The Eucharist: Luther’s Compromised Position
It is Sunday morning and all across the globe, those who believe in Christ are participating in a sacred ritual. A monologue is given, after which a wafer is placed in their mouth and a diminutive cup of wine (or Welch’s grape juice for us Baptist boys) is drank. To the followers of Jesus there is something more than antiquated ritual at hand. This sacrament, called the Eucharist or the Lord’s supper, is at the center of one of the hottest controversies of the Reformation age. The lines have been drawn and debated for centuries.
Towns avers that, “The Lord’s Table, along with baptism, is the most abused and misinterpreted aspect of doctrine. Actually, if a person has a problem with his theology or has some false views, it will ultimately reflect itself in the person’s outward expression of his theology” (Towns, 703).[1]
The Catholic believes something very literal occurs; the wafer and the wine become the literal body and blood of Christ. Many Protestants view it as necessary but purely symbolic. Bridging the gap are the Reformers whose views were vehemently debated and have been pored over ad nauseum since their day. Zwingli, the great Reformer, argued an entirely different perspective, that it was the receiving of communion was a visible sign of what God had done in the invisible realm. Somewhere between those two extremes was the hero of Wittenburg, Martin Luther. His argument maintained the metaphysical components of the doctrine, yet did not argue for the literal metamorphosis of the elements. I will make evident that Luther’s view of consubstantiation was clouded by his background as a Catholic priest, which made him reluctant to forsake some mystical view of the Eucharist.
For the purpose of this paper, I will look at Luther in contrast with the other two primary theological giants of his day, Zwingli and Calvin. We must first, and most importantly, seek the counsel of Scripture in this matter. Luke writes, in his account of the Last Supper, “And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood”” (Luke 22:19-20, NASB).
Each of the theologians that we will look at were influenced, negatively or positively, by the Catholic church, so it is quite important to understand the doctrine of transubstantiation. Peter J. Riga sums it up well, as he writes, “Although Christ is at the right hand of the Father, and although his humanity enjoys no omnipresence, nevertheless the Catholic accepts in faith the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This presence, his faith tells him, can only be brought about by a change in the ontological order. A change must take place in the profound reality of the bread and wine; a change brought about by the omnipotent hand of God in the service of spiritual fellowship between the Bride and the Bridegroom, between Christ and the Church” (Catholic Culture).[2]
It cannot be overstated the importance that the mother church and its adherents placed on the Eucharist. Consider the words of John Chrystostom, “I carry you, living God, who is incarnate in the bread, and I embrace you in my palms, Lord of the worlds whom no world has contained. You have draimsciibed yourself in afierycoal within a fleshly palm—you Lord, who with your palm measured out the dust of the earth. You are holy, God incarnate in my hands in afierycoal which is a body…. As you have made me worthy to approach you and receive you—and see, my hands embrace you confidently—make me worthy, Lord, to eat you in a holy manner and to taste the food of your body as a taste of your life” (Kimel).[3]
Martin Luther, a Franciscan monk, most well-known for sparking the Reformation in Germany when, on 31 October 1517, he nailed his 95 theses to the door of the church at Wittenburg. These 95 theses were his indictments of the Roman Catholic church. Something that is often missed is that Luther did not seek to leave the church. He did not seek to found a movement that would bear his name. He simply sought to return Christian thought and theology back to a long-lost purely Scriptural roots, while heralding his newly found passion for the truth of justification by faith.
