Understanding Four Views on the Lord's Supper

Counterpoints

by John H. Armstrong, I. John Hesselink, David P. Scaer

The Lord's Supper has been the central and characteristic action of the church at worship. But there are still many ways of understanding it and many questions surrounding this meal...

Who should participate in the Lord’s Supper? How frequently should we observe it? What does this meal mean? What happens when we eat the bread and drink from the cup? What do Christians disagree about and what do they hold in common?

These and other questions are explored in this volume of the fair-minded, informative Counterpoints series. Contributors make a case for one of the following views:


Baptist view (memorialism)
Reformed view (spiritual presence)
Lutheran view (consubstantiation)
Roman Catholic view (transubstantiation)
All contributors use Scripture to present their views, and each responds to the others' essays. Included are resources for understanding the topic further, such as:


A listing of statements on the Lord's Supper from creeds and confessions
Quotations from noted Christians
A resource listing of books on the Lord's Supper
Discussion questions for each chapter to facilitate small group and classroom use
The Counterpoints series presents a comparison and critique of scholarly views on topics important to Christians that are both fair-minded and respectful of the biblical text. Each volume is a one-stop reference that allows readers to evaluate the different positions on a specific issue and form their own, educated opinion.

Genres: Theology, Ecclesiology, Christian, Religion, Christianity, Reference, Faith

224 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 2007

Reviews

[Steve Bauer · Rating 3 out of 5]

(I am writing this as a review of the Lutheran explanation of the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper. As a Lutheran pastor there are several things the reader should be made aware of.)

1. Dr. Scaer notes that "Lutherans rarely use this term (Consubstantiation)." (p. 87) This sentence is an understatement. Confessional lutherans have always found the word, Consubstantiation offensive. In his "Creeds of Christendom" book, Schaff notes that Lutherans reject the term. (p. 229) Nevertheless, he unapologetically uses the term more than twenty times throughout his work to define the Lutheran view of the Lord’s Supper. Abraham Calov best explains the Lutheran view of that word, Consubstantiation: "We maintain that the body and blood of Christ are present in the Supper; not, indeed, through μετουσια, or by substantial transmutation, as the Papists hold; nor by συνουσια, or consubstantiation, which the Calvinists calumniously charge upon us; nor by local inclusion, namely, impanation, as flesh is in a meat-pie and invination, as they are accustomed to charge against us; nor in the way of a descent from heaven and from the Right Hand of God, to be followed again by an ascent to heaven and to the Right Hand of God.” (Schmidt, p. 563) So, if you want to misrepresent the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper, then, go ahead and use the word, Consubstantiation. And if you want to unnecessarily offend Lutherans, then make use of that word. It's difficult to read Russell Moore's response to the Lutheran view. He writes: "By contrast, the Lutheran view of consubstantiation is exegetically, historically, philosophically, and semantically far more complex." (p. 102.) If he knew much at all about the Lutheran understanding of the Lord's Supper he wouldn't boldly and bluntly call it what it is not.

2. Scaer writes: "Today the majority of Lutheran congregations in the United States have a weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper." (97) While usually throughout his section he makes generous use of footnotes, the reader notices that in this section there are no sources of proof. That's because he set forth as proof something that is unproven. Even within his own church body (LCMS) there is no proof that "most churches" celebrate the Lord's Supper on a weekly basis. While there has been a growing appreciation of more frequent communion within Lutheranism in the last 10 or 20 years, there is no proof that the majority of Lutheran churches practice weekly communion.

