-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
When/ how did Zwingliist symbolism/ memorialism enter mainstream evangelicalism?
- Thread starter Matt Black
- Start date
What about it? The disciples understood that Christ was speaking symbolically. In fact, Christ called the cup the "fruit of the vine." That is clear and explicit evidence of the symbolic nature of hte elements, from the mouth of Christ himself.
As for Docetism, it is completely unrelated. There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between this discussion and Docetism.
I agree with Christ. Chemnitz talks of Christ meaning what I said. I agree that Christ meant what he said. And when he held a piece of bread up and said "This is my body," it was clearly intended as a metaphor. The "Fruit of the vine" comment is yet more explicit proof. Christ's plain meaning was symbolic. There is no reason to see anything else there, even though the RCC has chosen to distort the meaning of Scripture on this point.
OK.
Because the pattern of Scripture is to use them. We should certainly "sit around either together or alone and just meditate on Christ's death and its meaning, with no bread or wine/ grape juice" but that does not preclude the observance of communion in the church. The elements are a picture, just as Baptism is.
Hmmm...Pastor Larry has one interpretation of the 'clear meaning' of Jesus' words; Kiffen and Chemnitz have a different take on interpreting the relevant Scriptures. I choose to side with the latter because that interpretation is consistent with Christians' interpretation of the meaning of these Scriptures throughout Church history (especially those closest to the source and so with less-muddied waters than we have today - the Early Church Fathers) with the recent exception of a small minority within the ranks, and it is consistent with with the non-Docetic nature of the Incarnation - Docetism is highly relevant to this discussion because Pastor Larry's statement that the NT does not contain a single instance of a spiritual grace being communicated by a physical act completely disregards the fact that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and was physically put to death as the method by which we are spiritually saved; Pastor Larry's statement is therefore Docetic.
Kiffen has put it very well for me. It reminds me of the Scots Congregationalist theologian P.T. Forsyth (1848-1921), who would certainly be reckoned an evangelical. Yet he describes memorialism as
[Lousy code
]
Kiffen has put it very well for me. It reminds me of the Scots Congregationalist theologian P.T. Forsyth (1848-1921), who would certainly be reckoned an evangelical. Yet he describes memorialism as
Elsewhere he describes the Mass as
An interesting 'take' on the matter from someone of his theological convictions, if only from an aesthetic point of view, but one that shows that there were evangelicals who found 'mere' memorialism in some way inadequate.
[Lousy code
]The issue here is "What do the Scriptures say?" Clearly, when Jesus held up bread and said "This is my body," it wasn't a literalistic statement. Clearly when Jesus held up the cup and said "This is my blood," it wasn't a literalistic statement. When Paul quoted Christ as saying "Do this in remembrance of me," it is clear that he attached a memorial significance to it. How much more "clear" does it get?
Docetism means that Christ wasn't really human, it just "seemed" that way. I cannot see any personal relevance at all. The incarnation was not spiritual grace communicated through a physical act. The physical death of the perfect God man was the price for sin. That has nothing to do with this conversation really. It seems to me thaty ou are conflating issues here.
The issue is this: Do the elements convey spiritual grace in and of themselves? The answer is a resounding no. An unsaved person may take of hte elements and be just as unsaved as before. A godly person may be just as godly without taking the elements. There is no grace received in the elements themselves. They are, as Christ said elsewhere, food and drink that go into the stomach and are eliminated. If that be distasteful to some, then the burden is on them to show more than a superstitious approach that connects the reception of the physical elements with some spiritual grace.
How many people have left communion to continue in a life of sin and debauchery? How many of the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11 were partaking unworthily. That, in and of itself, shows there is no spiritual grace in the act of receiving, but only in the significance attached to it biblically.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Disputable, and irrelevant. The Bible, not tradition or the RCC, is the authority in matters of faith and doctrine. The original communion observance is explicit testimony that there is no real presence. </font>[/QUOTE]Neither disputable nor irrelevant, since acknowledging the Bible as the authority of faith and practice doesn't solve the problem of interpretation. The fact is that until the 1500s only the gnostics denied the "real presence" interpretation of communion. If you prefer to keep company with gnostics than with orthodox Christians, be my guest--just own up to it.
IT is disputable whether "only the gnostics denied" something. HOw in the world can you possibly know what everyone denied and affirmed? Short of omniscience, you are very limited. Secondly, it would be out of order to include everyone but the gnostics in "orthodox Christianity" which is the import of your post by virtue of implied comparison.
