The debate between the Lutheran and Reformed view of Holy Communion is a long and fierce one stretching over many centuries. Having grown up Lutheran and now being a Presbyterian pastor, this debate has been of great interest to me. I think it might be worthwhile to note the major reasons why I have come to believe Calvin’s spiritual presence view over Luther’s sacramental union view. Or, more specifically, these are my critiques of the Lutheran position.
1. Conflict with The Creed of Chalcedon
There is a line in the Creed of Chalcedon (451 AD) with which I have never been able to square the Lutheran position. It speaks of Christ being “in two natures, WITHOUT CONFUSION, without division, without separation; the distinction of the natures being no way annulled by the union, BUT RATHER THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH NATURE BEING PRESERVED and coming together to form one person and subsistence.”
Now, the Lutheran view of ubiquity has it that Christ’s human nature is present it more than one place, perhaps thousands or millions of places on a Sunday morning in each wafer of communion and each drink of wine. But if Chalcedon is correct, the human nature is not to be confused with the divine; the characteristics of the natures are preserved, and therefore the human nature is not in more than one place at a time.
I could argue against my own view by noting that Jesus apparently walked through walls (John 20:19) and that this is too is not part of a normal human nature. Yet, this seems to be a one-time miracle not a regular property of his human nature.
If I were a Lutheran, I would argue that Chalcedon has it wrong.
II. Jesus’s Physical Presence in The Last Supper, A Lutheran Absurdity
Usually the debate over Christ’s presence is in regards to the sacrament of Holy Communion as is practiced in the churches today, but the original words of institution come during the actual Last Supper. There Jesus says “This is my body” (Matthew 26:26) and “This is my blood” (Matthew 26:38). Are we to understand, in the Lutheran view, that WHILE JESUS WAS STANDING THERE his human nature was also in, with, and under the bread and wine? Did any of the disciples understand it that way at the moment? This is absurd.
III. Jesus’s Frequent Use of Metaphors
This is a fairly standard Reformed argument against the Lutheran position. The Lutheran contention is that “this is my body” must be literal. But given the numerous obvious metaphors Jesus uses, even with regards to his own self (I am the bread of life, I am the light of the world, I am the door), it is perfectly natural to read “this is my body” as a metaphor. Certainly it was a metaphor in John 6:53 when Jesus said “Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” evidenced by it following another metaphor about Jesus being like manna from heaven now bringing eternal life.
If the Lutheran literal position is taken to its logical conclusion should they not argue that merely Christ’s body (without blood?) is present in the bread and merely his blood (without the body?) is present in the wine? Yet, they argue that “my body” is his full human nature and “my blood” is also his full human nature.
IV. The Metaphor Clear in Luke’s “Cup”
In Luke 22:20 the author records Jesus saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.” This is clearly a metaphor equating the symbol (the cup of wine) with the reality (the new covenant) which is fulfilled in Christ’s bloody death on the cross. The Lutheran would have this say “the wine in the cup is my blood” which is a gross misinterpretation of the verse, missing out on Jesus’s true point that we are saved only through the grace of God in his new covenant.
V. The Purpose of Communion Stated
The purpose of communion is clearly stated in Jesus’s words “Do this in remembrance of me.” He certainly doesn’t say “do this to have a physical union with me.” Our union with Christ is a spiritual one which occurs through faith in him who has died and risen again, so that united to him we might also rise again over the power of death. In short, the sacraments are symbols of the greater reality. And we ought not to confuse the symbol and the reality.
Our attention in communion is to be drawn to what Christ did for us, not to thinking that the bread and wine are his physical body and blood.
VI. No one outside of the Lutheran Church seems to have ever come to the same conclusion.
In all the Biblical studies among Protestants (and others), no one that I know of outside of Lutheranism has come to their position. The few that have, granted, have joined up with the Lutherans, but that is more of a testament to a full “conversion” agreeing with the Lutheran church on all matters, and not a scholarly change on a single subject while mainlining other positions contrary to Lutheran one.
I could perhaps continue with evidence of the patristics, and ultimately an analysis of the relevant Scriptural verses. Both of these have been done by others at length and so there is no need for me to repeat the work. Suffice to say that just as in the subject of soteriology, here also in communion the Lutheran argument that Calvinists are rationalists is unwarranted. Reason sides with the Calvinist position no doubt, but so does the Bible.