Is this true of the Reformed Position?

[prism]

I am aware of the Lutheran position but was wondering if this is a fair representation of the Reformed.

1. Re / the ‘Ordo Salutis’. The Lutheran position sees the ‘order of salvation’ as calling, illumination, conversion, regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification. The Reformed position sees it as election, predestination, union with Christ, calling, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, sanctification and glorification.
2. Re / the Grace of God. The Lutheran position is that grace is received through baptism or preaching, enabling one to avoid resisting the regenerating grace of God. The Reformed position is irresistible grace as in the fourth point of TULIP.
3. Re / Repentance. The Lutheran position is that it leads to faith; and the Reformed is that it flows from faith.
4. Re / Baptism. Lutherans believe that it works regeneration, removing guilt and power of sin. For the Reformed, Baptism incorporates one into the covenant of grace.
5. Re / Lord’s Supper (Holy Communion). Lutherans believe that Christ is present in the sacrament objectively. The Reformed understand the Lord’s Supper as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace to believers. Christ is present by faith.
6. Re / Church and state. Lutherans believe that the state church is to tutor in the faith the rulers who support Protestantism. The Reformed believe in a Holy Commonwealth in which church and state, both Christian, yet perform their separate functions.
7. Re / the Regulative Principle. Lutherans believe that whatever is forbidden in Scripture is (not) permissible. The Reformed believe whatever is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden.

Also, what is the Reformed position on imputed righteousness?

 

[Carbon]

I am aware of the Lutheran position but was wondering if this is a fair representation of the Reformed.

1. Re / the ‘Ordo Salutis’. The Lutheran position sees the ‘order of salvation’ as calling, illumination, conversion, regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification. The Reformed position sees it as election, predestination, union with Christ, calling, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, sanctification and glorification.
2. Re / the Grace of God. The Lutheran position is that grace is received through baptism or preaching, enabling one to avoid resisting the regenerating grace of God. The Reformed position is irresistible grace as in the fourth point of TULIP.
3. Re / Repentance. The Lutheran position is that it leads to faith; and the Reformed is that it flows from faith.
4. Re / Baptism. Lutherans believe that it works regeneration, removing guilt and power of sin. For the Reformed, Baptism incorporates one into the covenant of grace.
5. Re / Lord’s Supper (Holy Communion). Lutherans believe that Christ is present in the sacrament objectively. The Reformed understand the Lord’s Supper as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace to believers. Christ is present by faith.
6. Re / Church and state. Lutherans believe that the state church is to tutor in the faith the rulers who support Protestantism. The Reformed believe in a Holy Commonwealth in which church and state, both Christian, yet perform their separate functions.
7. Re / the Regulative Principle. Lutherans believe that whatever is forbidden in Scripture is (not) permissible. The Reformed believe whatever is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden.

Also, what is the Reformed position on imputed righteousness?

In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election/predestination (in Christ), 2) Atonement 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30).


From https://www.monergism.com/topics/ordo-salutis

 

[prism]

In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election/predestination (in Christ), 2) Atonement 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30).


From https://www.monergism.com/topics/ordo-salutis

Otherwise everything else is copacetic?
Imputed righteousness?

 

[makesends]

In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election/predestination (in Christ), 2) Atonement 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30).


From https://www.monergism.com/topics/ordo-salutis

I think it should be mentioned that these are causal in order. Not necessarily a time-sequence. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 can be sudden enough to be considered simultaneous. Also worth mentioning is that God alone knows just when what happened among those. Our experience of them (that is, when we noticed them) is not a reliable testimony to the sequence. Some people are surprised to find that they are already believing and repentant, when they do not remember deciding to be so or do so.

 

[CrowCross]

I think it should be mentioned that these are causal in order. Not necessarily a time-sequence. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 can be sudden enough to be considered simultaneous. Also worth mentioning is that God alone knows just when what happened among those. Our experience of them (that is, when we noticed them) is not a reliable testimony to the sequence. Some people are surprised to find that they are already believing and repentant, when they do not remember deciding to be so or do so.

I've been going with the "considered simultaneous" concept for a while now. I also agree with the rest of your statement. I know a person who once said something like...I've been a believer and didn't really now it.

 

[fastfredy0]

Also, what is the Reformed position on imputed righteousness?

If Christ had only earned forgiveness of sins for us, then we would not merit heaven. Our guilt would have been removed, but we would simply be in the position of Adam and Eve before they had done anything good or bad and before they had passed a time of probation successfully. To be established in righteousness forever and to have their fellowship with God made sure forever, Adam and Eve had to obey God perfectly over a period of time. Then God would have looked on their faithful obedience with pleasure and delight, and they would have live with Him in fellowship forever.