3. On p. 100 Scaer notes that Luther found the basis for the Lord's Supper in the passages which clearly speak about the Lord's Supper. Scaer, however, doesn't exactly follow in Luther's footsteps. Consider this section: "Just as in baptism water symbolizes creation, birth, and destruction, bread is reminiscent of what humans must produce in the sweat of their brow to survive in a world of sin (Gen. 3:19). It is a reminder of our fallen condition and the necessity of eating Christ’s body for salvation." (p. 93) While imaginative and interesting, these conclusions are not conclusions we find clearly expressed in God's word about the Lord's Supper. So also, Scaer goes out on a limb with connecting John 6 to the Lord's Supper. In Luther's, "Babylonian Captivity of the church," he wrote: "John 6 is to be entirely excluded from this discussion, since it does not refer in a single syllable to the sacrament. For not only was the sacrament not yet instituted, but the whole context plainly shows that Christ is speaking of faith in the Word made flesh, as I have said above." (LW 36:19)

Conclusion: I give this book 3 out of 5 stars. The unnecessary inclusion of the word, Consubstantiation knocks it down a star. And Scaer's habit of occasionally going beyond what scripture can bear (and as a result, Lutheranism understands) knocks it down another star.

Pastor Steve Bauer
http://stevebauer.us

[Jake Pettit · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was surprised to learn as much from the amazing structure of this book as its content. A masterclass in fairly, comprehensively, and concisely presenting different perspectives on a controversial topic.

Much like the supreme court circulates opinions, concurrences, and dissents amongst the justices, allowing them to edit, rewrite, and refine their arguments before publishing, this book has a chapter each for the Baptist, Reformed, Lutheran, and Catholic theologies of the Lord’s Supper with a section at the end of each chapter where the other three perspectives respond. I was delighted by how the three responses (3-5 pages on average) each tradition wrote in conversation with the others clarified and sharpened my understanding of their own full-chapter argument.

An excellent source for understanding the key Christian perspectives on the Lord’s Supper.

[StephenM · Rating 4 out of 5]

Decent overview of the four views provided. Pretty good intro for those new to the subject. There is plenty not discussed, however, and there is a fair amount of talking past each other. I respect Russell Moore deeply in other contexts, but he really does the Zwinglian/Baptist view no favor here. (Most annoying example: after the Lutheran author explains at length that "consubstantiation" is the wrong term for the Lutheran view, and has long been rejected, Moore responds and immediately refers to "the Lutheran view of consubstantiation.") Four stars might be too high a rating, but it does have a nice appendix of confessional and catechetical statements from across the differing views that is quite useful.

[Christina C · Rating 4 out of 5]

A helpful overview of four main views of communion. The book covers three protestant views (Baptist, Reformed, and Lutheran) and a Catholic view. Each essay is responded to by the other three contributors. I find the point-counter point format to be helpful to distinguish the nuance and differences within each view. I would have liked to have seen the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican/Episcopal views presented more fully but they are not specifically included. I greatly appreciated the respectful tone throughout while still acknowledging some very key differences.

[Deb Osborn · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was very well-researched, and I really appreciated the longer quotations from a variety of sources at the end. It's a slow, heady read, that I had to take in bite-size pieces. Not 100% sure where I land on what happens during Communion, but am grateful to know more about the different views out there.

[Flo · Rating 4 out of 5]

insgesamt sehr lehrreich und thought-provoking. besonders über die gemeinschaftlichen Aspekte und dem WARUM des Abendmahls konnte ich viel mitnehmen.

Introduction: Do This in Remembrance of Me (JOHN H. ARMSTRONG) ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
→ Eine Definition: "Put very simply, it is an uncomplicated ceremony in which bread and wine are taken by gathered worshipers in a sacred act of communion, remembrance, and thanksgiving." (p. 15)

→ Über den gemeinschaftlichen Aspekt:"Though we sometimes forget this, this meal is not a private ceremony. It is a church-based celebration wherein believers remember their Lord together in a visible manner. In this corporate family meal we celebrate Christ’s sacrifice for our sins. [...] the Lord’s Supper emphasizes participation by the entire congregation in the meal. The pattern is clearly established in Mark 14:23, where we read, “Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.” This is a communion that expresses the unity of God’s family and thereby anticipates the end of this age, the final and complete unity of all Christians in their Lord." (p. 16)
"This meal is given for you. It is intensely personal, though it should never be private or individualistic in its orientation or setting. When Paul states, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26), he uses the plural “you,” which in the context meant the Christians in Corinth." (p. 21)

