Shepherds College: Systematic Theology, Session 23

Shepherds College Systematic Theology Sesson 23, 10 March 2026 Standing on the Shoulder of Giants Martin Luther (1483-1546) John Calvin (1509-1564) Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) 2 Luther’s View of the Lord’s Supper: Consubstantiation Consubstantiation is the Lutheran understanding of the Lord’s Supper, holding that while the bread and wine do not literally transform into Christ’s body and blood, his body and blood are genuinely present “in, with, and under” the elements.[1] The doctrine emerged during the Protestant Reformation as Luther sought a middle path between Catholic transubstantiation and symbolic memorial views. Rather than transubstantiation—which requires faith alone since no visible change occurs in the bread and wine—consubstantiation was formulated to explain Christ’s presence while acknowledging the elements retain their physical properties.[2] The prefix “con-” means “with,” indicating that the bread does not become Christ’s body but coexists with it, so the bread remains both bread and the body of Christ; similarly, the wine remains wine while coexisting with Christ’s blood.[2] Luther retained the term “Mass” for the Supper and maintained that Christ was truly and completely present, with his body and blood in, with, and through the elements but not substantially changed.[3] This position generated significant controversy. Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor, rejected the Lutheran view of consubstantiation and likely rejected the idea that the sacrament functions as a direct means of grace, understanding the Lord’s Supper instead as a religious illustration and stimulus to faith centered on remembrance of Christ.[3] It’s important to note that Lutheran theologians themselves repudiate the popular term “consubstantiation” when it implies a permanent connection between the elements and Christ’s body and blood, restricting this connection to the act of communion itself.[4] Consubstantiation is held by some Eastern Orthodox churches and certain liturgical denominations like Episcopal and Lutheran churches, though even among these groups it is not universally accepted.[ 2] [1] Douglas Mangum, The Lexham Glossary of Theology (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014). [See here.] [2] Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002–2013). [See here, here, here, here.] [3] Richard C. Gamble, The Whole Counsel of God: God’s People in the Western World (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2021), 3:509–510. [4] Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed., in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1908–1914), 3:260. Calvin’s View: A symbolic, but real, memorial Calvin’s theology of the Lord’s Supper represents a deliberate attempt to navigate between Lutheran and Zwinglian extremes while maintaining the sacrament’s genuine spiritual power. Calvin understood the Lord’s Supper as a divine gift designed to support and nourish believers’ faith[1], grounded in his conviction that God is the source of all goodness and grace[1]. He employed multiple images—pictures, seals, exercises, promises, visible words, mirrors, and pillars—to convey how the sacrament functions like a mirror reflecting God’s lavished grace[1]. Calvin’s pastoral concern was to assure believers that God spreads before them a spiritual banquet and invites them to partake, confirming and sealing the benefits of Christ[1]. Theologically, Calvin rejected both Luther’s physical presence and Zwingli’s bare memorialism. While Calvin initially favored Luther over Zwingli because he regarded Zwingli as reducing the Supper to mere symbolic memorial, Calvin believed sacraments function as signs and seals with real importance and impact[2]. However, Calvin could not follow Luther’s Christology, and like Zwingli, he held that Christ’s human body remains at God’s right hand until his return[2]. Calvin’s distinctive position holds that Christ is present spiritually or dynamically—like the sun remaining in heaven while its warmth and light reach earth, the Spirit’s radiance conveys communion with Christ’s flesh and blood[3]. There occurs a real feeding on Christ’s body and blood, but it is spiritual feeding through which the Holy Spirit unites believers to Christ, enabling them to feed on him by faith[2]. Crucially, the sacrament’s benefit depends significantly on the faith and receptivity of the participant[3][4], distinguishing it from both automatic Catholic efficacy and purely memorial Protestant views. [1] Leanne Van Dyk, “The Reformed View,” in The Lord’s Supper: Five Views, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 75–76. [2] Carl R. Trueman, Matthew Barrett, and R. Kent Hughes, Grace Alone—salvation as a Gift of God: What the Reformers Taughts…and Why It Still Matters, The 5 Solas Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2017), 211–212. [3] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 1044–1045. [4] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 1128. Zwingli’s View: Memorial Zwingli’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper has been widely mischaracterized as a bare memorial view, though his actual position was more nuanced and developed over time. His views appear to have shifted somewhat throughout his life, making his exact position difficult to determine with precision.[1] Zwingli argued that Christ’s body, having risen from the dead, necessarily occupies a particular location in heaven at God’s right hand and therefore cannot be physically present in the Supper.[2] He defined a sacrament as “the sign of a holy thing,” insisting that the sign and the thing signified cannot be identical, so the eucharistic elements cannot literally be Christ’s body and blood.[2] He understood the word “is” in Christ’s institution to mean “signifies” rather than a literal transformation.[3] However, Zwingli’s writings contain statements pointing to deeper significance, contemplating the Supper as a seal or pledge of what God accomplishes for the believer in the sacrament.[1] While rejecting any physical or local presence of Christ, Zwingli affirmed Christ’s spiritual presence, ultimately stating that believers eat Christ’s “true body...in a sacramental and spiritual manner by the religious, believing and pious heart.”[4] He compared the sacrament to a wedding ring sealing the marriage union between Christ and the believer.[4] Zwingli sought to exclude unintelligible mysticism from sacramental doctrine, favoring plainness and simplicity in exposition.[1] Calvin himself recognized that Zwingli’s doctrine was not unbiblical, merely less comprehensively developed than Reformed theology that followed.