For this reason, Christ had to live a life of perfect obedience to God in order to earn righteousness for us. He had to obey the law for his whole life on our behalf so that the positive merits of his perfect obedience would be counted for us. Sometimes this is called Christ’s “Active Obedience,” while His suffering and dying for our sins is called His “passive obedience.” Paul said that Christ has been made “our righteousness” (1 Corinthians 1:30 But it is from Him that you have your life in Christ Jesus, Whom God made our Wisdom from God, [revealed to us a knowledge of the divine plan of salvation previously hidden, manifesting itself as] our Righteousness [thus making us upright and putting us in right standing with God], and our Consecration [making us pure and holy], and our Redemption [providing our ransom from eternal penalty for sin]). And Paul explicitly says, Romans 5:19 For just as by one man’s disobedience (failing to hear, heedlessness, and carelessness) the many were constituted sinners, so by one Man’s obedience the many will be constituted righteous (made acceptable to God, brought into right standing with Him). Author Unknown

1. Isaiah 53:11 “By the knowledge of Himself shall my righteous Servant [Christ] make many righteous”;
2. Jeremiah 23:6 “This is His name whereby He shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness”
3. Jeremiah 33:16 In those days Judah will be saved and [the people of] Jerusalem will live in safety; and this is the name by which she will be called: the Lord Our Righteousness (Justice).’
4. Isaiah 53:11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
5. John 14:20 Ye in me [by the baptism of the Spirit], and I in you [by the Spirit’s regeneration] The righteousness imputed to the believer on the sole condition that he has believed on Christ as his Savior.
6. Romans 1:17 For in it the righteousness of [from] God is revealed from faith [rather than works] for [those who have] faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unGodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
7. 
   
8. Romans 3:10 None is righteous, no, not one; [thus man must have righteousness imputed]
9. Romans 3:22 the righteousness of [from] God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction … 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith [faith also being a gift (John 1:12-13; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 1:29)]. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
10. Romans 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
11. Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work [that is, the one who does not try to earn his salvation by doing good], but believes and completely trusts in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited to him as righteousness (right standing with God). 6 And in this same way David speaks of the blessing on the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works
12. Romans 4:22 Therefore his faith was credited to him as righteousness (right standing with God). 23 Now not for his sake alone was it written that it was credited to him, 24 but for our sake also—to whom righteousness will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead— 25 who was betrayed and crucified because of our sins, and was raised [from the dead] because of our justification [our acquittal—absolving us of all sin before God].
13. Romans 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
14. Romans 5:17 For if by the trespass of the one (Adam), death reigned through the one (Adam), much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in [eternal] life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 So then as through one trespass [Adam’s sin] there resulted condemnation for all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For just as through one man’s disobedience [his failure to hear, his carelessness] the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of the one Man the many will be made righteous and acceptable to God and brought into right standing with Him.
15. Romans 10:3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of [from] God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
16. 1 Corinthians 1:30 But it is from Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God [revealing His plan of salvation], and righteousness [making us acceptable to God], and sanctification [making us holy and setting us apart for God], and redemption [providing our ransom from the penalty for sin], [believers are in Christ and Christ qualities are therefore imputed to us]
17. 1 Corinthians 12;12 For just as the body is one and yet has many parts, and all the parts, though many, form [only] one body, so it is with Christ. The Church is actually designated 'the Christ,' while in Galatians 3:16 and Colossians 1:24 the Head and His Church forming one body are conjointly referred to as 'Christ'; hence when Saul of Tarsus was assaulting the Church, its Head protested, 'Why persecute you Me?' (Acts 9:4).
18. 1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
19. 2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. [that is, we would be made acceptable to Him and placed in a right relationship with Him by His gracious lovingkindness].
20. Galatians 3:6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
21. Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
22. Ephesians 4:24 And put on the new nature (the regenerate self) created in God’s image, [Godlike] in true righteousness and holiness.
23. Philippians 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—
24. Colossians 1:12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you [by making you righteous through faith] to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.
25. Hebrews 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. [Thus the imputation of righteousness has legal standing]

 

[Josheb]

I am aware of the Lutheran position but was wondering if this is a fair representation of the Reformed.

