Ok, yeah, I’m Reformed! So, that’s why I said “Lord’s Supper”
Anyways, I’m challenged by something. In my Bible Study class after Worship at church, we are going through the Larger Catechism of the WMCOF. The Lord’s Supper has really thrown me. Like, Scripturally speaking, it seems like it’s either the modern Baptist view (symbolic, no presence of Christ, not even spiritually) or the Catholic view, or maybe consubstantiation that’s most Biblical
I have to say that the London Baptist 1689 Confession does say
"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death…"
Ch. 30 Art. 7
I don’t think many Baptist believe that. They seem to be more like Cambellites (Church of Christ) that say it’s strictly “rememberance.”
Ok, and that’s the same as the WMCOF. Then the WMCOF Larger Catechism says Q. 168:
"… His death is shewed forth; and they that worthily communicate feed upon His body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace…"
And I Corinthians 10:16-21 and 11:23-27 keep being quoted.
One problem, I don’t see anywhere in those texts, nor in the accounts in the Gospels when Christ is instituting the Lord’s Supper that:
He is present to the faith of the recepient
Recepients receive spiritual nourishment from proper reception. There is only judgement for unworthy participation.
OK, yall are CAtholic, but can you perhaps help me understand this? Is there any Scripture to show that we receive grace from proper reception of this Sacrament?