→ Drei Dinge, an die wir uns erinnern:
(1) Commemoration: "Thus, by this meal, we now recognize, observe, and remember his life and death for us."
(2) Renewal: "we also renew our faith and offer ourselves up to him again when we come to this table (cf. Rom. 12:1–2). The Lord’s Supper enriches our Christian lives through our meeting with Christ at this appointed place. Here we receive his grace again, and here he reveals to us that we belong to him through mystical union. This inspires us to be committed followers of the Savior. Each of us has an obligation to love and serve the Savior and to minister to one another."
(3) Thanksgiving: "It is here that we thank God for creating us, for making us in God’s image, for being a good and faithful God, for forgiving our sins for Christ’s sake, and for giving us a future and a hope to be fully revealed in the kingdom of Christ, both now and in the age to come." (p. 17-18)

→ Vier Arten der Stärkung dadurch:
(1) It Enables.
(2) It Unites: "The bread we eat is one loaf, and the cup we drink is one cup. These elements symbolize our oneness with Christ and each other. The bread is not just for me individually but for the whole church, thus expressing our unity. The cup symbolizes the shedding of Christ’s blood for the sins of all, not just for mine." (p. 19)
(3) It Nourishes.
(4) It Prepares

→ Wie bereitet man sich darauf vor?
"First, we should meditate on the meaning of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Second, we can consider again the message of Christ and how this good news informs the living of our lives today.
Third, we can explore the various areas of our lives that need change and improvement through repentance.
Finally, we can pray for the Spirit-given faith to receive the elements of the Supper with a deeper love for Christ and one another." (p. 21)

1. BAPTIST VIEW: Christ’s Presence as Memorial (RUSSELL D. MOORE)⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
→ sehr gut!
→ Das Abendmahl als ZEICHEN, als VERKÜNDIGUNG und als GEMEINSAMES TEILHABEN
→ Über die Art und Weise, wie der Glaube gestärkt wird: "The Supper does indeed ground, buttress, and establish Christian faith—but it does so through the proclamation of the finished redemption of Christ and the promise of the kingdom to come." (p. 35)
→ Über den Zusammenhang mit Church Discipline: "This is also why the apostle Paul ties the Lord’s Supper to the discipline of the congregation. The immoral man is to be cut off from the community—specifically in terms of barring him from eating with the congregation (1 Cor. 5:11). Why? The apostle points to the Passover imagery once again (vv. 6–7), both in terms of the unleavened bread and in terms of the sacrificed Passover lamb. Since the meal defines the people of God, the one who refuses to repent is delivered to Satan, to the world outside—the world that is waiting to be judged (vv. 5, 12–13). In this way, the congregation is “recognizing the body” of Christ by defining the boundaries of communion at the table in terms of those who are in union with Christ." (p. 40)


2. REFORMED VIEW: The Real Presence of Christ (I. JOHN HESSELINK)⭐️⭐️⭐️ _ _
→ interessant.
→ eine gute Idee: "In some churches in the Reformed tradition, including my own (the Reformed Church in America), during the worship one week before the celebration of Communion, an “Exhortation to Self-Examination” is read prior to the prayer of confession. One of the opening lines is this: “That we may celebrate the Sacrament to our comfort, it is necessary that we rightly examine ourselves.” " (p. 70)


3. LUTHERAN VIEW: Finding the Right Word (DAVID P. SCAER)⭐️ ⭐️ _ _ _
→ ingesamt schräg, aber mit einigen hilfreichen Gedanken dazwischen.
→ Über die Zusammenhänge: "In this sacrament the church proclaims the Lord’s death until he returns (1 Cor. 11:24–26) and confesses that his death is the sacrifice for their sins and those of the world (John 6:51). Believers are promised eternal life and the resurrection merited by Christ’s death (v. 54). Unbelievers and those with unresolved sin meet him as judge. On that account, those who approach this Supper must do so with great care. In the sacrament atonement and judgment come together." (p. 92)
→ über Jesu Vorzüglichkeit: "In the Supper, Christ is temple, priest, and sacrifice, so pilgrimages to shrines and efforts to restore Israel as God’s people and reconstruct Jerusalem with its temple are rendered obsolete. Participants in the sacrament have come to the heavenly Jerusalem." (p. 97)
→ Über Jesus überall im Abendmahl: "Because he is all aspects of this sacrament, he is proclaimed in its every aspect (see 1 Cor. 11:26). Thus the Lord’s people come together on the Lord’s day to hear the Lord’s word (i.e., the gospel), to pray the Lord’s Prayer, and to gather around the Lord’s table to receive the Lord’s Supper. In all these actions and in the elements themselves Jesus is present. This meal is in every aspect the Lord’s Supper." (p. 98)