1. Re / the ‘Ordo Salutis’. The Lutheran position sees the ‘order of salvation’ as calling, illumination, conversion, regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification. The Reformed position sees it as election, predestination, union with Christ, calling, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, sanctification and glorification.
2. Re / the Grace of God. The Lutheran position is that grace is received through baptism or preaching, enabling one to avoid resisting the regenerating grace of God. The Reformed position is irresistible grace as in the fourth point of TULIP.
3. Re / Repentance. The Lutheran position is that it leads to faith; and the Reformed is that it flows from faith.
4. Re / Baptism. Lutherans believe that it works regeneration, removing guilt and power of sin. For the Reformed, Baptism incorporates one into the covenant of grace.
5. Re / Lord’s Supper (Holy Communion). Lutherans believe that Christ is present in the sacrament objectively. The Reformed understand the Lord’s Supper as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace to believers. Christ is present by faith.
6. Re / Church and state. Lutherans believe that the state church is to tutor in the faith the rulers who support Protestantism. The Reformed believe in a Holy Commonwealth in which church and state, both Christian, yet perform their separate functions.
7. Re / the Regulative Principle. Lutherans believe that whatever is forbidden in Scripture is (not) permissible. The Reformed believe whatever is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden.

Also, what is the Reformed position on imputed righteousness?

Couple of observations.....

• Luther was Reformed. He just wasn't Calvinist. In fact, Luther's the guy who started the Reformation and Calvin was more Lutheran than Luther was Calvinist.
• The op's ordo salutis is missing resurrection. Salvation is not completed on this side of the grave.
• The classic, or authoritative, form of the ordo salutis, such as that posted in monergismdotcom and Post 2, is simply one way of looking at the ordo salutis from the Reformed pov. Christians subscribing to the teachings of the Protestant Reformation can hold to different lists and still be Reformed.
• I do not think the second point (about grace) is wholly correct about either position. Luther emphasized certain aspects/conditions but what he emphasized is not all he believed. Likewise, the irresistibleness of soteriological grace is not all that Calvin taught about grace, nor all that modern Reformation theology teaches.
• The third point in the op's list could probably serve an entire separate thread of its own because repentance and faith are products of God's giftedness from both the Lutheran and Calvinist/Reformed position and the terms can be defined diversely (for example, the faith of intellectual assent is much different than the salvific faith gifted by God).
• Originally, Luther and Calvin both thought Baptism salvific. That has changed (imo, for the better) over the centuries. I also wonder about the premise of baptism being regenerative because the Lutheran Church (at least the Missouri Synod) does not teach baptism is necessary.
• Presbyterians (Reformed) do not deny the presence of Christ in Communion. That the Lord's Supper is a sign and Christ is present in Communion are not mutually exclusive conditions. Furthermore, it is the receipt of that communion in Communion that is by faith, not the presence of Christ. Humans do not decide where and when Christ is present. He's present everywhere always. The Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper is simply a ritual (form) facilitating that reality. What the Reformed deny is that the bread is literally human flesh and literally Jesus' flesh and the wine is literally blood and literally Jesus's blood. Luther stated it is not the doctrine of transubstantiation, which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist. I've been learned, practiced, and taught the same in Reformed and Presbyterian congregations for 20-25 years.
• As a Reformed theonomist, I'm probably going to part ways with point 6 in many ways. If the precedent of scripture is to be followed then there are divisions between the Church and the State but both are governed by the principles ensconced in God's word as a whole, that is germane to what is permitted/forbidden, and we don't live in a world where the Church/State conditions of Luther and Calvin persist today. Theology has adapted (in some ways good and other ways bad).
• I do not think the last item in the op's list is correct, and if so, then there is a better, much more scripturally-informed alternative that permits what scripture permits and forbids what scripture forbids and allows for areas in between (such as what we might call matters of conscience or liberty).

.

Also, what is the Reformed position on imputed righteousness?

Calvin said, "imputation is made possible only by our union with the Christ and because we become at that same moment members of his body." In other words, we do not possess either imputation or righteousness in and of ourselves. That may seem an odd way of considering the matter, but I think it important because the tendency is to focus on the righteousness, with all knowing we're not righteous in and of ourselves so we must begiven righteousness undeserved or treated as righteous undeserved and lacking in inherent substance. It's important to recognize the gift is also gifted. In the depraved state we're takers, not givers or receivers. And, for now, that takes us back to the ordo salutis because salvation is not complete on this side of the grave. It is only once raised incorruptible and immortal that righteousness in Christ fully realized.

 

[Josheb]

Author Unknown

lol! Then how do you know he was reformed?

 

[prism]

I know a person who once said something like...I've been a believer and didn't really now it.

What did they believe in during their time of 'not knowing'?