The issue of "interpretation" is not that significant here. The text is clear. There is not much room for divergent interpretation in a matter where it is clearly declared to be a "remembrance."
The issue of "interpretation" is not that significant here. The text is clear. There is not much room for divergent interpretation in a matter where it is clearly declared to be a "remembrance."
You claim that Christ is speaking symbolically and that the disciples understood it as such, yet you offer no proof.
The text offers no clues, contextual or grammatically, to suggest that Christ spoke figuratively. There is only a simple statement "this is." To refer to it as only a memorial is to get only part of the message.
In addition, in 1st Corinthians there is further evidence that it was not taken symbolically. Paul does not set out an explanation concerning a symbolic meaning of Christ's words. In fact, he does the complete opposite by warning against profaning the body and the blood. If Christ's body and blood were not present as He said then we wouldn't have to worry about profaning them.
Yes, I did. As I poitned out, Christ held up a piece of bread and a cup of juice. He called it "bread" and "cup." Later, he called the cup "fruit of the vine." Those are terms that describe the material nature of what he was holding and show his words to be symbolic.
As I pointed out, that is simply false. If someone holds up a piece of bread and says "This is my body," the normal understanding will be symbolic.
Why would he? No one would have disputed that. Why would he answer a question that no one was asking? (Sometimes people overlook the obvious.)
I can't recall anyplace he warns against profaning the body and blood in terms of the elements. But one profanes the death of Christ when he does "judge the body rightly." There was division in the body (vv. 18-22). People were partaking of the testament of unity of the body in Christ while participating in and exacerbating the divisions in teh body. In so doing, they were "judging the body wrongly," not pursuing the unity which the body of Christ bought.
You have assumed that is what he meant. That is not evidence. When Christ spoke figuratively he usually prefaced it with "this is like" or something to that effect. If God tells me in plain language this is something I am going to take him at his word.
Only if you skip the fact he just spent time with the Words of Institution. "1 Corinthians 11:23-27 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. " With their proximity there can be no other body to which Paul is referring.
Au contraire, the issue is one of interpretation of Scripture. Your statement is based on conjecture and assumption. It is clearly 'not clear' as we would not be disagreeing about it if it was. No, the issue is one of interpretation, and the consistent interpretation is not the memorialist one.
Au contraire encore une fois, the burden of proof is on those memorialist innovators to show that their view that has only recently (last 500 years max) been en vogue is consistent with the view of the earliest Christians and not a modernist variation of gnostic dualism.
[Fixed code again - can never get multiple quotes right first time
]Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Au contraire encore une fois, the burden of proof is on those memorialist innovators to show that their view that has only recently (last 500 years max) been en vogue is consistent with the view of the earliest Christians and not a modernist variation of gnostic dualism.
</font>[/QUOTE]Good word, Matt.
There is no assumption involved. Christ held up a piece of bread. What do you think that was? Why does the text call it bread? And why does the text call the cup the "fruit of the vine"? You say "If God tells me in plain language this is something I am going to take him at his word" but then you refuse to do just that.
Only if you skip the fact he just spent time with the Words of Institution. "1 Corinthians 11:23-27 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. " With their proximity there can be no other body to which Paul is referring.</font>[/QUOTE]Notice how Paul calls it "bread" and "cup." Why do you deny his words? It is so patently obvious that he is referring to "body" symbolically. It is hard to imagine that are saying that with a straight face. Words mean things, and if Paul had meant what you think, he could have very easily said that. But he didn't.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Notice, Larry, that Paul doesn't say that the bread and wine are "symbols" of the blood and body of Christ; he says they (the elements) are the "communion of" (ie "participation in") the Body and Blood of Christ respectively (1 Cor 10:16). Words mean things, Larry. If Paul meant they were mere symbols he could have very easily said that. But he didn't.
There is no assumption involved in my position, except the assumption that Christ meant what he said, the assumption that language should be treated normally. Christ held up a piece of "bread." Do you believe that? If so, then why deny it? He held up a cup of wine. Do you believe that? If so, then why deny it?
The consistent interpretation is the memorialist one. There is no other legitimate interpretation. To suggest some magical mystical presence in the elements cannot be substantiated by Scripture in any way, shape, or form. There are many clear things about which there is dispute. People dispute the existence of God, not for good reason, not becuase it isn't clear, but because of hard hearts, and an unwillingness to believe what God has made evident. People dispute that Christ is God, not for good reason, but because of hardness of heart. Clarity does not always bring a lack of dispute.
