https://www.crossway.org/articles/is-the-lords-supper-jesuss-actual-body-and-blood-1-corinthians/
On one level this article had moments in which it was a blessing to read. And yet another part of me wanted to crumple up the paper and throw it across the room.
We can agree that the Lord's Supper is not a repeated sacrifice as understood in the Roman Catholic Mass and while some of the Lutheran hair-splitting and insistence on ubiquity is not always helpful, Naselli's rendering of the Supper as merely symbolic does not account for the Scriptural data.
Naselli grants that it plays a role in sanctification but is emphatic in his denial that a plays a role in justification. This is actually reminiscent of the aforementioned hair-splitting that some theological traditions are given to.
First of all, the New Testament doesn't make justification the central, over-arching, or defining aspect of salvation. It is a critical aspect to be sure and certainly a wondrous testimony to God's grace, and yet neither Paul nor the other apostles speak in these kind of tight, packaged, or sealed-off categories that we so often find with the theologians. They speak occasionally. As such, sanctification is often presented as salvation (1 Cor 1.30, Eph 5.26, 1 Thes 5.23, 2 Thes 2.13, Heb 13.12, 1 Pet 1.2). And when this is understood, the the 'cup of blessing' takes on a more conspicuous and suggestive meaning.
But even more pertinent to the question of the Lord's Supper or Communion is the notion of Union in Christ. This is often represented by the prepositional phrase 'in Christ' or 'in Him' appears more often and if we can speak of an over-arching soteriological concept, it is this. Justification, sanctification, mortification, and adoption are also aspects to this - as is election.
It's a pleasant surprise to read of a Baptist acknowledging (if ambiguously) that the Supper can sanctify, but in the end this is a distinction without a difference. If it sanctifies then it plays a role in saving us. Such language may prove problematic to the Lutheran formulation of Sola Fide, but the Scriptures support it and while faith alone is valid (if properly understood), one doesn't have to be a Roman apologist to point out that the only time the phrase is mentioned (with actual textual support) it is in order to specifically reject it. The Scriptural picture more expansive and it includes the sacraments.
As just stated, the Supper is also described as 'communion' - in other words it's a means of union and through this mystery we feed on Christ, and through the Spirit we are in union with Him. That's no mere symbolic presence. And we might add that for those who profane the Supper, Christ is also objectively present - the Lutherans are right on this point. He is in that instance (as per 1 Corinthians 11) their Judge and He may (if He chooses) render pre-Parousia judgment resulting in death.
Participation in the Passover was to be part of the Old Covenant and likewise the idea of the Church meeting without the Supper, the Covenant meal is all but inconceivable. Paul himself draws the parallel in 1 Corinthians 5 indicating the concepts are wed and that the Passover finds its fulfillment (in sincerity and truth) in the Lord's Supper. The New Covenant body meets and partakes of the New Covenant meal. It doesn't just represent the New Covenant - it is the New Covenant in tangible or sacramental form. It is the Bread of Heaven or spiritual food which are appropriate Biblical terms as our worship is in conjunction with the Church and the angelic hosts in heaven. We can say that the Supper is supernatural, the rite is cosmic, uniting our experience (in time and space) with the eschatological Kingdom. To feed on Christ is to be part of the New Covenant.
We're speaking in normative terms - there are always exceptions, but the exceptions should not be the rule. As Baptism is the circumcision of Christ, it is proper to speak (with Paul) of these holy rites or sacraments as being both signs and seals. Naselli admits the sign aspect but a lot of theologies fragment when forced to admit that the sacraments themselves are efficacious seals of righteousness. The seals in their case are reduced to mostly empty symbolism.
At this point many speak of the outward sign and the inward grace and how many can have the outward sign without the inward work of the Spirit. That may be true, but apart from Paul's suggestion of such in Romans 9 (which elucidates and sets the stage for his subsequent redemptive-historical argument), the better way to speak of counterfeits or defections is in terms of apostasy, falling away, falling from grace, or drawing back to perdition - all Scriptural terms. Instead what usually happens is a deductive and yet wholly subjective exercise in which the person's faith and the status of their soul are seemingly dissected through the lens of election or regeneration - both of which are not available to us. That wasn't Paul's intent in Romans 9 or more properly the larger Romans 9-11 argument. The point he makes in 9.6 is not meant to negate or render meaningless all means, but to set the stage for his remnant argument regarding Jews under the New Covenant. The same is true with his passing appeal to Isaac - and he does of course make an appeal to the mystery of the decrees of God being worked out in redemptive-history.
It is valid to speak of the Remnant concept in terms of the Church and there are good arguments suggesting the Church Age (or Last Days) will be marked by apostasy, and false (or counterfeit) teaching. But even this abuse of the Church (and sacraments) does not negate the Biblical teaching. It confuses it and sows chaos but we should expect that when it comes to the Adversary.