→ Moore's Response dazu ist sehr hilfreich: "The Passover event of sacrifice of the substitutionary lamb is fulfilled in the cross of Christ, not in the Supper. As Paul instructs the Corinthians, our Passover is Christ himself, who has already been sacrificed (1 Cor. 5:7). The church’s ongoing communion over bread and wine is instead related to the Passover festival (1 Cor. 5:8–11)." (p. 103)
"Contrary to Scaer, it is not in “the sacrament” that “atonement and judgment come together” (p. 92), but rather in the cross outside the gates of Jerusalem where God’s wrath and God’s forgiveness meet (Rom. 3:25–26). Our appropriation of this atonement comes not through any activity (circumcision, baptism, or even Communion) but through trust in the “God who justifies the wicked” (Rom. 4:5). This faith is not severed from the Supper. The Supper prompts and encourages faith by pointing the penitent believer outside of himself to Christ, as he continues to look to the once-and-for-all atonement of Jesus." (p. 103)
→ Auch die Reformierte Antwort ist hilfreich: "We, too, believe that sacraments are signs to which God’s Word is attached and that “the external elements of the sacraments as signs correspond to what the sacraments are and do” (p. 93). However, we would say that the role of the Holy Spirit, as far as the celebration of the Supper is concerned, is not so much to “create faith” (p. 96) as to strengthen and nourish faith; and that although the words of institution are indispensable, it is not Christ’s words alone, but the Word and the Spirit that effect the sacrament (p. 97)." (p. 108)


4. ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW: Christ’s True, Real, and Substantial Presence (THOMAS A. BAIMA)⭐️ _ _ _ _
→ interessant, wenngleich ich insgesamt nicht zustimme... schön ist die Betonung des Glaubens und simplen Vertrauens auf Jesu Worte.
→ über die römische Sicht: "Sacraments are not something that the church does; rather, the sacraments make the church. When I say “make,” I mean the sacraments create and sustain the church. The church is structured by the sacraments. Baptism creates the church by building her up from new members. Confirmation strengthens these members to be witnesses of Christ. Penance and anointing of the sick heal the wounds of sin and suffering that afflict the members, further building them up into the living stones of the edifice. Marriage sanctifies human love and is described by Saint Paul as an image of the church (Eph. 5:22–33). Christ’s headship is continued through Holy Orders—which makes the other sacraments possible. And in the Eucharist, Christ and members offer praise, sacrifice, and worship to the Father in the Holy Spirit." (p. 122)
→ offiziell: "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and therefore the whole Christ are truly, really and substantially contained, but says that he is in it only as in a sign or figure or by his power, let him be anathema." (p. 126)

