McCain reply; You are correct that we Lutherans often lump all heirs of Zwingli and Calvin together, in ways that are not helpful; however, in this discussion about the Lord’s Supper, though there are differences in how such Christians articulate the Lord’s Supper, in the end, as the Consensus Tigurinus decisively proves, they all do reject the Real Presence. Zwinglian type Reformed Christians are more crass about it than Calvinist types.

I would also add that Calvinists do not have “mushy” theology, so to speak. That’s more of an Anglican feature. My experience with them is that they have very precise theology, but it leans far too heavily on reason (logic) or scholasticism, or some related notion, so that the words of Jesus do not mean what they say on their face. This is their problem with gratias universalis. The WORLD in John 3:16 does not really mean the world. God wishing that none should perish means that he does not wish that any of the ELECT would perish. This is not mushy, it is definite, and they are meticulously consistent with themselves about this. What I mean to say is that their view of the “ordo salutis” is so inflexible, they will even compromise the words of our Lord, himself. (I suppose that is tantamount to mushiness to some, but I view it as entrenched in a precise, yet flawed system that is incontrovertible in their minds. Mushy, to me, means noncommittal, driven to and fro, cannot be pinned down- not characteristics of the Calvinists I know. They are consistently wrong, but not mushy).

The Baptists are too eager to ignore precise doctrine in favor of some ideal that we all believe in Jesus so there is nothing to fight about. That is why they have such imprecise theology and worship practices. Baptists lose all sacramental language and do not even try to see a Real Presence. They deny the Words of Institution and Jesus’ words in John 6. The Calvinists misinterpret them to be sure. But I am more sympathetic to them than to a Baptist. Plus, generally speaking, Baptists are Arminian and semi-Pelagian. Calvinists are neither of those. I am not a crypto Calvinist, so do not misunderstand — paleeeze! I just do not think that Calvinists should be painted with the same brush as Baptists. There are enough substantive differences that are worth noting. I am a Lutheran for a reason. I left behind both Baptist AND Calvinist theology to become so.

I know all this is much more complex. After all, books could be written on such a subject and I’m only trying to write a little comment here.

I apologize for the somewhat off-topic but hopefully tangentially related question. I believe you noted earlier on this blog that the Lutheran Confessions have elevated Luther’s doctrine of the Sacrament to confessional status (I believe, on the basis of FC SD VII.41 and 91). In terms of his writings, does this apply to everything he ever wrote on the Sacrament, or is there some development in Luther’s doctrine, the writings before which would not be elevated to confessional status?

“…Against the Heavenly Prophets, That These Words, “This Is My Body,” Still Stand Firm; likewise in his Large and his Small Confession concerning the Holy Supper [published some years afterwards], and in other of his writings…”

And I can say for myself that reading these writings has helped clear up my understanding of what Luther taught contra the Sacramentarian positions, including some of the points Jared mentions above.

McCain response: I strongly suspect that if you were to ask the same professor what the pastor brings from the altar and holds in his hand and puts into the mouth of each communicant: he would not say, “The true body of Jesus Christ.”

Magical is an imprecise word. What does “magical” mean?@Jared Nelson

No, having attended Calvin College I can assure you that you have to be there in body as well.