The question as to the nature of the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper is one that has long been debated, and one on which there is still considerable difference of opinion. There are four views that come into consideration here.

1. The View of Rome.

The Church of Rome conceives of the presence of Christ in the sacrament in a physical sense. It maintains that, when the priest utters the formula, "this is my body," bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ. This view is based primarily on a literal interpretation of the words of the institution, "this is my body." In answer to the objection that even after the pronunciation of the formula the elements still taste like bread and wine, Rome avers that, while the substance of bread and wine are changed, their attributes remain. This view is open to several objections: (a) Jesus stood before the disciples in the body and therefore could not very well say that He had His body in His hand. (b) Scripture speaks of the bread as bread even after the supposed change has taken place, I Cor. 10:17; 11:26-28. (c) A change of the substance of a thing without a corresponding change of attributes is an impossibility. (d) It is contrary to common sense to believe that what looks and smells and tastes like bread and wine is indeed flesh and blood.

2. The Lutheran View.

Luther rejected the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and substituted for it the doctrine of consubstantiation. This avers that, while bread and wine remain what they are, the whole person of Christ, body and blood, is present in, under, and along with the elements. When Christ had the bread in His hand, He held His body along with it, and therefore could say, "this is my body." On this view everyone who receives the bread also receives the body, whether he be a believer or not. This is no great improvement on the Roman Catholic doctrine. It really makes the words of Jesus mean, this accompanies my body, which is a very unnatural interpretation. Moreover, it is burdened with the impossible notion of the ubiquity of the Lord's glorified human nature, for it represents Christ as locally present wherever the Lord's Supper is administered.

3. The Zwinglian View.

Zwingli denied the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, but at the same time believed that the true communicant conceived of Him as present in a spiritual manner. He stressed the significance of the Lord's Supper as a memorial of what Christ did for sinners and as an act of profession on the part of the participant. It is hardly correct, however, to say that this is all it meant for the Swiss reformer. Some of his statements point to a deeper significance of the sacrament and regard it as a seal or pledge of what God does for the believer in Christ. Yet he does not do justice to this idea. The impression remains that for him the Lord's Supper is mainly a mere sign or symbol, a memorial of the death of Christ, and an act of profession on the part of the believer. There is an evident tendency to exclude the mystical element from the sacrament altogether.

4. The Reformed View.

Calvin took exception to Zwingli's view as well as to the Roman Catholic and Lutheran views. His conception represents a mean between the two. Instead of the physical and local he taught the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. In distinction from Zwingli he stressed the deeper significance of the sacrament and the mystical communion which the believer enjoys in it. Moreover, he saw in it a seal and pledge of what God did for the believing participant rather than a pledge of the believer's consecration to God. The virtues and effects of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross are present and actually conveyed to the worthy received by the power of the Holy Spirit.

—excerpted from Louis Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine, pp. 326-328.