→ Die baptistische Antwort wieder sehr gut: "Since I do not receive as revelatory the teachings of the Roman magisterium, but receive Scripture alone as the final, normative authority for the church, I must ask to see where in Holy Scripture the Catholic view of the Mass is to be found. I do not think Baima makes this case." (p. 138)
→ besonders, wenn es um die ZEICHEN in Johannes geht: "The Jewish skeptics at Galilee failed to see that Jesus’ discourse on eating his flesh and drinking his blood has everything to do with belief. After all, Jesus points to himself as the true Manna of God by saying clearly, “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him S 139 shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:39–40).
The grumbling of Jesus’ overly literalistic hearers is a consistent theme in John. In John 2, when Jesus announces that he will restore a destroyed temple in three days, the confused onlookers ask how this can happen when it “has taken forty-six years to build this temple,” mistakenly assuming he is referring to the physical edifice in Jerusalem (v. 20). In John 3, Nicodemus hears of the new birth and asks whether a man can reenter his mother’s birth canal (v. 4). In John 4, Jesus speaks of living water, and the Samaritan woman assumes that this water will free her from the daily routine of coming to the well (vv. 14–15). In John 8, when Jesus points to the slavery of his hearers, they assume he means literal bond slavery to some human power (vv. 31–35). In John 9, when Jesus says he has come to give sight to the blind and blindness to the seeing, the Pharisees assume he is referring to congenital eye failure rather than the spiritual blindness of those who fail to believe (vv. 38–41). In John 10, yet another division occurs among the Jews when Jesus speaks of himself as a shepherd who fights wolves and guards a flock, a division that causes them to call him “raving mad” (vv. 20–21). And so it goes. The problem with the Catholic view of the Eucharist is not that it seeks to answer the grumbling question of the crowds by the seashore but that it seeks to answer it on the same mistaken terms." (p. 138–139)
→ "Baima helpfully places Communion within the larger framework of the truth that God is a communion of persons. With this I fully agree, and, as I point out in my chapter, this is a point sorely lacking in evangelical Protestantism." (p. 140)
→ "Despite Baima’s thought-provoking chapter, I still believe that this faith comes ultimately through proclamation—in words, in water, and in bread and wine." (p. 140)

Conclusion: The Two Most Important Questions (JOHN H. ARMSTRONG)
→ "We can differ about our understanding of the precise way in which grace is related to the Lord’s Supper without concluding that those within other Christian traditions that differ from our own are outside the grace of God. The important S 155 thing is to obey Christ in coming to this table. And the most important point is to commune as he taught us, not simply to debate the meaning of Communion." (p 154-155)
→ "Both baptism and the Lord’s Supper are related to one another as blessings and benefits given by Christ to his church. Baptism should be administered once, while the Lord’s Supper should be administered frequently. Both of these signs nourish and strengthen our faith; thus both remain important to those of us who love Christ as Lord. To the Protestant Reformers, as this book has shown, the word sign meant a good deal more than the modern word means, which treats a sign as simply a mere symbol." (p. 155)
→ 3 Prinzipien (p. 158-159):
(1) "First, a true celebration of the Lord’s Supper must avoid any emphasis that does not express the grace of God."
(2) "Second, a true celebration of the Lord’s Supper must express the priority of faith."
(3) "Third, a true celebration of the Lord’s Supper must give expression to the church as the body of Christ. Those who receive God’s grace are the same people who commit themselves to the body of Christ, the church. The church is not an appendage to faith. The Lord’s Supper, as previously noted, is a church meal. This is not an individualistic business where people “make their communion” but rather a corporate activity where the whole church celebrates union with Christ and each member recognizes his or her role in the body."

[Sean Brenon · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this book is a solid introduction to the discussion. I would, however, be very disappointed if I was of the Spiritual Presence/Calvinist interpretation of the Lord’s Supper, which does exactly what I always accuse Spiritual presence people of doing: it relies on Calvinist tradition far more than Scriptures, and the few Scriptures used are taken from passages with ulterior focuses.

If I were Catholic, I would be proud of Baima, who I find to be much more ecumenical than Trent. It is bizarre to me that Scaer, the Lutheran, is so much less gracious on the topic— Scaer actually uses the Catholic anathema against other Protestants.

And if I were Lutheran… I’d probably be annoyed with Scaer. The Lutheran view of communion is far from settled. One could have ‘four views of Lutheran Eucharist’ with four views nearly as different as the four presented in this book. For that reason, I find the Lutheran position the most annoying. While I can appreciate the immovable passion on the topic, a large number of Lutherans would not actually agree with him.

For my part, the issue I have with Lutheran views of the topic is that it makes the spiritual realm subservient to the physical one, which is just not the order of things in the Christian worldview. Scaer mentions the idea that Calvinists have often accused Lutherans of holding to the idea that ‘the physical is incapable of the metaphysical.’ He reverses that by saying the real question is whether or not ‘the metaphysical is capable of the physical.’

