The distinction between divine essence and energies continues to afford us with helpful categories in our theology [if you're not familiar with these distinctions, see below]. Perhaps this is no more evident than in how one formulates their doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The official Roman Catholic view maintains that what is eaten during communion is no longer bread and wine, but the actual (essence) body and blood of Christ. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have the memorialists who say that all that is eaten during communion is merely bread and wine (creaturely realities) and the only edifying aspect of the ceremony is the believer's own pious thoughts and reflections. So who is right? Do the bread and wine really become part of God's own essence or do they merely stay part of God's creation? Once again, we are left looking for a third option.
Eastern Christianity's classic distinction of divine energies once again lends itself to the classic Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper, which teaches that although the elements remain bread and wine, through the working (energies) of the Holy Spirit, by faith we are nevertheless so united to Christ and his work (energies) that we can maintain that as surely as we eat the bread and drink the cup, so surely are our sins forgiven and all the sufferings and obedience that Christ worked (energies) are ours as if we had done them all ourselves (cf. Heidelberg Catechism LD 28). We need not eat Christ's very DNA nor partake of his divine essence in order to receive the benefits of his workings for us.
1 comment:
A couple problems I'd suggest thinking about.
First, while the e/e distinctionmay be helpful in thinking through eucharistic theology it doesn't seem available to the Reformed.
The Reformed view of divine simplicity precludes the distinction. See Turretin for example who argues against the Lutherans that all of the divine attributes are identical in God.
Second, we'd need a reason to think that this was part of te Reformers teaching. If the East is right about it, and the Reformers missed it, that seems problematic for the Reformation claims regarding the material issue of the Reformation (justification/gospel).
Post a Comment