Westminster Confession of...Fail.

Westminster Confession of Faith, XXIX: V

Of the Lord's Supper

The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.

There is Westminster regarding the elements in the Eucharist. Let us examine what they are saying here.

First of all, Westminster wants us to see that the elements in Holy Communion are related to Christ. So far so good. I don't think anyone would want to say other wise; especially in light of Christ Himself instituting the Supper. As stated, "The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified..."

The rest of the blurb is where Westminster goes off the rails. The next statement, "...truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ..."

So Westminster says that the elements are truly and sacramentally related to Christ, so much so that they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent. So, according to this, the bread and wine are related to Christ, so that they can be actually called the Body and Blood, because that is what they represent.

Here is problem number one. Is the Lord's Supper some sort of trick where we call the elements what Christ called them, but they really aren't them? Why would we, or should we, call the elements by the words Christ called them, if the elements only represent something? Was Christ looking to fool the Apostles at the Last Supper?

I get it. Westminster wants to retain some sort of Real Presence and actually have a Sacrament. The problem is, when you deny the Real Presence via rejection of Christ's words and set up a mere symbol instead (received spiritually by faith only WCF XXIX: VII), you have no Sacrament. If the Sacraments do not do the things that Christ said they do and are not the things that Christ said they are, then there is no Sacrament. Neither does our faith make Christ present. Christ IS present precisely where He says He will be present.

Westminster further clarifies this explanation in the final statement, "...albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before."

The key word here is only. Why is this so? Because Westminster is telling us that the bread and wine is only the bread and wine. NOT the Body and Blood of Christ.

What Westminster gives in one hand it quickly snatches away by denying the Real Presence. They want to affirm a Real Presence (all Reformed Theology does) and claim that the elements are Sacramentally related to Christ. But they are not what Christ said they are, according to them. So, the one thing that retains the Sacrament - the true bodily presence of Christ - is patently rejected by Westminster.

Ultimately, Westminster has no business using the word Sacrament in their doctrine of the Lord's Supper. In their own words, by their own statements, all they have is a bare memorial, despite their desire to keep the Lord's Supper Sacramental.

What do they have, according to them? Well, nothing more than bread and wine, and a pious remembrance of faith that looks to Christ in glory.

But not the Body and Blood of Christ truly present in the bread and wine for the forgiveness of their sins, which is exactly what Christ said it is.

Real Presence denied. Sacrament rejected.