You seem to believe this issue is settled by church history and tradition. I belivee it is settled by Scripture. And that is why we differ. What the church believed for X number of years is historical theology. It is helpful, but not authoritative. The question is, What does Scripture teach? On that, there can be no doubt. Scripture teaches that communion is a memorial, a symbol of our participation by faith alone in Christ's death.
You have mentioned several times the issue of 500 years. Assuming this truth was not respected until 500 years ago, there is a good reason. At that time, the Bible and its truth was restored to the laity after a millennia or RC dogma and tradition took it away from them. Let's not forget the imposing force of the RCC during those years, when they were widely unchallenged because of their force.
No, the burden of proof remains on those who want to deny the plain reading of Scripture, and that means the burden is on those who say that "bread" and "cup" really didn't mean "bread" and "cup."
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
No the burden of proof is on those johnny-come-latelies who say that the bread and cup really aren't the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ despite the plain words of Paul; or that we aren't actually to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ though Christ clearly said that we were to do so; or that the bread and wine really aren't His Body and Blood though Christ plainly said that they were.
The issue again is one of interpretation of Scripture. People much nearer in time to the writing of the NT than you or I - people who knew the individuals who actually wrote the NT - and who are therefore far, far better-placed to say what the correct interpretation of the 'plain text' is, disagree with you. Whose interpretation should I trust - yours or theirs?
eg: Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Comment on the above: To start with the earliest of Patristic writings, 1 Clement, and the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch were written around 80, 95, and 110 AD respectively. This places them all within earshot of Apostolic times. The Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation are often thought to have been written in the last decade of the first century. If this is correct, it would place the 1 Clement arguably before the last books of Scripture were written. (Which is probably why some in the early Church thought they were inspired Scripture.) The Epistles of Ignatius were written within ten to fifteen years of the Evangelist's death. (Ignatius himself was a disciple of the Apostle John.) Irenaeus of Lyons was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John. (Polycarp was a younger contemporary of Ignatius.) Justin Martyr was born around the time of the Apostle John’s death and martyred around the same time as Irenaeus’ mentor Polycarp. (Both were martyred in the mid second century within ten years of one another.)
Re the 500 years, if it were the case that once the Bible was restored to the laity (presumably you mean only those among them who could read, which was a minority) that memorialism would automatically come to the fore, how come that out of all the Reformers, only Zwingli adopted that view? Luther taught consubstantiation, Calvin receptionism, the Church of England something between the two (although admittedly Cranmenr himself was more of a memorialist); evn the early Baptist Confessions did not affirm memorialism:-
Reformation and post-Reformation creeds and confessions
Lutheran – Augsburg Confession (1530)
Article IX: Of Baptism.
Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace.
They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.
Article X: Of the Lord's Supper.
Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.
Anglican – 39 Articles (1571)
Article 25 - The Sacraments
Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they are certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us, by which He works invisibly in us, and not only quickens, but also strengthens and confirms, our faith in Him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as S. Paul said.
Article 26 - The unworthiness of Ministers does not hinder the effect of the Sacraments
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil has chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet because they do not do so in their own name, but in Christ's, and minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from those who by faith and rightly receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which are effectual because of Christ's institution and promise, although they are ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless it is part of the discipline of the Church that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty by just judgement, be deposed.
Article 28 - The Lord's Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is [also] a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: to those who rightly, worthily, and with faith receive it, the bread that we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of a Sacrament, and has given occasion to many superstitions.
The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means by which the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
Article 29 - The wicked which do not eat the body of Christ, in the use of the Lord's Supper
The wicked and those who are void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as S. Augustine said) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing.
Article 30 - Both Kinds
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both parts of the Lord's sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.
Presbyterian/ Calvinist/ Reformed – Westminster Confession (1647)
Chapter XXVII
Of the Sacraments
I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,[1] immediately instituted by God,[2] to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him:[3] as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world;[4] and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.[5]
II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.[6]
III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it:[7] but upon the work of the Spirit,[8] and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.[9]
IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.[10]
V. The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.[11]
Chapter XXIX
Of the Lord's Supper
I. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body.[1]
II. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead;[2] but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same:[3] so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.[4]
III. The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants;[5] but to none who are not then present in the congregation.[6]
IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone;[7] as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people,[8] worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.[9]
V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ;[10] albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.[11]
VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthrows the nature of the sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yes, of gross idolatries.[12]
VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,[13] do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.[14]
VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries,[15] or be admitted thereunto.[16]
Baptist – London Baptist Confession (1689)
28. Baptism and the Lord's Supper
1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in His Church to the end of the world.
