrament. [23:04]

Youtube Chapters

[00:00] - Welcome
[00:34] - Christological Debate in the Eucharist
[01:21] - The Fundamental Question of Christ's Presence
[02:12] - The Monophysite Heresy
[03:03] - Eutyches and the Theanthropic Nature
[04:15] - Nestorius and the Two Persons Theory
[05:50] - Chalcedon's Affirmation of Two Natures
[06:48] - True Humanity and Divinity of Christ
[08:23] - The Four Negatives of Chalcedon
[09:10] - Mystery of the Incarnation
[10:03] - Without Mixture, Confusion, Separation, or Division
[11:33] - Distinction vs. Separation
[12:15] - Humanity and Divinity in Christ
[13:42] - Attributes of Christ's Natures
[14:41] - The Kenotic Heresy
[17:02] - Attributes of Human and Divine Natures
[18:30] - Calvin's Rejection of Transubstantiation
[19:19] - Communication of Attributes
[20:48] - Theological Implications of Ubiquity
[21:29] - Supernatural Knowledge of Christ
[22:20] - Rejection of Deification of Human Nature
[23:04] - Conclusion and Next Session Preview

Study Guide

Bible Study Discussion Guide: The Lord’s Supper and Christology

Bible Reading:
1. John 1:14 - "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
2. Colossians 2:9 - "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form."
3. Philippians 2:5-7 - "In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness."

Observation Questions:
1. What were the two main heresies addressed by the Council of Chalcedon, and how did they differ in their understanding of Christ's nature? [02:12]
2. How does the concept of "communication of attributes" relate to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, and why was it rejected by the reformers? [20:03]
3. What are the "Four Negatives" introduced by the Council of Chalcedon, and what do they clarify about the union of Christ's two natures? [10:03]
4. How does the sermon describe the relationship between Christ's divine and human natures in terms of their attributes? [14:41]

Interpretation Questions:
1. How does the affirmation of Christ as "truly human and truly divine" impact our understanding of His presence in the Lord’s Supper? [05:50]
2. In what ways does the rejection of the Monophysite and Nestorian heresies help maintain the integrity of Christ's dual nature? [06:48]
3. How might the concept of "each nature retaining its own attributes" influence our view of Christ's actions and experiences on earth? [14:41]
4. What are the implications of the reformers' rejection of the "communication of attributes" for our understanding of the Eucharist? [20:03]

Application Questions:
1. Reflect on the mystery of the incarnation. How does acknowledging this mystery affect your faith and understanding of Christ's presence in your life? [09:10]
2. The sermon discusses the importance of distinguishing between Christ's divine and human natures. How can this understanding influence your daily walk with Christ? [11:33]
3. Consider the "Four Negatives" of Chalcedon. How can these principles guide your conversations with others about the nature of Christ? [10:03]
4. How does the rejection of the "communication of attributes" challenge you to think about the nature of the sacraments in your own faith tradition? [20:03]
5. In what ways can you apply the understanding of Christ's true humanity and divinity to your personal worship and participation in the Lord’s Supper? [06:48]
6. How can the historical debates over Christ's nature inform your approach to theological discussions today? [01:21]
7. Reflect on the idea that Christ's human nature retains its own attributes. How does this shape your view of Jesus' experiences and emotions as recorded in the Gospels? [17:02]

Devotional

Day 1: The Christological Mystery of the Eucharist
The debate over Christ's presence in the Eucharist is deeply rooted in Christology, focusing on how Christ's body and blood could be present in multiple locations simultaneously. This question is not merely philosophical but fundamentally about the nature of Christ Himself. The Protestant Reformation brought this issue to the forefront, challenging the traditional views held by the Roman Catholic Church. Reformers like Calvin questioned the doctrine of transubstantiation, which suggested that Christ's body is present in multiple locations during the Eucharist. This debate underscores the mystery of the incarnation and the profound nature of Christ's presence in the sacrament. [00:34]

"For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." (Colossians 1:19-20, ESV)

Reflection: How does the mystery of Christ's presence in the Eucharist challenge your understanding of His nature? What steps can you take to deepen your appreciation of this mystery in your spiritual life today?