 

[prism]

Presbyterians (Reformed) do not deny the presence of Christ in Communion. That the Lord's Supper is a sign and Christ is present in Communion are not mutually exclusive conditions. Furthermore, it is the receipt of that communion in Communion that is by faith, not the presence of Christ. Humans do not decide where and when Christ is present. He's present everywhere always. The Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Supper is simply a ritual (form) facilitating that reality. What the Reformed deny is that the bread is literally human flesh and literally Jesus' flesh and the wine is literally blood and literally Jesus's blood. Luther stated it is not the doctrine of transubstantiation, which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist. I've been learned, practiced, and taught the same in Reformed and Presbyterian congregations for 20-25 years.

I was always under the impression that for the Calvinist, the Presence is dependent on the faith of the partaker, whereas with Lutherans, it was dependent on the words of Institution, "This is my Body. This is my Blood" etc.

 

[Josheb]

I was always under the impression that for the Calvinist, the Presence is dependent on the faith of the partaker, whereas with Lutherans, it was dependent on the words of Institution, "This is my Body. This is my Blood" etc.

The short reply is to reiterate the previous post's point: If Jesus is omnipresent, and I believe he is, then question of presence is a given and, therefore, not a matter up for debate by anyone (Augustinian, Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminian, Wesleyan, Darbyite, Parhamian, etc., etc. or not). Theology cannot be illogical.



The longer reply is I might be an outlier, but I do not believe that to be the case. It's helpful to remember Calvinism is not monolithic. Amidst the diversity there is a core orthodoxy so I cannot speak for all Calvinists and I'm certainly not going to preface every sentence I post in the Arm v Cal board with "As I see it..." or "As a Calvinist speaking for myself..." I can only speak for myself based on what I have read, been taught, considered, and experience and no one can do any different. It's why we all don't use "imo" or "imho" in every single sentence. Maybe it's because I cut my liturgical teeth in the Episcopal Church . Maybe it's the influence of my academic studies (anthropology, sociology, psychology, religion, philosophy, etc.). I've never thought Jesus wasn't present in any of the Christian rituals and neither have I ever considered it merely an exercise in humanist psychology. That's Erasmus, not Luther or Calvin. You may have seen me argue the point in the RC boards. Jesus is holding the bread in his hand - the hand of his body, his body's hand stating, "This is my body." He either has two bodies, or he's somehow speaking figuratively (he did that often ). Running in parallel to that statement and the ritual he transformed (the Lord's Supper was Passover), is the fact of his divinity. Jesus is omnipresent. To deny his presence is scripturally untenable, imo . He can't be everywhere always and not be present in communion Communion at the ritual done in remembrance of him. That's just absurd as him having two bodies (why would an omnipresent being need two bodies?). As far as the "institutions" go , chapter 26 of the WCF covers the Reformed pov on communion with Christ fairly well, and chapter 29 covers the Lord's Supper. I, personally, might take issue with the use of the word "mystical," but I understand and accept what was intended. Personally, while I read and have a certain affinity for the mystics in our history, I don't find my walk with Jesus as "mystical" as the some of the mystics would have us believe. Just because I cannot see the uy does not mean he isn't here .

So perhaps my being Reformed has little to do with the views expressed here. I always try to couch my beliefs in scripture as plainly and exegetically read as possible. I don't read scripture as written because I'm Calvinist; I'm Calvinist because I read scripture as written. Since I know most of us used to be Arms and came to Calvinism kicking and screaming, I'm guessing at least some of the above is true of us all. As I said, I've actively been attending ARC and theologically conservative Presbyterian congregations for more than two decades and my posts are informed by that experience. Ultimately, I do not believe God is a respecter of denominations and we're all going to find ourselves disappointed, especially on some of these topics, when we meet Jesus face to face. I understand the necessity and value of institutions, organizational structure, and ritual, but I'm wary or it all.

 

[CrowCross]

What did they believe in during their time of 'not knowing'?

I don't know.

I know the person has been "churched" for the previous year or so...and sometime in that span understood and believed.

Are you doubting their salvation?

 

[prism]

The short reply is to reiterate the previous post's point: If Jesus is omnipresent, and I believe he is, then question of presence is a given and, therefore, not a matter up for debate by anyone (Augustinian, Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminian, Wesleyan, Darbyite, Parhamian, etc., etc. or not). Theology cannot be illogical.

I believe His physical presence was the issue.

 

[prism]

I don't know.

I know the person has been "churched" for the previous year or so...and sometime in that span understood and believed.

Are you doubting their salvation?

I was just saying people can believe in many things, who knows?

 

[Josheb]

I believe His physical presence was the issue.

Yep. Historically that has context that most of us here in modernity don't consider salient because the matter was addressed centuries ago. Luther and Calvin were Catholic. Catholics believe in transubstantiation. That was a huge problem in the Reformation, but it's not today. Nowadays that topic is relegated to ardent RCs and Prots in internet discussion boards . Logically, the matter is addressed as I posted: If Jesus is omnipresent then he's present everywhere. That is what omnipresent means. Whether we believe it, whether we perceive it, whether we act in accordance with that fact (logical necessity) may well be another matter.

