Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig.

Today, the Doctrine of the Church, Part 11.

For more information and resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonable faith.org.

The last two weeks that we've met, we've talked about the most radical interpretation of the Lord's

Supper, namely the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation. Today, we want to move on

from the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation to the Lutheran doctrine, which is called

consubstantiation.

Well, how is that different from transubstantiation?

In the formula of Concord 1577, which is the standard Lutheran statement of doctrine,

the formula rejects the view of transubstantiation.

It says that the bread and the wine are not transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

Nevertheless, the formula also rejects the idea that there is a mere spiritual presence of Christ

in the Lord's Supper. That's too weak of you for Lutheran theologians of the Lord's

supper. So they maintain that there has to be more than just a spiritual presence of Christ there.

He needs to be present in his human nature, but it's not a transubstantiation either.

So what is it? Well, it's something in between. It is con substantiation. What this view holds is that the body and blood of Christ are present along with the bread and the wine. So when the communicant eats the bread and drinks the wine, he is drinking the blood of Christ

and chewing and eating the flesh of Christ at the same time. They are both there together.

Now, again, you might say, well, I don't see them. I don't taste them. Why would you think

that the body and blood of Christ are really there, along with the bread and the wine? Well, this

question recurs to a view of Martin Luther that we talked about when we looked

at the doctrine of the two natures of Christ.

Euramey remember that Luther held this peculiar doctrine called the communicatio idiomatum,

...