Correct, but the Lutheran sacramental union demands that access to the metaphysical comes through physical means. I asked a Lutheran friend of mine whether or not ‘consubstantiation’ might invalidate the idea of worshipping in spirit and in truth. Her response was something along the lines of, ‘Well, that only applies to worship when physical means are not expressed’ and that, therefore, the passage is not about the Eucharist. I think Scaer would agree with that.

But the follow up question is this: why would Christ emphasize worship in spirit and in truth while ignoring the single most important act of worship in Christian liturgy? Is it really true that Christ would say, ‘Worship in spirit and truth, except for the Eucharist and baptism, which are actually physical acts to effect a spiritual reality’? Is that really the claim?

By restricting spiritual access to the physical Eucharist completely misses the point of Christian worship in my opinion. I can’t fathom a theology that promotes the words of Christ that, for example, ‘The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath’ and then be so dogmatic on liturgical form.

For sure, they would say that the form is still for man’s benefit. I just get concerned that, in using Lutheran terms, interpreting Christ’s words as utterly literal moves the Eucharist from ‘Gospel’ to ‘Law.’ The implication is that, when Jesus says ‘this is my body’ and ‘this is my blood’ He actually means ‘this is physically my body and blood and any deviation of this is not real worship.’

To parrot Moore’s objections: why draw the line at wine? Why is it just ‘wine’ and not ‘the kind of wine that Jesus used’? This becomes a discussion of law and not if gospel. And the fact that neither Luther nor Scaer sees this potential issue is quite damning of the entire position, in my opinion.

There are so many negative potential consequences to Scaer’s position— for example, the difficulty this places on making new disciples in foreign places where red wine is not commonly drunk or even available (Scaer all but says that taking communion is necessary for salvation). Protestants should find the sentiment repulsive and a betrayal of the Protestant focus of faith over works as the operative principle in salvation and Christian life that Luther himself preached. Hesselink is right that Luther didn’t reform enough.

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good introduction to some different views on communion, and I liked the format of having commentary from each contributor following each point of view. My one hesitancy is that often the writers from each viewpoint were basing their writing on the person who they see as the founder of their particular denomination (Calvin, Luther, etc), rather than directly on the Bible - in many cases, the extent of the quotes about what each of these men thought or observed seemed disproportionate. I had expected each point of view to come directly from the Bible itself. This is not to say that it was not interesting - I have not read much of their writings, so this was a really great opportunity. But I was a little disappointed that the points of view were, in some cases, not primarily taken from the Bible, with supporting comments from the founders - surely this is a wobbly ground to base one's practice. (Again, I am sure that the reasons of each author are entirely and primarily based on Biblical reasons, but this was not always conveyed). I had never heard of Zwingli, but it seems his views are out of favour with most! The Anglican view was not covered, but based on what I read, it seems to be somewhere near to the Reformed view, although I could see links with the Lutheran view also (aside from actually consuming the body and blood). I hadn't realised that the Lutheran tradition is quite so similar to that of the Roman Catholic tradition in their view of actually consuming the body and blood, rather than it being by faith or symbolic (although I do note that a previous reviewer has said that the view presented in this book may not be entirely representative.)
Overall, a good introduction to the viewpoints to stimulate further study.

[Bryan Edenfield · Rating 3 out of 5]

A helpful introduction to the four major views presented. I use the words “helpful introduction” to emphasize that, in my estimation, none of the views are fully and best representative of the traditions being presented. Case in point, the Baptist writer highlights various aspects of that view but often drifts off into polemical arguments instead of presenting an exhaustive representation of the Baptist approach to the Lord’s Supper. In like manner, each of the representatives seem to anticipate and answer some of the objections of the other views in their presentations, rather than present a broader explanation and wait to address their rebuttals in response to each view as it is presented.

All of the above being stated, I did find the book helpful in better understanding the various views. The responses by each of the writers were mostly gracious and provided better insight to understanding the hermeneutical approach to each of their traditions. Yet, the glaring lack of Scripture references in all of the views except the Baptist position was disappointing. By that, I mean that the Baptist view sought to explain his position based upon Scripture, while the other views used their figurehead’s view on Scripture, and/or their doctrinal tradition, to establish their position.