2. These holy appointments are to be administered only by those who are qualified and called to administer them, according to the commission of Christ.
30. The Lord's Supper
1. The Supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by Him the same night on which He was betrayed to be observed in His churches until the end of the world for the perpetual remembrance, and showing forth of the sacrifice of Himself in His death. It was also instituted by Christ to confirm believers in all the benefits of His death; - for their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him; - for their further engagement in and commitment to all the duties which they owe to Him; - and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him and with their fellow believers.
2. In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to His Father, nor is there any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin (of the living or the dead). There is only a memorial of that one offering up of Christ by Himself upon the cross once for all, the memorial being accompanied by a spiritual oblation of all possible praise to God for Calvary. Therefore, the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, being injurious to Christ's own sacrifice, which is the only propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
3. The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to pray and bless the elements of bread and wine (so setting them apart from a common to a holy use) and to take and break the bread, then to take the cup, and to give both to the communicants, also communicating themselves.
4. The denial of the cup to the people, the practices of worshipping the elements, lifting them up or carrying them about for adoration, or reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ.
5. The outward elements in this ordinance which are correctly set apart and used as Christ ordained, so closely portray Him as crucified, that they are sometimes truly (but figuratively) referred to in terms of the things they represent, such as the body and blood of Christ. However in substance and nature they still remain truly and only bread and wine as they were before.
6. The doctrine commonly called transubstantiation, which maintains that a change occurs in the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood, when consecrated by a priest or by any other way, is repugnant not only to Scripture but even to common sense and reason. It overthrows the nature of the ordinance, and both has been and is the cause of a host of superstitions and of gross idolatries.
7. Worthy receivers, outwardly taking the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive them inwardly and spiritually by faith, truly and in fact, but not carnally and corporally, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death. The body and blood of Christ is not present corporally or carnally but it is spiritually present to the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements are present to their outward senses.
8. All ignorant and ungodly persons who are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ are equally unworthy of the Lord's Table, and therefore cannot without great sin against Him, take a share in these holy mysteries or be admitted to the Supper while they remain in that condition. Indeed those who receive (the elements) unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgement to themselves.
go to Contents
Methodist – 25 Articles of Religion (1808)
Article 16—Of the Sacraments
Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God's good will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel; being such as have partly grown out of the corrupt following of the apostles, and partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not the like nature of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, because they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves condemnation, as St. Paul saith.
Article 17—Of Baptism
Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The Baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church.
Article 18—Of the Lord's Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.
Article 19—Of Both Kinds
The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both the parts of the Lord's Supper, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be administered to all Christians alike.
Evangelical United Brethren Church (1963)
Article 6—The Sacraments
We believe the Sacraments, ordained by Christ, are symbols and pledges of the Christian's profession and of God's love toward us. They are means of grace by which God works invisibly in us, quickening, strengthening and confirming our faith in him. Two Sacraments are ordained by Christ our Lord, namely Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
We believe Baptism signifies entrance into the household of faith, and is a symbol of repentance and inner cleansing from sin, a representation of the new birth in Christ Jesus and a mark of Christian discipleship.
We believe children are under the atonement of Christ and as heirs of the Kingdom of God are acceptable subjects for Christian Baptism. Children of believing parents through Baptism become the special responsibility of the Church. They should be nurtured and led to personal acceptance of Christ, and by profession of faith confirm their Baptism.
We believe the Lord's Supper is a representation of our redemption, a memorial of the sufferings and death of Christ, and a token of love and union which Christians have with Christ and with one another. Those who rightly, worthily and in faith eat the broken bread and drink the blessed cup partake of the body and blood of Christ in a spiritual manner until he comes.
Once again - burden of proof re your interpretation being correct - the weight of evidence is against you
eg: Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Comment on the above: To start with the earliest of Patristic writings, 1 Clement, and the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch were written around 80, 95, and 110 AD respectively. This places them all within earshot of Apostolic times. The Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation are often thought to have been written in the last decade of the first century. If this is correct, it would place the 1 Clement arguably before the last books of Scripture were written. (Which is probably why some in the early Church thought they were inspired Scripture.) The Epistles of Ignatius were written within ten to fifteen years of the Evangelist's death. (Ignatius himself was a disciple of the Apostle John.) Irenaeus of Lyons was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John. (Polycarp was a younger contemporary of Ignatius.) Justin Martyr was born around the time of the Apostle John’s death and martyred around the same time as Irenaeus’ mentor Polycarp. (Both were martyred in the mid second century within ten years of one another.)