It is possible for someone in the New Covenant framework to be in the Church, a Christian tasting life in the Holy Spirit and yet to fail in his faith. This is not presented as someone who was never truly regenerate or saved, but because of persecution or temptation, or that he is choked by the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches. One can share in the Spirit and yet fall away - or so it states in Hebrews much to the chagrin of the Sola Fide theologians. Likewise whole congregations can fall into apostasy. Paul stood in doubt of the church at Galatia and Christ threatened to remove the candlestick of Ephesus - the Spirit presence that granted them status of being a church.
The doctrine of 'Once Saved Always Saved' in addition to downgrading New Testament soteriology, wreaks havoc on the doctrine of means - which includes the sacraments. Under such a theological framework, the sacraments (along with the dozens upon dozens of warnings and qualifying statements) can have no actual meaning. They (like the sacraments) are reduced to empty symbolic statements.
Along similar lines to the aforementioned Romans 9 argument, some will at this point appeal to Galatians and the Isaac/Ishmael juxtaposition in order to argue that the signs and seals cannot have any actual outward import or meaning, but again Paul's argument is redemptive-historical, not in terms of a systematic theology in the way it is often resorted to. His purpose is not to discount circumcision or covenant signs, or covenant membership, but rather to speak on another level about God's plan and how the typology is represented in redemptive-history - a point he further elaborates with an allegory, demonstrating that after the revelation of Christ, the Old Covenant is set aside and those who cling to it are apostates like Ishmael. Ishmael had been in the covenant and in his case his apostasy was connected to God's larger plan as it was with Jacob and Esau. In these cases we're told specifically of what God was doing. We don't know that with regard to any particular person today and that's not how these doctrinal truths are meant to function. They primarily point to Christ and don't always provide narrow theological guidance or specific application for us.
Even Paul's arguments about circumcision in both Galatians and Romans are not to relegate it to unimportance (ask Moses regarding Gershom) but to argue that it was not absolute, an end in and of itself, but something temporary and holy because it was ordained by God. Jeremiah 7 reveals the Jews had a similar problem with the Temple. Similarly we can safely say that we won't have baptism and the Lord's Supper in heaven but at present they are necessary and efficacious means ordained by and utilized by the Spirit.
Those who have received the sign and seal are in the Church - they are Christians, they are saved. To speak of people being in the Church or Covenant but not saved is absurd. We can speak of apostate churches or what makes a valid church but that's a discussion for another time. In this case when we speak of a 'church' we are assuming it is one that is valid and meets basic New Testament criteria. If these said Christians fail to persevere, then they have fallen away or apostatized. To insert the glorious truths of election into this equation (and how the sacraments are understood) is to misuse the doctrine. I understand this is of the essence of what the systematicians do - but the methodology is mistaken. The doctrines exist in a dynamic, in a tension. To reconcile them according to the categories of finite and temporal logic is but one instance of doctrine being spoiled by philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of this world, and not after Christ.
The same is true of Rome and its larger concept of the mass, and certainly its doctrine of transubstantiation.
Would exclusion from the meal (or excommunication) be merely symbolic? For Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, this is to expel the person in question out into the world - the realm of Satan. To be out of communion (or union) is to be handed over to the god of this world or the ruler of this present evil age. You're out of the Church - you are not a Christian. Does it not follow that being a partaker of communion is to be not in the world - but in the Kingdom? The meal has cosmic implications. We're not privy to what might be happening 'behind the scenes' as it were nor do we have any basis for postulating about such decretal specifics. In fact there's every indication that the Divine decree is effected through means - such as the Church (which includes the sacraments).This is why the Word being faithfully taught is so important. In addition to feeding the sheep, it will prick the conscience and the unregenerate will chafe against it, and the state of theirs hearts will become manifest. Likewise discipline is critical. Sin must be challenged and confronted - by the Word. Refusal to submit will (eventually) result in being put out of communion - exiled to the world, once saved but now un-saved.
Obviously, questions of the faith and heart do come into play. The holy rites, mysteries, or sacraments do not work in magical form. You cannot force someone to be baptised or to commune against their will. That would destroy the notions of faith and union.
But we must not let these questions downgrade or cancel out what the Scriptures say - even if it defies our epistemic or larger philosophical commitments. At best these tools in our possession are temporal, limited and affected by the Edenic Fall. These truths can exist in a dynamic and that's the mystery-wonder associated with both the sacraments and the larger set of questions regarding salvation, covenant, and Kingdom. In every case the Scriptures present a dynamic in which the heart exists in tension with means, the individual with the corporate body, time and eternity, the definitive and progressive, the already and the not-yet. We are saved, we are being saved, and we have yet to be saved. This is true of every aspect of soteriology and critical to understanding how the Kingdom works and is applied. Once again it must be emphasized - this would include the sacraments. We must persevere unto the end and the sacraments aid us in this struggle of working out our salvation and making our calling and election sure.