However, during the fallout of his actions, every dogma of the church received a new look. Tenets such as paedobaptism, purgatory, priesthood, and even the Lord’s table were subject to new theological interpretation. At the heart of all that Luther was, though, he understood two things about himself. The first being that he was a wretched sinner with a great need to throw himself upon the mercies of the Almighty. The second was that he was a priest, who lived in gratitude for God’s grace and a passion for his Word. The trepidation with which Luther approached the first time that he offered communion is the stuff that legends are made of. Over 500 years later, psychoanalysts are still reviewing his frame of mind. Feeling quite unworthy, and facing criticism for his father, who believed that Luther was living in rebellion to the command to “honor thy father and mother” who wished for Martin to become a lawyer, he barely made it through the ceremony. “Erikson suggests that Luther’s anxiety, especially when he read the words that appeal “to the most merciful Father,” suggested that his “faith lacked the secure formulation of the nature of mediatorship which later emerged in the lectures on the Psalms” (Capps).[4] It would be my assertion that Luther was uniquely impressed and equally horrified with the concept of holding the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. Bovell explains, “As with every doctrinal disputant, Martin Luther’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper cannot be fully understood in isolation from his personal theology, from the political and social climate of the time, or from his personal, existential angst that was effectively dispelled in his ‘tower experience’” (Bovell).[5]
Luther introduced the doctrine of consubstantiation, which seems to be a compromised doctrine that attempted to span the doctrine of transubstantiation and the doctrines being introduced by other Reformers, who sought to show that the Eucharist was less literal and more spiritual, as we will see later. Walforf reminds us that “Luther, having been a Catholic priest and doctor of divinity, at one time really believed in transubstantiation…he believed in the literal mastication of the body of Christ in the Eucharist. Here are his words in German: “Ausgetheilt, gegessen und mit den Zanen zerbissen” (“The body was eaten and masticated by [with] the teeth”)” (Walforf).[6]
Consubstantiation could best be described as the belief that Christ was present in, with and under the elements of communion. There seems to be some variance throughout Luther’s life, concerning whether or not the elements literally become the body and blood of Christ. Luther’s Formula of Concord states, “We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the Testament of Christ are not to be understood otherwise than as the words themselves literally sound, so that the bread does not signify the absent body of Christ, and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that on account of the sacramental union the bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ” (Mueller).[7] In an age, as we will see, many theologians were appealing to logic and symbol, Luther stressed the importance of understanding the literality of the Eucharist while appealing to the early church fathers and a very strict, literal interpretation of Jesus’ words on the matter. In Luther’s catechism he writes, “It is the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the Bread and Wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, under the institution of Christ himself” (Betteson, 207).[8]
Luther held a vitriolic distaste for anyone who would disagree with his views. When speaking on the real presence, he wrote, “Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present” (Bread from Heaven).[9] Further, he consigned those who dissented to Hell. To his detractors, who had coined the term “baked God,” he wrote, “For this is what they say: If I believe in Jesus Christ, who died for me, what need is there for me to believe in a baked God? Wait and see, he will bake them when the time comes, so that their hides will sizzle” (Davis).[10]
Other Reformers were able to move further away from the Catholic dogma to view the Eucharist in more symbolic terms, while appreciating the presence of God in the sacrament, as well as the effects that the elements have on the recipients. The eminent theologian John Calvin believed that there was a “real presence” of Christ in the elements of the Eucharist. However, this comes with a distinction from Luther. Whereas, Luther would argue for the presence of Christ in the elements, Calvin, “as expressed in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (4.17.10 sqq.), strongly asserts a spiritual true participation in Christ’s body and blood…The presence of Christ is substantial, but in the faithful communicants, not in the bread and wine” (Daly).[11] For Calvin, the participation was efficacious in the recipient of the elements.
It was distasteful for Calvin that the language used by many to describe the Eucharist speaks of some dynamic change of an element into the literal body and blood of Christ. The Reformers spoke much of ubiquity. Calvin writes, “The sacrament, therefore does not make Christ become for the first time the Bread of Life;…it gives us a taste and relish for that bread, and makes us feel its efficacy” (Calvin, 897).[12]
Unlike some in the vaulted realms of theology, he did admit the limits of his understanding. Calvin, humbly admitted that he could not clearly and precisely articulate all that happened at the Lord’s table. Migliore relates, “Now, if anyone should ask me how this takes place, I shall not ashamed to confess that it is a secret too lofty for either my mind to comprehend or my words to declare….I’d rather experience than understand it…in his sacred supper he bids me take, eat and drink his body and blood, under the symbols of bread and wine” (Migliore, 303).[13]
Calvin was not the only Reformer, by far, to have strong and dissenting opinions, concerning the Lord’s Table. Ulrich Zwingli was a young and zealous Swiss pastor, who found his voice calling for reformation of the Catholic church. Rather than a willingness to reform the Catholic church, Zwingli truly understood the need to make a clean break and call believers to a new order. Of all the Reformers, none appealed more to Scripture than Zwingli. However, he had been greatly influenced by the reason and rationale of his day and understood that doctrine must be understandable and rational to be believable.
