Five Arguments Against Transubstantiation

In this post I make five arguments against transubstantiation as the mechanism for the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. These arguments are not exhaustive, but they are the five I typically bring up when discussing this topic. Specifically I am arguing that the substance of the bread and substance of the wine remain after consecration; I am not disputing the mode of Christ’s presence in the Supper.

1. From 1 Corinthians 10-11:

Paul in 1 Corinthians 10-11 uses the terms of “cup” and “bread” to refer to both the consecrated and unconsecrated elements alike, which implies that the bread and wine remain after consecration, for the natural meaning of “cup” and “bread” is to refer to substances, not merely their accidents, unless we have good reason to believe otherwise from the context of the text, but we don’t have good reason to believe otherwise from the context of the text.

2. From Proverbs 9:5:

Solomon in Proverbs 9:5 foreshadows communion: “Come, eat of My bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.” If communion were no longer bread and mingled wine, then why would God call it “His bread” and the “wine which He mingled?” The unconsecrated elements are mere food; they become “His” when they have been consecrated, so the consecrated elements must still be bread and wine as God calls them “His” here.

3. From the fathers:

Irenaeus says that in communion there two realities– one earthly and one heavenly and in another place used participatory language to describe how the elements are transformed, which would not entail that the original substance ceases to be. Furthermore, he compares this participation to how we will participate in the Divine in the resurrection, but surely, we will not cease to be human in the resurrection.

Justin, Cyprian, Augustine, Leo, Gelasius, Chrysostom and others all use language about communion to describe it like the two natures of Christ, with both a divine and earthly nature, which surely cannot be with transubstantiation, as the earthly nature no longer remains but only the accidents.

Gelasius, Theodoret, and Chrysostom also are all explicit in teaching that the substances of the bread and wine remain.

Gelasius (Concerning the two natures in Christ against Eutyches): “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature, yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease.”

Theodoret (Dialogue 2): “Even after the consecration, the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance, figure, and form.”

Chrysostom (Epistle to Caesarius): “Before the bread is consecrated, we call it bread, but when the grace of God by the Spirit has consecrated it, it is no longer called bread, but is esteemed worthy to be called the Lord’s body, although the nature of bread still remains in it.”

4. From natural perception:

Our natural experience tells us that our sense experience is reliable in determining things as they are, but scripture also tells us that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Denying that the substance of bread and wine remains results in a general denial of the reliability of our sense experience. This seems absurd and a contradiction of Job 12:7-8: ​“But now ask the beasts, and they will teach you; ​​And the birds of the air, and they will tell you; ​​Or speak to the earth, and it will teach you; ​​And the fish of the sea will explain to you” and Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”

5. From the metaphysical implications:

The fifth argument is like the fourth, but it approaches the topic from the broader implications of the doctrine in metaphysics. Transubstantiation deprives us of any certitude we may have of the material world. If transubstantiation is true, and thus, a substance and the accidents attached thereto may be discordant, how can we know that the accidents we perceive in the world around us are not merely all inhering in other substances? All things could be not as they appear to our senses but entirely otherwise, but this is also absurd and a contradiction of Job 12 and Romans 1.