Day 2: Chalcedon's Affirmation of Christ's Dual Nature
The Council of Chalcedon affirmed that Christ is truly human and truly divine, rejecting both the Monophysite and Nestorian heresies. This affirmation is crucial for understanding the distinct yet united natures of Christ. The Monophysite heresy, proposed by Eutyches, suggested that Christ had a single, blended nature, neither fully divine nor fully human. In contrast, Nestorius argued for two distinct persons within Christ, corresponding to His two natures. The church, however, affirmed that Christ is "Vera homo, vera deus"—truly human and truly divine—rejecting both heresies by asserting that Christ has two distinct natures united in one person. [05:50]

"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time." (1 Timothy 2:5-6, ESV)

Reflection: How does the understanding of Christ's dual nature influence your relationship with Him? In what ways can you reflect on His humanity and divinity in your daily walk with God?


Day 3: The Four Negatives of Chalcedon
The "Four Negatives" of Chalcedon—without mixture, confusion, separation, or division—clarify the union of Christ's two natures. Each nature retains its own attributes, ensuring the divine nature remains immutable and omnipresent, while the human nature remains localized and finite. This theological framework helps maintain the integrity of both natures, preventing any confusion or blending that could compromise the true essence of Christ. The reformers emphasized this distinction to preserve the mystery and majesty of the incarnation. [10:03]

"For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority." (Colossians 2:9-10, ESV)

Reflection: Consider the significance of the "Four Negatives" in your understanding of Christ. How can you apply this understanding to your faith journey, ensuring you honor both His divinity and humanity?


Day 4: Reformation's Challenge to Transubstantiation
The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, suggesting Christ's body is present in multiple locations during the Eucharist, was seen by reformers as violating Chalcedon's principles. The concept of "communication of attributes" was used to explain this, suggesting that divine attributes could be transferred to the human nature. However, this was rejected by the reformers as it implied a deification of the human nature, thus confusing the two natures. The Reformed Church sought to understand the true presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper without compromising the distinct natures of Christ. [20:03]

"Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire." (Hebrews 12:28-29, ESV)

Reflection: How does the Reformation's challenge to transubstantiation shape your view of the Lord's Supper? What practical steps can you take to approach the sacrament with reverence and understanding?


Day 5: The Mystery of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament
The Reformed Church sought to understand the true presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper without compromising the distinct natures of Christ as defined by Chalcedon. This theological exploration underscores the mystery of the incarnation and the profound nature of Christ's presence in the sacrament. The reformers emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of Christ's dual nature while acknowledging the mystery of His presence in the Eucharist. This approach invites believers to engage with the sacrament in a way that honors both the mystery and the majesty of Christ. [23:04]

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14, ESV)

Reflection: In what ways can you embrace the mystery of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper? How can this understanding deepen your worship and relationship with Him?

Quotes


SPROUL: In our last session as we’ve been studying the Lord’s Supper, we looked at the controversy that erupted in the sixteenth century during the Protestant Reformation that focused on the question of the mode of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. We looked at the doctrine of transubstantiation and what it was that was rejected by the reformers of Switzerland and Scotland and so on, and I mentioned at the time that the fundamental issue of the nature of the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper was not, in the final analysis, a philosophical debate about the proper use of the categories of Aristotle, of substance and accidens, as we looked at, but the primary issue was Christological. [00:08:00]

And this debate over the person of Christ was also rooted and grounded in a definitive ecumenical council’s decision on the church’s understanding of the union of the two natures in Christ. In 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, the church had to deal with heresies that were threatening the biblical understanding and orthodox understanding of the person of Christ, and the heresies were coming from two different directions. On the one hand, there was what was called the Monophysite heresy, which was being articulated by a man by the name of Eutyches, and in the Monophysite heresy—and I ought to write that word down here—Monophysite—sounds like stalactite or stalagmite or something like that. [00:113:80]

At the same time, from the other side, a heretic by the name of Nestorius was arguing that if you have two natures, a divine and a human, that can only mean that in Christ resided two persons. So if you have two natures, you have to have two persons. And so he was saying that in Christ there were two distinct persons and two distinct natures, and he thereby separated the divine and human natures into two distinct persons. So on the one hand, you have a blending or mixing together of the divine and human, and on the other hand, you have a dividing or separating of the two natures. [00:307:92]

So at this point, the church, in their Confession in 451 at Chalcedon, declared the following authoritative statements about the church’s view of Christology: one, that Christ is “Vera homo, vera deus,” that Christ has two distinct natures and those two natures are truly human and truly divine. Now notice at this point that this is speaking against the idea of Eutyches, who was saying that Jesus did not have a purely divine nature or a purely human nature; He didn’t have a true human nature; He didn’t have a true divine nature. [00:364:00]