Some of these New Calvinists are a little more robust on these questions and that's to be commended, but they're not fully representing the Reformed tradition they profess to uphold. But even though this 'new' focus is better in some cases, it's still deficient. And I say this fully acknowledging that what I'm saying ventures beyond the spheres of Reformed orthodoxy. I am not limited by these boundaries but use them (in this instance) as a frame of reference. That said, I'm not nearly as far removed as some might think. Today's theological grid has become very tight and narrow - and certainly more two-dimensional. It was not always so and the older theologians were able to speak with greater breadth and depth and would (if present today) be accused of all manner of sacramentalism, works righteousness, and pietistic unhealthy introspection.
Though some try to discount the passage and separate it from the question of the Supper, John 6 must also be taken in account. We eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ and this too is necessary for salvation. This does not cancel out faith or the other means God has established.
Is it possible for someone to have never communed to yet be saved? Of course, the thief on the cross is the obvious answer and the same is true with baptism. Again, the exception must not be made the rule. It can safely be said that if the thief had been saved from the cross and lived, then he would have been baptized and communed and if he had neglected these things, then his salvation would have been in doubt. The means are established and utilized by the Spirit but He is not bound by them. At this point the theologians step in and deduce that if the exception exists then the issue in question (the sacraments) cannot be said to save. They must mean something else. This is to try and out-think the Spirit and place limitations on Him.
That's fallen logic - rationalism that sets itself above revelation and a sure road to error.
We must not say the cup is the New Covenant and then it's not (which it's not if it's just a symbol). The Scriptures insist that it is and through the cup of wine and the bread we participate in Christ, remember His work, and proclaim His coming. There's a reason why in the high church tradition it is often administered as 'the cup of salvation'. And yet if taken by those who (to put it in Old Testament terms) 'swear falsely by His name', then they drink judgment to themselves.
The Reformed Confessional tradition (or more specifically Westminster) speaks of how the Spirit may work when He wills and thus sacramental efficacy need not be tied to the moment of application. That's true enough but there's no reason to think that or act on it in practice. The Confession allows for the dynamic to work but grants the substance in the form. This is why Paul can be exhorted to rise, be baptized, and wash away his sins, and when the water was poured over him - his sins were washed away as far as we are concerned. Beyond that is mystery.
The same is true of the Supper. When we eat the bread and drink the wine, we have eternal life.
By adding in a dozen qualifying statements we cancel out the meaning and risk making Christ a liar. The words are spirit and they are life. Don't dissect them until there's nothing left.
Is Jesus' body and blood actually and objectively present in the Supper? Yes.
Is it a symbol? Yes.
Is it efficacious? Yes.
Is it the New Covenant in tangible form? Yes.
I think to ask whether He comes down or we go up (as it were) is pointless. Our worship is in heaven and through the Spirit we are with the saints before the Throne. But at the same time we are on Earth in This Age in space and time and the Spirit is present and we may say that Christ is objectively present as well - through Him. Both aspects are true and there's really no warrant to parse that question or tease out some kind of metaphysical explanation. Such efforts represent examples of how not to do theology. Paul was a steward of the mysteries - the divine things that are revealed. This is certainly one of them.
Should we then qualify each of these above statements with a 'but' or even an 'except'?
No, but we can say that the Scriptures also have other things to say - which generate dynamics, not contradictions to be resolved. We are saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves - and yet we're also told that the Supper and Baptism save us. We're also warned that we must continue in the faith and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel. It's not a case of 'anything goes' the way some modernist or universalist theologians might approach these matters. Rather these truths are revealed in dynamics which in themselves defy the philosophically driven efforts of scholastic and systematic theologians.
And frankly after looking at the church of which Naselli is a part, I am amazed that this effort is made when it's clear that his notions of Biblical Theology are clearly off the rails as is evidenced by the 'worship' service with its guitars and drums. Clearly such thinking declares the Scriptures have little if anything to say in the realm of ecclesiology. Evidently they are 'insufficient' in almost every way and so, why fret about these things? If in the end we can let our worship be guided by emotions, cultural norms, pop culture and marketing sensibilities, then couldn't we do the same with the Supper? Isn't this why so many churches are using cookies and Kool-aid or some kind of fast-food plastic/foil container akin to the container you get for sauce to dip your chicken in? Others hardly bother to celebrate the Supper at all. I read that they're very concerned to structure everything Biblically but I'm left baffled. In fact to be frank had I seen the sermon videos that reveal the pop concert stage ecclesiology I probably wouldn't have wasted my time interacting with the article. I don't believe such people (let alone theologians who justify such) are to be taken seriously.
We can say the Supper is symbolic and speak the truth. But we had better be prepared to say a lot more - if we're going to follow through on what the Scriptures reveal.
In another place Naselli embraces the 'Two Wills' of God, the dynamic between the revealed and decretal 'will' of God. Amen. This dynamic exists and is revealed in virtually all doctrinal study. The fact that our modern culture finds these truths to be less than profound is a problem not remedied by accommodation but by preaching the whole counsel of God. The Spirit builds the Church and if we like Isaiah must preach until the land is made waste - then so be it. The message must not be compromised and we downgrade Biblical authority when we innovate and capitulate and when we confine and restrict revealed doctrine to categories which fit our philosophical commitments or tradition. The result is a worship that is in vain.