As you see here:
“Bill Clinton’s Eucharistic Theology” is my catty description of Zwinglian theology, which posits that the Holy Communion is a mere symbol. As I noted in my piece entitled Bill Clinton’s Eucharistic Theology: It Depends Upon What Is Is:
Until the Reformation Christianity uniformly confessed that, when Our Lord said “is” he meant “is”, up to and including the concept of transubstantiation, which Aquinas details in the Summa.
With the breakage of the Reformers we start seeing a variety of explanations of how this “is”, something that Bossuet has more fun than a human being ought to have in his History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches. But the biggest variation, one that started with Huldreich Zwingli, basically stated that “is isn’t”; that it’s just bread from start to finish and that the Lord’s Supper is purely symbolic. That “theology” made its way into many Evangelical churches, including the Southern Baptist Convention.
Welcome, Francis Chan.
Positive Infinity 