Note: I will continue to add to these quotes as I come upon further references to consubstantiation from Lutheran sources. I may also end up putting together a second article of quotes from major non-Lutheran sources which incorrectly ascribe consubstantiation to the Lutheran Church.
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3 (1920, 1953)
Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Ev. Luth. Church (1876, 1899)
"Other erroneous conceptions are guarded against by [Abraham] Cal[ov(ius)] (IX, 307), as follows: 'We maintain that the body and blood of Christ are present in the Supper, not . . . by substantial transmutation, as the Papists hold; nor by . . . consubstantiation, which the Calvinists calumniously charge upon us. . ." (p. 579).
(Quoting from Matthew Hafenreffer, Compendium Locorum Theologicorum (1610), 517): "The sacramental union is not . . . a consubstantiation or commixture of the substances, but in both the bread and wine the substance of the body and blood of Christ remains unmixed" (p. 587).
"The late Dr. Krauth has given the following tabular statement, which will show how the Lutheran doctrine has often been mistaken for consubstantiation. . . . Consubstantiation, impanation, as held by John of Paris and Rupert; falsely charged on the Lutheran Church" (Third Ed. (1899), p. 571).
John G. Morris, Life Reminiscences of an Old Lutheran Minister (1896)
"CONSUBSTANTIATION. We have for many years been surprised, and somewhat vexed also, because very respectable and intelligent writers continue to charge us, as a church, with holding the doctrine of consubstantiation. We have repudiated it over and over again, and have quoted the absolute denial from many of our old theologians, but it all seems to be of no service. The imputation is repeated again and again, notwithstanding our proofs to the contrary. Even such a learned and respectable writer as Dr. Schaff, who knows better, allows the false accusation to appear in some of his books. The learned Prof. —— repeats it, and the minor writers follow the lead of their superiors without any further investigation, blindly assuming that it is all right. (Morris, John G., Life Reminiscences of an Old Lutheran Minister (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1896), 263).
Leander S. Keyser, Election and Conversion (1914)
"We Lutherans ought to know by experience how trying it is to be charged with a doctrine which we have always rejected with all our vigor, namely, the error of Consubstantination (sic) in the Lord's Supper; for, in spite of our oft-repeated denials, there are men even today who allege this error to be ours." (Keyser, Leander S., Election and Conversion: A Frank Discussion of Dr. Pieper's Book on "Conversion and Election," with Suggestions for Lutheran Concord and Union on Another Basis (Burlington: German Literacy Board, 1914), 8).
George Henry Gerberding, The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church (1917)
"The very same proofs that convince us that the divine Word does not teach Transubstantiation, also convince us that it does not teach Consubstantiation. The simple fact that the earthly elements are called bread and the fruit of the vine, before, during and after consecration and distribution satisfies us that they remain plain, simple bread and wine, without physical change or admixture. Consubstantiation is not the teaching of the Word; neither is it, nor has it ever been, the teaching of the Lutheran Church. It often has been and is still called the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, but it is found in none of her confessions. It was never taught by a single recognized theologian of our Church. One and all, they have repudiated it and repudiate it still." (Gerberding, G. H., The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: General Council Publication House, 1917), 123-124).
John G. Morris, Life Reminiscences of an Old Lutheran Minister (1896)
"CONSUBSTANTIATION. We have for many years been surprised, and somewhat vexed also, because very respectable and intelligent writers continue to charge us, as a church, with holding the doctrine of consubstantiation. We have repudiated it over and over again, and have quoted the absolute denial from many of our old theologians, but it all seems to be of no service. The imputation is repeated again and again, notwithstanding our proofs to the contrary. Even such a learned and respectable writer as Dr. Schaff, who knows better, allows the false accusation to appear in some of his books. The learned Prof. —— repeats it, and the minor writers follow the lead of their superiors without any further investigation, blindly assuming that it is all right. (Morris, John G., Life Reminiscences of an Old Lutheran Minister (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1896), 263).
