Eucharist, Salvation and the Incarnation?

Question

How does the Eucharist relate to Salvation and Incarnation in Christianity?

Answer 1

Sacramental Christianity believes that God became man (incarnation) and is present in the Eucharist; the essesnce of both is the same: the spiritual becomes material. It is also defined this way: "an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace." It relates to salvation ("Salvo," a term of healing and wholeness) because the spiritual nourishment contributes toward living a whole, healthy, full life in Christ.

Answer 2

The Eucharist is the celebration instituted by Christ in the Gospels, in which he said "Take this and eat, this is my body". Some like to add "represents", but that's not in the original text.

Also, though I don't remember it verbatim, but I believe he said "Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of man, you shall not have life within you".

These two things seem to indicate that the Eucharist is rather important.

Christ, according to the Bible will return in full bodily form, complete with hands and feet' this is a different form than in the Eucharist, and for a different purpose. The Eucharist merely enables the faithful to fulfill his command at the last supper.

--Dee

Answer 3

The Eucharist or Communion or The Lord's Table is the partaking of bread and wine symbolizing the Body and Blood of Jesus as commanded at the Last Supper. Salvation refers to anything, ANYTHING that that person needs saving from. Incarnation refers to God becoming Man to complete the desired ministry. All three depend on the Person of Jesus.
I Cr 13;8a

Answer 4

Incarnation = God becomes man

Salvation = Because of Christ's Humanity, mankind can partake of His Divinity

Eucharist = Bread and wine become His Body and Blood, so that we can partake Sacramentally of that Divine Nature.

St. Augustine said: "The Word (Jesus) comes to the element, (flesh/manhood - Bread and Wine) and so we have the Sacraments"

There is the relationship, in a formula form.

Answer 5

The Eucharist "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56). Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis. But he knew some did not believe. "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66). This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically. But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.

Answer 6

It is my belief that we partake of communion in this way as the outward expression of an inward grace. It is "in memory" of Christ's atoning death and His new covenant with the people of God.

I don't believe in transubstantiation. Jesus paid for my sin with his blood, and by virtue of that I am not judged by my righteousness, but by his. Why is "this is my body," etc., not taken metaphorically, but "I am the door," or "I am the true vine," is? Why, if the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus, does it still look and feel and taste like bread and wine, and if you drink enough of it you get tipsy? If someone wants to insist that the transubstantiation occurs, can't they do that without demanding that I also believe it? These are the traditions of men taught as the commandments of God. We are saved by grace through faith, which is the gift of God, not of works. I love communion. It's a solemn, humbling, joyous event and I believe that Christ is there, as he promised, when two or more are gathered in his name. I just don't believe we are eating literal flesh and drinking literal blood. We do it, as he instructed, "in memory," of him.