Re the 500 years, if it were the case that once the Bible was restored to the laity (presumably you mean only those among them who could read, which was a minority) that memorialism would automatically come to the fore, how come that out of all the Reformers, only Zwingli adopted that view? Luther taught consubstantiation, Calvin receptionism, the Church of England something between the two (although admittedly Cranmenr himself was more of a memorialist); evn the early Baptist Confessions did not affirm memorialism:-
Reformation and post-Reformation creeds and confessions
Lutheran – Augsburg Confession (1530)
Article IX: Of Baptism.
Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace.
They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.
Article X: Of the Lord's Supper.
Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.
Anglican – 39 Articles (1571)
Article 25 - The Sacraments
Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they are certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us, by which He works invisibly in us, and not only quickens, but also strengthens and confirms, our faith in Him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as S. Paul said.
Article 26 - The unworthiness of Ministers does not hinder the effect of the Sacraments
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil has chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet because they do not do so in their own name, but in Christ's, and minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from those who by faith and rightly receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which are effectual because of Christ's institution and promise, although they are ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless it is part of the discipline of the Church that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty by just judgement, be deposed.
Article 28 - The Lord's Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is [also] a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: to those who rightly, worthily, and with faith receive it, the bread that we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of a Sacrament, and has given occasion to many superstitions.
The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means by which the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
Article 29 - The wicked which do not eat the body of Christ, in the use of the Lord's Supper
The wicked and those who are void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as S. Augustine said) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing.
Article 30 - Both Kinds
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both parts of the Lord's sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.
Presbyterian/ Calvinist/ Reformed – Westminster Confession (1647)
Chapter XXVII
Of the Sacraments
I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,[1] immediately instituted by God,[2] to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him:[3] as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world;[4] and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.[5]
II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.[6]
III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it:[7] but upon the work of the Spirit,[8] and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.[9]
IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.[10]
V. The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.[11]
Chapter XXIX
Of the Lord's Supper
I. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body.[1]
II. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead;[2] but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same:[3] so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.[4]
III. The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants;[5] but to none who are not then present in the congregation.[6]
IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone;[7] as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people,[8] worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.[9]
V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ;[10] albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.[11]
VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthrows the nature of the sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yes, of gross idolatries.[12]
VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,[13] do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.[14]
VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries,[15] or be admitted thereunto.[16]
Baptist – London Baptist Confession (1689)
28. Baptism and the Lord's Supper
1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in His Church to the end of the world.
2. These holy appointments are to be administered only by those who are qualified and called to administer them, according to the commission of Christ.
30. The Lord's Supper
1. The Supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by Him the same night on which He was betrayed to be observed in His churches until the end of the world for the perpetual remembrance, and showing forth of the sacrifice of Himself in His death. It was also instituted by Christ to confirm believers in all the benefits of His death; - for their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him; - for their further engagement in and commitment to all the duties which they owe to Him; - and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him and with their fellow believers.
2. In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to His Father, nor is there any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin (of the living or the dead). There is only a memorial of that one offering up of Christ by Himself upon the cross once for all, the memorial being accompanied by a spiritual oblation of all possible praise to God for Calvary. Therefore, the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, being injurious to Christ's own sacrifice, which is the only propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
3. The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to pray and bless the elements of bread and wine (so setting them apart from a common to a holy use) and to take and break the bread, then to take the cup, and to give both to the communicants, also communicating themselves.
4. The denial of the cup to the people, the practices of worshipping the elements, lifting them up or carrying them about for adoration, or reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ.
5. The outward elements in this ordinance which are correctly set apart and used as Christ ordained, so closely portray Him as crucified, that they are sometimes truly (but figuratively) referred to in terms of the things they represent, such as the body and blood of Christ. However in substance and nature they still remain truly and only bread and wine as they were before.
6. The doctrine commonly called transubstantiation, which maintains that a change occurs in the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood, when consecrated by a priest or by any other way, is repugnant not only to Scripture but even to common sense and reason. It overthrows the nature of the ordinance, and both has been and is the cause of a host of superstitions and of gross idolatries.
7. Worthy receivers, outwardly taking the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive them inwardly and spiritually by faith, truly and in fact, but not carnally and corporally, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death. The body and blood of Christ is not present corporally or carnally but it is spiritually present to the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements are present to their outward senses.