Now comes the most important elements of the council of Chalcedon for future church history. In defining the view that the church held in the fifth century, the church attached to its Confession what is commonly referred to as the “Four Negatives of Chalcedon.” The reason they’re stated in this way is simple: that even in the fifth century at this council, the church understood that what they were dealing with in the incarnation was a supreme mystery, and that the church was not saying, “We have penetrated totally to the mystery of the incarnation. What we can say for sure is that there is a perfect union between the divine nature and the human nature and that these two natures are genuine. [00:503:48]

And so the four negatives are that the two natures are united without mixture, confusion, separation, or division. Those are the four negatives. However you understand the relationship between the human nature and the divine nature, you do not want to think of them in terms of being mixed together or confused, where the humanity is swallowed up by the deity or the deity is swallowed up by the humanity. We can’t have a humanized divine nature or a deified human nature because in these first two of the four negatives, the Monophysite heresy is rejected because this is exactly what Eutyches did; he blended the two natures, and so that you end up in one basic nature. [00:603:04]

Now when we come to the New Testament, we see aspects of Jesus, of the person, and the person is the God Man, but we see certain aspects of His life. For example, He gets hungry, He gets thirsty, He weeps, He bleeds. All of these elements manifest the true human nature that He possesses. God does not get hungry; God does not get thirsty; the divine nature doesn’t bleed. These are all aspects of the human nature. Now if we were to ask the question, to which nature does the body of Jesus belong, the answer’s rather obvious. His physical body is a manifestation of His human nature, not His divine nature. [00:794:44]

Now in addition to the four negatives, immediately after the four negatives, there’s a semicolon and the Confession of Chalcedon ends with these words, “Each nature retains its own attributes,” which means that in the incarnation, the divine nature does not stop being divine; the divine nature loses none of its divine attributes. In the nineteenth century, there was a heresy that plagued the church and—with respect to liberal theology—called the “Kenotic Heresy” based upon Paul’s hymn in Philippians two, when he says, “Have this mind among you, which was also in Christ Jesus who, being in the form of God, took His equality with God not as a thing to be grasped, but He emptied himself.” [00:865:24]

Now again, going back to Chalcedon, “each nature retains its own attributes,” so that in the incarnation, the divine nature continues to be immutable, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and all the rest, and that’s easy for us to understand. It’s the other side that becomes a problem in the Lord’s Supper. What does it mean that the human nature retains its own attributes? The attributes of human flesh include that they are limited spatially, that it is not natural for a human body to be able to be omnipresent; omnipresence is not an attribute of human nature; it is an attribute of the divine nature. [00:1005:28]

So the Roman Catholic Church answered that by—and had developed this theory that was called the “communication of attributes,” which was dealing with their doctrine of ubiquity. Now the term “ubiquity” means the same thing as the word “omnipresence;” it just uses a different root tour: “ubi” means “where,” and “equis” means “equal.” And so the concept of ubiquity means something that has equal whereness; it can be here, there, and everywhere at the same time; it’s a synonym for omnipresence. Note the difference between ubiquity and iniquity. You have iniquity, I have iniquity, but you don’t have ubiquity and neither do I. [00:1131:00]

And Calvin said, and neither did the physical nature of Jesus. But the solution to that, again, by the church was to argue for a communication of attributes from the divine nature to the human nature, so that if the divine nature has the ability to be present at more than one place at the same time, that what happens in the mass is that the power of the divine nature—indeed, a very attribute of the divine nature, is communicated to the human nature. Do we see that? So it makes it now possible for the human nature, the body, to be present everywhere at the same time, because now the human nature is endowed with a divine attribute, which the reformers were saying completely violates Chalcedon at two points, certainly at the first point of mixture and confusion, because here, we’re mixing the attributes, and certainly with respect to the last statement where each nature retains its own attributes. [00:1181:12]

Now let me just say one more thing about this today. We see in the life of Jesus repeated instances where supernatural knowledge is made evident by Christ, where He knows things that no normal human being would know; but of course, the same thing could be said about the prophets in the Old Testament and the apostles in the New Testament, who are receptacles of the transfer of information from the mind of God to the human mind. And it’s one thing for the divine nature to communicate information to the human nature; it’s quite another for the divine nature to communicate deity to the human nature. If the divine nature communicates deity or divine attributes to the human nature, it would seem to me that that would, by necessity, involve a deification of the human nature, a confusion of the two natures, and a violation of the true humanity of Christ. [00:1297:92]

Chatbot

  • I'm an AI bot trained specifically on the sermon from Apr 13, 2024. Do you have any questions about it?

Transcript
What was the most surprising thing in this sermon?
Were there any personal stories shared?