While I do understand that each of the figurehead’s views and doctrinal traditions are purportedly based upon the Scriptures. I think the reader would have benefited more had these other writers taken a more balanced view by referencing and expounding upon the Scriptures themselves.

[Artis Love · Rating 5 out of 5]

Been awhile but back on my reading Grind! I truly loved this book and the breakdown of the different views of the Lords supper. Each view was respectful to the other and they each responded to the others view which gave better insights! A few quotes:
1. “Most every Christian, regardless of how they understand this Supper, agrees with this much—Christ instituted it, and the New Testament commands his followers to celebrate it.”
2. “The banquet of the Lords Supper signals that, for the church, the warfare is over, and yet it still rages on.”- Russel Moore
3. “In the act of feeding, Jesus illuminates the very meaning of faith itself and therefore of gospel proclamation.” Russel Moore
4. “It is an outward sign by which the Lord seals on our consciences the promises of his good will toward us in order to sunset in the weakness of our faith; and we in turn attest our piety i the presence of the Lord and of his angels and before men.” —John calvin
5. “The Lords Supper, as previously noted, is a church meal. It is a corporate activity where the whole church celebrates union with Christ and each member recognizes his or her role in the body.”
#i highly reccomend this book to anyone who wants to go deeper in their understanding of the Lords supper. It is clear and easy to understand!

[Parker · Rating 2 out of 5]

Unlike other volumes in the Counterpoints series, this one comes up short. Rather than presenting a full defense of their views, each contributor did little more than define what it is they believe. This is rather unhelpful to anyone like myself, who already understands what the views are, and is only looking for reasons to prefer one to another. Perhaps the amount of space the authors were given (each essay is fifteen pages or fewer) was not enough to fit both a definition and a defense, so they had to choose. At any rate, this book disappointed me.

The two appendices are interesting, containing confessional statements and quotations on the Lord's Supper from throughout history. Unfortunately, these all suffer from the same problem: they provide more in the way of definition than defense.

[Calvin Coulter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Four views well expressed by the protagonists, and each answered in responses. I value the opportunity to revisit the distinctives in each of the major views. It is good to remember and be reminded of what you believe about important issues, there are few more important to the Christian community than the Lord's Supper. I question the author's comments in the final chapter however that urges certain discussions are best left unsaid. I disagree, I think it should all be expressed in complete candour. Aside from this query over the efficacy of the need for harmonisation, I commend this book for revision, if not introduction to the main viewpoints.

[Thomas Unitt · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great read. Part of a series of books which illustrates 4 views and each of the opposing views write a short response to each. It’s short but packed to the brim with arguments for all view points. I ended up sympathising most with Moore (Baptist) and Baima (Catholic), obviously not agreeing with either whole heartedly but thinking they explained their case the best. The book ends with some great ancient context for each of the four views, I didn’t read through all of these extensively but enjoyed skimming through them as an appendix

[Blake Viall · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disappointing

Imagine a book addressing an issue that is fundamentally exegetical (the Eucharist, what it is and does) that has almost no exegesis. The whole point of these books is to let the authors spar over their reading of key texts. If we wanted a synopsis of the four main Eucharistic theologies, we could just get that from Wikipedia for free.

[Tony · Rating 4 out of 5]

A sound book

This book will provide a resource regarding the different approaches / understanding about communion.

While not as thorough as I would desire, still, a fair treatment of the topic.

[Seth Channell · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good overview of various perspectives on the Lord's Supper

[Aria · Rating 4 out of 5]

Okay, so I only read two chapters, but that's all I needed to for my study...

[Vanjr · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book focuses on four views of the Lord's supper; an addition of a true orthodox and/or Coptic view would have been a nice (not to mention Pentecostal, Methodist, etc.) to see other views, but this book is limited by size (similar to others in the series and is a North American product. While interesting and challenging to my faith, I found the discussions of views based essentially entirely on reasoning (often historic) rather than scripture which was disappointing. It seems the essential question was Jesus being metaphorical or literal when He said, "This is my body...". Of course the surprising thing is the strongest inerrancy camp believes metaphor while the camp least committed to Sola scripture views it as literal.
There are two appendices which added creedal portions associated with the topic and quoted a number of historic writers/theologians and both of these are quite helpful. I certainly learned some of the differences. There was little interspersed discussion of essential doctrine vs secondary doctrine.