8. All ignorant and ungodly persons who are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ are equally unworthy of the Lord's Table, and therefore cannot without great sin against Him, take a share in these holy mysteries or be admitted to the Supper while they remain in that condition. Indeed those who receive (the elements) unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgement to themselves.
go to Contents
Methodist – 25 Articles of Religion (1808)
Article 16—Of the Sacraments
Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God's good will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him.
There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel; being such as have partly grown out of the corrupt following of the apostles, and partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not the like nature of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, because they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves condemnation, as St. Paul saith.
Article 17—Of Baptism
Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The Baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church.
Article 18—Of the Lord's Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.
Article 19—Of Both Kinds
The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both the parts of the Lord's Supper, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be administered to all Christians alike.
Evangelical United Brethren Church (1963)
Article 6—The Sacraments
We believe the Sacraments, ordained by Christ, are symbols and pledges of the Christian's profession and of God's love toward us. They are means of grace by which God works invisibly in us, quickening, strengthening and confirming our faith in him. Two Sacraments are ordained by Christ our Lord, namely Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
We believe Baptism signifies entrance into the household of faith, and is a symbol of repentance and inner cleansing from sin, a representation of the new birth in Christ Jesus and a mark of Christian discipleship.
We believe children are under the atonement of Christ and as heirs of the Kingdom of God are acceptable subjects for Christian Baptism. Children of believing parents through Baptism become the special responsibility of the Church. They should be nurtured and led to personal acceptance of Christ, and by profession of faith confirm their Baptism.
We believe the Lord's Supper is a representation of our redemption, a memorial of the sufferings and death of Christ, and a token of love and union which Christians have with Christ and with one another. Those who rightly, worthily and in faith eat the broken bread and drink the blessed cup partake of the body and blood of Christ in a spiritual manner until he comes.
Once again - burden of proof re your interpretation being correct - the weight of evidence is against you
Participation in what respect? He calls it a "remembrance," which by any other name is a memorial. That is what Paul said. He attached no substanttive chagne to the elements, and neither should we.
You assume they are "johnny come latelites." But if you read the text of Scripture, you will see that the NT position is memorialism. This is a really simple textual issue. Unfortunately, RCC dogma has clouded the simplicity of Scripture.
The weight of evidence is the biblical text where Christ and Paul called it "bread" and "cup."It is you who want to change that to make it more than that.
Only the Roman Catholic position says substantive changes take place within the elements. I think this is their greatest weakness in their position.
The Eastern Orthodox position is intentially vague saying it is simply a mystery that we should not get into but accept the elements as the Body and Blood of the Lord.
The Lutheran position simply states it is the Body and Blood of the Lord but rejects any transformation of the elements.
The Calvinist/Anglican position asserts that only a spiritual communion with the Body and Blood of Christ takes place but also rejects any transformation of the elements.
There is no question a Communion with Christ Body and Blood takes place according to 1 Cor. 10 and the warning to those who take unworthily is that they insult not the elements but have insulted the Body and Blood of Christ.
To teach it is simply a memorial lacks Biblical merit. I actually have less problems with the Lutheran position than the Zwinglian. The Zwinglian position has led to quarterly and yearly communion or a total ignoring of it all together.
The Eastern Orthodox position is intentially vague saying it is simply a mystery that we should not get into but accept the elements as the Body and Blood of the Lord.
The Lutheran position simply states it is the Body and Blood of the Lord but rejects any transformation of the elements.
The Calvinist/Anglican position asserts that only a spiritual communion with the Body and Blood of Christ takes place but also rejects any transformation of the elements.
There is no question a Communion with Christ Body and Blood takes place according to 1 Cor. 10 and the warning to those who take unworthily is that they insult not the elements but have insulted the Body and Blood of Christ.
To teach it is simply a memorial lacks Biblical merit. I actually have less problems with the Lutheran position than the Zwinglian. The Zwinglian position has led to quarterly and yearly communion or a total ignoring of it all together.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
I assume they are "johnny-come-latelies" because of the historical evidence. (I won't repeat what Matt said, although that's just the tip of the iceberg). If you read the text of the NT then there is something much more than "memorialism" being taught. So was the unanimous consent of the fathers (some of whom learned directly from the Apostles) in understanding this as well with no hint of disagreement among otherwise orthodox Christians (only among docetists and gnostics).
No it's you who wants to ignore the weight of the biblical texts where Christ says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood (and that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed); where Christ calls the bread and wine His body and blood; where Paul calls the bread and cup (the elements themselves) the communion of the body and blood of Christ. It is you who wants to follow in the 16th tradition of man and diminish the Lord's Supper to be less than intended.