We are told that Zwingli, a student of Erasmus, “denied that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. The Christ who suffered and died once and for all is risen and ascended to the right hand of God; therefore that historical and risen body is not present for those gathered for the Lord’s Supper” (Daly).[14]
Zwingli wrote extensively about the memorial aspects of the sacraments. For him, the Eucharist was beautifully important, but was not about what occurred at the moment of the reception of the elements, but how it signified what had occurred in the atonement. Osterhaven records of Zwingli, “he reasoned, not only is transubstantiation wrong, but so is Luther’s notion of consubstantiation that somehow Christ is corporeally in, under, and with the elements. The doctrine of physical is absurd and repugnant to common sense” (Osterhaven, 707).[15]
Bavinck is careful to remind us,
“Zwingli’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is frequently misunderstood and presented incorrectly. One does him an injustice by supposing that he saw nothing more in the Lord’s Supper than a memorial meal, thereby assigning him a place with the Rationalists. No, Zwingli taught quite properly that Christ is the only food for our souls and is also received as such in the Lord’s Supper. But he faced entirely different conflicts than Luther. Zwingli placed in the foreground the claim that the Lord’s Supper is no repetition of Christ’s sacrifice, as Rome argues, but a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice” (Bavinck).[16]
The great question that arises is whether Christ comes literally through the elements of the Eucharist, or whether it is a spiritual event, in which the Holy Spirit has a profound effect on those who receive it. We are told by the Zwinglian school, “there must be no identification of the sign with that which it signifies, but through the use of the sign one rises above the world of sense to the spiritual reality signified. By contrast, Luther held that God comes to us precisely in physical realities discerned by sense” (Osterhaven, 707).[17]
Whereas the Catholics have taught a literal transformation of the elements in transubstantiation and Luther spoke of the presence of Christ in, with, and under, “Ristau explains that Calvin and Zwingli concurred that, “only the spiritual was mandatory in connecting with the spiritual. In a way, only the spiritual was able to connect with the spiritual” (Ristau).[18]
There is to be found with Luther an inconsistency, and herein lies my need to present the case that he was so beholden to his former views of the Eucharist as colored by the Catholic church, that it enabled him to look afresh at the sacrament. Luther was the champion of justification by faith. It was he who first resurrected the doctrines of grace, that had so long lay dormant. However, when he approaches the Lord’s table, he is blinded. Gordon E Pruett states the dilemma incredibly, when he asks the necessary question, “if faith is so inclusively significant to the Reformer’s doctrines of Eucharist and soteriology, does the Eucharist possess any unique promise in man’s relationship with God, that is, promise that might not be wholly incorporated in faith itself” (Pruett)?[19]
This rises to a level far more concerning than the nature of the sacrament. There is, at this point, a crisis in the doctrine of justification. For the Catholic, there is no such conflict. The Catholic understands and accepts the role that they play in their own salvation and that works are an integral part of their religion. However, for the Reformed theologian, there is a problem. Luther would herald from the pulpit, week in and week, out the doctrine of justification by faith because he saw it as so vastly important that not a week should pass that believers did not need to be reminded. Luther, who had one of the most famous crisis’ of faith in all of Christian history preached that no other agent but faith played a role in justification. However, he could not break from his Catholic history sufficiently, in order to apply this central tenet to the Eucharist. As Ristau pointed out above, if there is any soteriological efficacy to the believer that is held in the Eucharist, then justification is not by faith alone.
As evidence by the bulk of this paper, I believe Luther’s doctrine of consubstantiation comes far too close to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation to be considered a tenable premise for protestant believers. On the contrary, Zwingli has been criticized too harshly for attempting to make the Eucharist an emblematic, or memorial, act. The bridge between the two is effectively bridged by John Calvin who understands that there is no salvific benefit in the Eucharist. He also understood that the elements were in no way transformed upon consecration. However, he recognized the spiritual nature of the sacrament. Calvin’s “real presence” doctrine satisfies me, spiritually, intellectually, and Scripturally.
I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit is involved in the receiving of the elements of the Eucharist. It is, as Scripture commands, one of the most effective moments for reflection and the inventory of one’s spiritual condition. It seems that Calvin approached this subject with more balance and humility, than either of his contemporaries.
It is quite disturbing that this subject, which was so hotly debated by the theologians of the past is relegated to a very occasional event. Jesus himself commanded its observance. The Apostle Paul laid out further instructions and warnings. The early church took part in the wafer and the wine on a weekly basis. In fact, rumors swirled that they were cannibalistic because of their dedication to the Lord’s Table, relating to a misunderstanding of the language employed, concerning the body and blood.
However, when I began to pastor and instituted weekly communion, rather than quarterly, it was thought of as radical. It ought not be so. Not only is there an effect on the believer when communion is given, but there is also a preaching of the Gospel to those who are not partakers of the body and blood of Jesus.