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Or you could take a picture when you see Jesus at your next Eucharist. That will instantly address the matter decisively.

 

[prism]

Or you could take a picture when you see Jesus at your next Eucharist. That will instantly address the matter decisively.

Once again, Luther took his stand on the words, "This is my Body", not an image or a nebulous 'omnipresent' Spirit.

 

[Josheb]

Once again, Luther took his stand on the words, "This is my Body", not an image or a nebulous 'omnipresent' Spirit.

Luther also repudiated transubstantiation. How do you reconcile those two facts?

Not only did Luther say,

He also wrote,

"So in the present case, since the Evangelists write clearly that Christ took bread and blessed it, and since the book of Acts and the Apostle Paul also call it bread, real bread and real wine must be understood, just as the cup was real. For even these men do not say that the cup is transubstantiated. Since then it is not necessary to lay it down that a transubstantiation is effected by the operation of divine power, it must be held as a figment of human opinion; for it rests on no support of Scripture or of reason. It is forcing on us a novel and absurd usage of words, to take bread as meaning the form or accidents of bread, and wine as the form or accidents of wine. Why do they not take all other things as forms or accidents? Even if everything else were consistent with this idea, it would not be lawful thus to enfeeble the word of God, and to deprive it so unjustly of its proper meaning.​

​

The Church, however, kept the right faith for more than twelve centuries, nor did the holy Fathers ever or anywhere make mention of this transubstantiation (a portentous word and dream indeed), until the counterfeit Aristotelian philosophy began to make its inroads on the Church within these last three hundred years, during which many other erroneous conclusions have also been arrived at, such as:—that the Divine essence is neither generated nor generates; that the soul is the substantial form of the human body; and other like assertions, which are made absolutely without reason or cause, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself confesses."​

Yes?

And similarly,

"Thus in the words, “This is my body,” they say that we cannot take the subject to signify the bread, but the body of Christ............. If, however, by a high effort of understanding, you make abstraction of the accident, and refuse to regard it as signified by the subject in saying: “This is my body,” why can you not as easily rise above the substance of the bread, and refuse to let it be understood as signified by the subject; so that “this is my body” may be true in the substance no less than in the accident? Especially so since this is a divine work of almighty power, which can operate to the same extent and in the same way in the substance, as it can in the accident."​

 

[Josheb]

Ooops! Got timed out. Luther said, "It is not the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist."

 

[prism]

Luther also repudiated transubstantiation. How do you reconcile those two facts?

Not only did Luther say,

He also wrote,

"So in the present case, since the Evangelists write clearly that Christ took bread and blessed it, and since the book of Acts and the Apostle Paul also call it bread, real bread and real wine must be understood, just as the cup was real. For even these men do not say that the cup is transubstantiated. Since then it is not necessary to lay it down that a transubstantiation is effected by the operation of divine power, it must be held as a figment of human opinion; for it rests on no support of Scripture or of reason. It is forcing on us a novel and absurd usage of words, to take bread as meaning the form or accidents of bread, and wine as the form or accidents of wine. Why do they not take all other things as forms or accidents? Even if everything else were consistent with this idea, it would not be lawful thus to enfeeble the word of God, and to deprive it so unjustly of its proper meaning.​

​

The Church, however, kept the right faith for more than twelve centuries, nor did the holy Fathers ever or anywhere make mention of this transubstantiation (a portentous word and dream indeed), until the counterfeit Aristotelian philosophy began to make its inroads on the Church within these last three hundred years, during which many other erroneous conclusions have also been arrived at, such as:—that the Divine essence is neither generated nor generates; that the soul is the substantial form of the human body; and other like assertions, which are made absolutely without reason or cause, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself confesses."​

Yes?

And similarly,

"Thus in the words, “This is my body,” they say that we cannot take the subject to signify the bread, but the body of Christ............. If, however, by a high effort of understanding, you make abstraction of the accident, and refuse to regard it as signified by the subject in saying: “This is my body,” why can you not as easily rise above the substance of the bread, and refuse to let it be understood as signified by the subject; so that “this is my body” may be true in the substance no less than in the accident? Especially so since this is a divine work of almighty power, which can operate to the same extent and in the same way in the substance, as it can in the accident."​

Which Luther? The 1518 Luther or the 1543?

 

[Josheb]

Which Luther? The 1518 Luther or the 1543?

The Luther who wrote those quotes.