[Daniel Sell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I align with the Reformed position, that Christ is spiritually present in the Lord's Supper. Overall, a good book describing various positions held by Christians today.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book describing four views on the Lord's Supper.

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book served as a decent introduction to the debate on what Communion is and some of the practical implications of each view. Though I find myself aligned closest to the Reformed view, the Baptist and Catholic chapters were my favorites (the other two seemed to ramble). Beyond the debate on presence, both of these chapters really dove into the background and meaning of Communion in ways that I think are meaningful no matter what view you hold (such as the connections with Passover and other covenant signs, and the emphasis on the communal nature of the Lord's Table).

Whether this book is the best introduction to this topic is debatable (right now I have nothing else to compare it to), but it's definitely a topic with exploring for anyone who calls himself Christian.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this in a whirlwind weekend and I don't know that I fully digested it due to the speed of my reading it. If you are looking for opposing views on the Lords supper it is not a bad place to start. The Baptist, Reformed, Lutheran and Catholic views are presented though I found I still ended up digging further. The reformed position was presented by someone I was not familiar with and since it was the position I was looking for total clarification I ended up reviewing another recommended book on the Lord's supper Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper as my final piece to familiarize myself with the reformed practice. The Lutheran explanation was very helpful as it corrected a misunderstanding I had on the Lutheran view of consubstantiation. The Catholic response was also very informative to correct previous misunderstandings from other works I had read. In the end the Baptist and Reformed views were much more familiar to me and I actually benefited from this book in assisting me move from the Baptist (Church of Christ / Non-Denominationalist) view into the Reformed view. On the whole the point-counterpoint method used in this series makes it easy to see the opposing sides from multiple angles.

[Marc Baldwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love these counterpoint series books because they not only present the different theological points of view on the subject at hand, they also interact with each other. Every contributing author has the opportunity to respond to the other view points. I guess it's kind of like a debate in book form.

Another appealing thing about these books is that they are civil discussions with the ultimate goal of finding common ground among Christians from different denominational backgrounds. The goal is unity, not division.

This particular book on communion, or the Lord's Supper, helped me to understand and appreciate different aspects of all four of the views: Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, and Reformed.

If you're a Christian who likes to muddle around in theology at the amateur level, these counterpoint books are really enjoyable.

[G Walker · Rating 1 out of 5]

Too narrow in its scope and too brief for any serious treatment. For disagreeing with a baptist I still like Moore and though I don't think the reformers were right, I think Hesselink has some good things to say. Who takes Lutherans seriously anymore?! Again though BOO for making this topic an issue of sport and treating such weighty matters so cavalierly for the sake of a few bucks... read Schmemann of VanderZee and call it a day.

[Matt Crawford · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice short little book that puts the catholic (Roman and orthodox) views and distinguishes between the three major Protestant. It does it in a catholic/ Protestant (catholic/Lutheran) and a Protestant/ Protestant (baptist/reformed). It answers many questions but is also a surface study. It makes sure to reserve the space and not dig too deep. It is great for a foundational study.

[Радостин Марчев · Rating 4 out of 5]

Кратко, но точно представяне на различите виждания. Разликите са артикулирани ясно, но без всякаква враждебност. За човек, който желае да придобие начална представа за една иначе изключително сложна материя това е добро въведение.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Four stars for Russell Moore's chapter. The others are informative, but not very persuasive or exciting. That said, I appreciate all the contributors for reading each other carefully and charitably, unlike some other "four views" books (Wealth & Poverty comes to mind).

[Collin Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good introduction different views on the Lord's Supper. Very short and easy read. None of the writers went into the details enough to make a truly standout case for their view, but morseo stated what their view is in general.

[Timothy Colegrove · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciated the Zwinglian and Reformed contributions but found myself desiring a more compelling argument from the Catholic author.

[K B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good work - worth your time to read