Each week when we gather and lift the wafer and the glass, for those who have signified that they are believers and wish to partake, we are telling the Gospel story. We are telling that Jesus shed his blood and that his body was broken as an atonement for sin’s curse. We are acknowledging our need to be participants in the very real event of the crucifixion of Christ.
The body was broken once. The blood was shed only once. It is untenable to accept the doctrines of transubstantiation or consubstantiation. In fact, they seem more like superstition that Scriptural doctrine. Apart from the Roman dogma on the matter, it would be hard to derive either doctrine straight from Scritpure. Oddly, it would be easier for me to see the Catholic view than Luther’s. While I accept the Upper Room language of Jesus to be symbolic, it is not a stretch to find the literal presence in the Eucharist. However, the concept of consubstantiation is a vast reach over an expanse not supported by even any chapter and verse that we can take out of context.
To recap, Zwingli reduces the wafer and the wine to a reasonable, intellectual experience, that memorializes the passion of Christ, and little more. Calvin speaks of the memorial value of the Eucharist, but also recognizes the Holy Spirit’s work in the life of believers as they receive and remember. Martin Luther simply could not move far enough away from the dogmas of his youth to deny the mystical value that he taught that Christ was in, with, and under the elements. This was simply a compromise, for which there is no merit of Scripture, and which reason would question its plausibility.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Lutheranism and Transubstantiation.” Peter J. Riga. Catholic Culture. Accessed 14 February 2017. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3013
“Martin Luther on the Real Presence.” Bread From Heaven. 13 May 2011. Accessed 14 February 2017. https://bfhu.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/martin-luther-on-the-real-presence/
Bavinck, Herman “Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 19 (2008): 127-142. 14 February 2017 http://0-eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=14&sid=130b9470-c19e-42dc-b7da-d087e6cc9eef%40sessionmgr102&hid=114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=ATLA0001692432&db=rfh
Bettenson, Henry. Documents of the Christian Church. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963
Bovell, Carlos R. “Eucharist then, Scripture now: How Evangelicals can Learn from an Old Controversy,” Evangelical Review of Theology 30, no. 4 (October 2006): 322-338. 14 February 2017 http://0-eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=9&sid=130b9470-c19e-42dc-b7da-d087e6cc9eef%40sessionmgr102&hid=114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=22188218&db=a9h
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
Capps, Donald. “Erik H Erikson’s Psychoanalytic Portrait of Martin Luther,” Pastoral Psychology 64 no. 3, (June 2015): 345-368. 14 February 2017 http://0-eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=10&sid=130b9470-c19e-42dc-b7da-d087e6cc9eef%40sessionmgr102&hid=114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=101854247&db=a9h
Daly, Robert J., et al. “The Ecumenical Significance of Eucharistic Conversion” Theological Studies 77, 1 (March 2016); 8-31
Davis, Thomas J. “The Truth of the Divine Words: Luther’s Sermons on the Eucharist, 1521-28, and the structure of Eucharistic Meaning,” Sixteenth Century Journal 30, no. 2 (July 1999): 323-342. 14 February 2017 http://0eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=7&sid=130b9470-c19e-42dc-b7dad087e6cc9eef%40sessionmgr102&hid=114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=edsjsr.10.2307.2544707&db=edsjsr
Kimel, Alvin F. Jr. “Eating Christ: recovering the language of real identification,” Pro Ecclesia 13, no. 1 (Winter 2004): 82-100. 14 February 2017 http://0-eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=16&sid=130b9470-c19e-42dc-b7da-d087e6cc9eef%40sessionmgr102&hid=114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=ATLA0001580200&db=rfh
Leithart, Peter J “What’s wrong with Transubstantiation: An evaluation of theological models” The Westminster Theological Journal 53, 2 (Fall 1991); 295-324
MacArthur, John. “The Gospel of Luke.” In the MacArthur Study Bible: New American Standard Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006
MacKenzie, Ross “Reformed and Catholic understandings of the Eucharist” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 13, 2 (Spring 1976); 260-266
Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology. 3rd Edition. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing, 2014
Mueller, John T. “The Issue in the Lutheran rejection of consubstantiation” Concordia Theological Monthly 21, 8 (August 1950); 602-605
Osterhaven, M.E. “Lord’s Supper, views of.” Pages 705-808 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. 1 vol. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984
Pruett, Gordon E “Protestant doctrine of the Eucharistic presence” Calvin Theological Journal, 10, 2 (Nov. 1975) 142-174
Ristau, Harold. “Ubiquity and epiphany: Luther’s doctrine of the Lord’s presence in space and time,” Logia 22, no. 4 (2013). 14 February 2017 http://0-eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=13&sid=130b9470-c19e-42dc-b7da-d087e6cc9eef%40sessionmgr102&hid=114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=ATLA0001984200&db=rfh
Simon, Wolfgang. “Worship and the Eucharist in Luther Studies,” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 47, no. 2 (Summer 2008): 143-156. 14 February 2017 http://0eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=130b9470c19e42dcb7dad087e6cc9eef%40sessionmgr102&hid=114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=32150488&db=a9h
Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today. Mason, OH: Cengage, 2008
Walforf, N. J. “Luther and Consubstantiation.” Ministry Magazine, November 1936 Accessed 14 February 2017. https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1936/11/luther-and-consubstantiation
\
[1] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today (Mason, OH:Cengage), 703.