Leander S. Keyser, Election and Conversion (1914)
"We Lutherans ought to know by experience how trying it is to be charged with a doctrine which we have always rejected with all our vigor, namely, the error of Consubstantination (sic) in the Lord's Supper; for, in spite of our oft-repeated denials, there are men even today who allege this error to be ours." (Keyser, Leander S., Election and Conversion: A Frank Discussion of Dr. Pieper's Book on "Conversion and Election," with Suggestions for Lutheran Concord and Union on Another Basis (Burlington: German Literacy Board, 1914), 8).
George Henry Gerberding, The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church (1917)
"The very same proofs that convince us that the divine Word does not teach Transubstantiation, also convince us that it does not teach Consubstantiation. The simple fact that the earthly elements are called bread and the fruit of the vine, before, during and after consecration and distribution satisfies us that they remain plain, simple bread and wine, without physical change or admixture. Consubstantiation is not the teaching of the Word; neither is it, nor has it ever been, the teaching of the Lutheran Church. It often has been and is still called the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, but it is found in none of her confessions. It was never taught by a single recognized theologian of our Church. One and all, they have repudiated it and repudiate it still." (Gerberding, G. H., The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: General Council Publication House, 1917), 123-124).
Andrew George Voigt, Biblical Dogmatics (1917)
"In the Lord's Supper there is an earthly material, bread and wine, and a celestial material, the body and blood of Christ. The doctrine of transubstantiation identifies these; that of consubstantiation or impanation confuses and mingles them; the symbolic doctrine separates them; the Lutheran doctrine of real presence unites them. The Lutheran Church holds to a sacramental union. . . ." (Voigt, A. G., Biblical Dogmatics (Columbia: Lutheran Board of Publication, 1917), 214-215)
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3 (1920, 1953)
"The union of the materia coelestis with the materia terrena is not a natural or local, but a supernatural union (no localis inclusio, impanatio, consubstantio)" (Pieper, Francis, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 3 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953; originally published in German in 1920), 362).
The Abiding Word, Vol. 2 (1947)
The Abiding Word, Vol. 2 (1947)
"The words 'in, with, and under' are used to safeguard ourselves and our church against three false teachings that have been imputed to us, those of transubstantiation, impanation, and consubstantiation" (Zucker, F. R., "The Lord's Supper" in Laetsch, Theodore, ed., The Abiding Word, Vol. 2 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947) , 432).
Lutheran Cyclopedia (1954), Christian Cyclopedia (1975)
"The bread is not transubstantiated into Christ's body (Roman Catholic doctrine), nor is there any consubstantiation or mixture of bread and body (a teaching of which the Reformed accused the Lutherans)" (Luecker, Erwin, ed., Lutheran Cyclopedia (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1954), 428).
"The bread is not transubstantiated into Christ's body (Roman Catholic doctrine), nor is there any consubstantiation or mixture of bread and body (a teaching of which the Reformed accused the Lutherans)" (Luecker, Erwin, ed., Lutheran Cyclopedia (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1954), 428).
"Consubstantiation: View, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner."
Lutheranism 101 (2010)
"Another theory is called consubstantiation, and teaches that Jesus' body is present along with the bread. Both are there, and together they form a third substance. Many think that this is what Lutherans believe, but this is not the case. Jesus didn't say, "My body is now with this bread." He said, "This is My body." Holding strictly to the words He spoke, Lutherans believe that they receive both bread and His body, because the bread is His body. It's not two different things making a third" (Kinnaman, Scot A., ed., Lutheranism 101 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2010), 151).
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (2013)
"Martin Luther rejected transubstantiation and consubstantiation on philosophical grounds."
"Martin Luther rejected transubstantiation and consubstantiation on philosophical grounds."
The Blogosphere, Etc.
After gathering the above quotes, I found several Lutheran blogs which have already covered this topic, some of them quite extensively (go on, check the last one. It has an amazing amount of information).
After gathering the above quotes, I found several Lutheran blogs which have already covered this topic, some of them quite extensively (go on, check the last one. It has an amazing amount of information).
No comments:
Post a Comment