[5] [1] L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 653. [2] Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 650. [3] David S. Dockery, ed., Holman Bible Handbook (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1992), 870. [4] Alan Cairns, in Dictionary of Theological Terms (Belfast; Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2002), 537. [5] Dave Chanski, “Of the Lord’s Supper,” in A New Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, ed. Rob Ventura (Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2022), 506. Luther vs. Calvin The conflict between Calvin and Luther over the Lord’s Supper centered fundamentally on Christology rather than sacramental theory, though it manifested as disagreement about Christ’s presence in the elements. Luther insisted that Christ’s divine attribute of omnipresence extends to his human nature, enabling his physical presence in multiple locations simultaneously, whereas Calvin maintained that Christ’s human nature remains confined by space and time and therefore cannot be physically present in the Supper.[1] Luther repeatedly cited Jesus’ words “this is My body” and refused to interpret the verb “is” figuratively.[2] In one heated exchange, Luther pounded the table declaring “Hoc est corpus meum” (This is My body), while the Reformers countered that Jesus also said “I am the door” without literal intent.[1] Calvin strategically used “substantial” differently depending on his audience—denying the physical presence to Catholics and Lutherans while insisting on the real presence against Anabaptists who reduced the Supper to mere memorial.[2] Where Luther insisted Christ’s body was given bodily with the bread, Calvin argued it was truly given through spiritual eating, whereas Luther allowed oral consumption while Calvin permitted only spiritual eating.[3] Remarkably, Calvin believed he had discovered Luther’s fundamental concern—that God does not mock believers with empty signs—and honestly thought Luther would have approved the Swiss consensus affirming that “what the sacraments figure is truly offered to us.”[4] Swiss theologians were astonished by Calvin’s defense of Luther, attributing his position to ignorance of German, since Luther had written “crassly and barbarously” on the subject in his native language.[4] The disagreement proved intractable because it reflected incompatible Christologies rather than mere semantic differences. [1] R. C. Sproul, Mark, St. Andrew’s Expositional Commentary (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2011), 367. [2] R. C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992). [See here, here.] [3] Paul Henry and Henry Stebbing, The Life and Times of John Calvin, the Great Reformer (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851), 282. [4] B. A. Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 39–40. The issue of Christology in the Lord’s Supper The christological issue underlying Lord’s Supper debates centers on how Christ’s two natures relate to one another. Reformed theologians emphasized that Christ’s divinity transcends his humanity, arguing his physical body remains localized in heaven despite his divine omnipresence. Lutherans, by contrast, attributed divine properties like omnipresence to Christ’s human nature to explain his bodily presence in the sacrament.[1] The fundamental problem becomes apparent when considering Jesus’ words at institution: his literal body stood before the disciples, not on the table with the bread and wine.[2] This observation shapes how different traditions interpret Christ’s presence. Reformed theologians accused Lutherans of sounding Nestorian—dividing Christ’s natures—by insisting on his nonbodily presence.[1] Conversely, Lutherans viewed Reformed theology as suspiciously Eutychian— confusing the natures—because attributing omnipresence to Christ’s humanity seemed to collapse the distinction between divine and human properties.[1] Yet both traditions vigorously defended the Council of Chalcedon’s formula, agreeing that Christ’s actions belong to his unified person rather than to isolated natures—it is Jesus who was crucified and raised, not his humanity in abstraction.[1] The disagreement was not whether Christ acts as one person, but how his unified personhood operates across space and time. Reformed theology maintains Christ’s physical body is in heaven[2], while Lutheran theology teaches his body exists “in, with, and under” the bread and wine.[2] This seemingly technical distinction carries profound implications for understanding how believers encounter Christ through the sacrament. [1] Craig S. Farmer et al., eds., John 1–12: New Testament, Reformation Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 4:xlviii. [2] John M. Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006), 283. Main issues “this is my body” Literally or symbolic. What the meaning of “is” is. Christ’s omnipresence Where is Christ today? Preparing for the Lord’s Supper From Justin Martyr, 155 AD • On the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a given city or rural district. The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the reader ceases, the president in a discourse admonishes and urges the imitation of these good things. Next we all rise together and send up prayers. • When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends up prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people sing out their assent, saying the ‘Amen.’ A distribution and participation of the elements for which thanks have been given is made to each person, and to those who are not present they are sent by the deacons. • Those who have means and are willing, each according to his own choice, gives what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the president. He provides for the orphans and widows, those who are in need on account of sickness or some other cause, those who are in bonds, strangers who are sojourning, and in a word he becomes the protector of all who are in need. • Mark Galli and Ted Olsen, 131 Christians Everyone Should Know (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 50-51. “for I received . . .” • "For I received . . ." 1 Corinthians 15:3, Galatians 1:12, Acts 22:14 • Paul indicates that he did not receive the teaching on these subjects from anyone but the Lord directly. When we learn of communion we are hearing the authority of Christ Himself. What is an “unworthy manner?” • 1 Corinthians 11:27–34 (ESV) • 27Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. • Compare a "worthy manner:" Eph. 4:1; Phil. 1:27; Col. 1:10; 1 Thess. 2:12 • What is the guilt? What is the Penalty? • 1 Corinthians 11:29–30 (ESV) • 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. What is Self-examination? • 28Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. • What is self-examination? 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 6:4 • 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.The Holy Bible: English Standard Version ( Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Jn 1:9–10.