[2] Peter J. Riga, “Lutheranism and Transubstantiation,” Catholic Culture
[3] Alvin F. Kimel, Jr. “Eating Christ: recovering the language of real identification,” Pro Ecclesia 13, no. 1 (Winter 2004): 82-100 http://0-eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=16&sid=130b9470-c19e-42dc-b7da-d087e6cc9eef%40sessionmgr102&hid=114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=ATLA0001580200&db=rfh
[4] Donald Capps. “Erik H Erikson’s Psychoanalytic Portrait of Martin Luther,” Pastoral Psychology 64 no. 3, (June 2015): 345-368. http://0-eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=10&sid=130b9470-c19e-42dc-b7da-d087e6cc9eef%40sessionmgr102&hid=114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=101854247&db=a9h
[5] Carlos R. Bovell, “Eucharist then, Scripture now: How Evangelicals can Learn from an Old Controversy,” Evangelical Review of Theology 30, no. 4 (October 2006): 322-338. 14 February 2017 http://0-eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=9&sid=130b9470-c19e-42dc-b7da-d087e6cc9eef%40sessionmgr102&hid=114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=22188218&db=a9h
[6] N. J. Walforf, “Luther and Consubstantiation.” Ministry Magazine, November 1936 Accessed https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1936/11/luther-and-consubstantiation
[7] John T. Mueller “The Issue in the Lutheran rejection of consubstantiation” Concordia Theological Monthly 21, 8 (August 1950); 602-605
[8] Henry Bettenson Documents of the Christian Church. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), 207
[9] “Martin Luther on the Real Presence.” Bread From Heaven. 13 May 2011. Accessed 14 February 2017. https://bfhu.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/martin-luther-on-the-real-presence/
[10] Thomas J. Davis, “The Truth of the Divine Words: Luther’s Sermons on the Eucharist, 1521-28, and the structure of Eucharistic Meaning,” Sixteenth Century Journal 30, no. 2 (July 1999): 323-342. 14 February 2017 http://0eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=7&sid=130b9470-c19e-42dc-b7dad087e6cc9eef%40sessionmgr102&hid=114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=edsjsr.10.2307.2544707&db=edsjsr
[11] Robert J Daly, et al. “The Ecumenical Significance of Eucharistic Conversion” Theological Studies 77, 1 (March 2016); 8-31
[12] John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
[13] Daniel L. Migliore. Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology. 3rd Edition. (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing, 2014), 303
[14] Daly
[15] M.E. Osterhaven. “Lord’s Supper, views of.” Pages 705-808 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. 1 vol. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 707
[16] Herman Bavinck “Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 19 (2008): 127-142. http://0-eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=14&sid=130b9470-c19e-42dc-b7da-d087e6cc9eef%40sessionmgr102&hid=114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=ATLA0001692432&db=rfh
[17] Osterhaven, 707
[18] Harold Ristau “Ubiquity and epiphany: Luther’s doctrine of the Lord’s presence in space and time,” Logia 22, no. 4 (2013). http://0-eds.b.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=13&sid=130b9470-c19e-42dc-b7da-d087e6cc9eef%40sessionmgr102&hid=114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=ATLA0001984200&db=rfh
[19] Gordon E. Pruett “Protestant doctrine of the Eucharistic presence” Calvin Theological Journal, 10, 2 (Nov. 1975) 142-174
Adam Knight Ministries 