(a) Scripture does not require the view. All the passages cited in its support may be better interpreted as referring to a partaking of the elements as symbols. If Christ?s body be ubiquitous, as this theory holds, we partake of it at every meal, as really as at the Lord?s Supper.
(b) That the view is inseparable from the general sacramental system of which it forms a part. In imposing physical and material conditions of receiving Christ, it contradicts the doctrine of justification only by faith and changes the ordinance from a sign into a means of salvation. It involves the necessity of a sacerdotal order for the sake of properly consecrating the elements and logically tends to the Romanist conclusions of Ritualism and idolatry.
(c) That it holds each communicant to be a partaker of Christ?s veritable body and blood, whether he be a believer or not. The result, in the absence of faith, is condemnation instead of salvation. Thus the whole character of the ordinance is changed from a festival occasion to one of mystery and fear and the whole gospel method of salvation is obscured.
Encyc. Britannica, art.: Luther, 15:81 ? ?Before the peasants? war, Luther regarded the sacrament as a secondary matter, compared with the right view of faith. In alarm at this war and at Carlstadt?s mysticism, he determined to abide by the tradition of the church and to alter as little as possible. He could not accept transubstantiation and be sought a via media. Occam gave it to him. According to Occam, matter can be present first, when it occupies a distinct place by itself, excluding every other body, as two stones mutually exclude each other and, secondly, when it occupies the same space as another body at the same time. Everything, which is omnipresent must occupy the same space as other things, else it could not be ubiquitous. Hence con-substantiation involved no miracle. Christ?s body was in the bread and wine naturally and was not brought into the elements by the priest. It brought a blessing, not because of Christ?s presence, but because of God?s promise that this particular presence of the body of Christ should bring blessings to the faithful partaker.? Broadus, Am. Com. on Matthew, 529 ? ?Luther does not say how Christ is in the bread and wine but his followers have compared his presence to that of heat or magnetism in iron. But how then could this presence be in the bread and wine separately??
For the view here combated, see Gerhard, x:352 ? ?The bread, apart from the sacrament instituted by Christ, is not the body of Christ, and therefore it is ajrtolatri>a (bread worship) to adore the bread in these
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?