5 Minutes On Communion (Lord's Supper) & How Protestants Cannot Agree! | Response to Dillon Baker

The question seems simple: did Protestants ever agree on the Lord’s Supper? The answer, drawn from history and confessions, is messy. The early church spoke with one voice about a true, real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, a conviction shared across geography and centuries. Then the Reformation fractured that consensus. Luther defended real presence with fire, appealing to Christ’s words as plain and binding; Calvin insisted on a true spiritual presence without a change of substance; Zwingli argued for a powerful memorial devoid of presence in the elements. These are not minor tweaks; they are different maps of reality, worship, and church. The implications ripple through how we pray, preach, and gather. Special episode for our brother @theprotestantgentleman Dillon Baker.

Luther’s stance, preserved in the Augsburg Confession, reads with startling clarity: the body and blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to those who partake. For him, the promise of Christ anchored the sacrament; God acts, we receive. This wasn’t speculative metaphysics; it was pastoral assurance built on Christ’s words. Yet even within that stance, Luther rejected philosophical explanations he considered overly rationalistic, choosing instead to guard the mystery. For many today seeking historical Protestant roots, that text offers a bold continuity with the ancient church’s devotion, placing emphasis on Christ’s promise rather than human mood or memory.

Calvin pushed in another direction. The Westminster Confession, reflecting Reformed insight, rejects any change in the substance of bread and wine. Christ is truly received, they say, but not by the mouth; He is given to faith by the Spirit. This attempt to safeguard both biblical language and philosophical coherence introduced a careful distinction: presence without material change. It aimed to avoid what they saw as superstition while retaining sacramental grace. Yet the same document criticizes views it considers contrary to Scripture and even to common sense, sharpening lines against both Roman Catholic teaching and Luther’s insistence. The Reformed vision sought transcendence through the Word, Spirit, and faith rather than in the elements themselves.

Zwingli’s memorial view drew still sharper boundaries: the Supper is a sign and remembrance, a communal pledge of loyalty and gratitude. Here, the focus shifts from divine action in the elements to the church’s act of obedience and memory. The table becomes a proclamation of the gospel rather than a locus of Christ’s bodily presence. This view resonated with those wary of idolatry and eager to stress the sufficiency of faith. Yet critics asked whether such symbolism thins the mystery and reduces sacrament to lecture, exchanging presence for reminder and gift for gesture.

Why the divergence? One claim in the conversation is that sola scriptura, untethered from a living interpretive authority, multiplies interpretations. The Reformers shared a high view of Scripture but not a shared hermeneutic about sacramental language. When “This is my body” meets different commitments about sign, substance, and promise, meanings diverge. The result is denominational lines drawn at the table itself. Confessions not only teach; they exclude. Augsburg rejects contrary teachings. Westminster calls other views repugnant. Such language reflects the stakes: worship sits at the center of identity, and the Supper is worship in its most intimate form.



Questions about Orthodoxy? Please check out our friends at Ghost of Byzantium Discord server: https://discord.gg/JDJDQw6tdh

Please prayerfully consider supporting Cloud of Witnesses: https://www.patreon.com/c/CloudofWitnesses

Find Cloud of Witnesses on Instagram, X.com, Facebook, and TikTok.

Please leave a comment with your thoughts!