BOOK REVIEW: Four Views on the Lord's Supper

Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper
Counterpoints: Church Life
John. H. Armstrong (Editor)
Zondervan Publishers, 2007

In the latest edition to the Counterpoint series, Zondervan Publishers now offers the Christian world an irenic discussion of the four major approaches to the Lord’s Supper. Wisely, the editor (John H. Armstrong) chose to include the Roman Catholic position, despite Zondervan’s almost exclusively Protestant readership, allowing for a broader discussion.

Russell Moore’s Memorialist position was perhaps one of the best baptistic statements on the Lord’s Supper ever put into print. Particularly useful was his willingness to recognize the Supper as a means of grace, though of course defining this within a memorialist framework. Of all the participants, Moore works most directly with the biblical data, and thus provides a strong scriptural framework for his position.

I. John Hesselink offers the Reformed position, though he notes other positions (including the Lutheran and Memorialist) could also rightly be considered reformed. Nonetheless, Hesselink provides an excellent summation of that position, with frequent quotes directly from John Calvin.

David Scaer provides the Lutheran perspective. While the article is well written, it lacks serious interaction with the Biblical data, with almost no attempt to justify what many consider to be an overly literalistic interpretation of Christ's statement ("this IS my body"). Considering the recent attention over the past decades by Biblical scholars on the Bible's literary styles & techniques, it is now more important than ever for Lutheran (and Catholic) scholars to provide some sort of biblical rationale for their interpretation. While Scaer does an excellent job communicating the Lutheran position, he fails to show us *why* one should hold this position.

The Catholic view is fascinating, and very helpful for Protestant readers who most likely do not fully understand their historic position. Baima’s article contains a wealth of quotations and historical data from Catholic councils and writings, though he interacts with Scripture least of all the contributors. Yet, in both his article and his responses to the three Protestant contributors, Baima writes with clarity and humility.

The articles in the introduction and conclusion are also very helpful, and the editor included two appendixes that are of great value. The first is a list of recommended works on the subject (which, sadly, are not categorized), and the second is quotes from various confessions and creeds regarding the Lord's Supper (though, oddly, a few key Baptist documents are missing from the list).

While there is much that divides Christendoms on this issue (and appropriately so, since this is no minor matter), there is also much that unites us (as the conclusion rightly notes). All look to Christ as the sole means of salvation, and all understand the Supper is an essential duty for the believer. True, each position disagrees with the others regarding the nature of Christ's presence in the Supper. Yet, as one writer in the book notes, “I look forward to the day when…every tribe, tongue, and “communion”…can fellowship around a supper in the new earth. Then, though perhaps not until then, we will be united around the table. On that day, I expect, the “real presence” of Jesus won’ t be a matter of dispute at all” (Moore, “A Baptist Response to the Reformed View”, p 74).