Section 32 of Calvin’s Treatise on the Lord’s Supper says:
32. EXCUSE, THAT HAVING ALREADY RECEIVED CHRIST, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO RETURN OFTEN TO RECEIVE HIM.
The third class have no semblance of plausibility. The spiritual bread is not given us to eat our fill of it all at once, but rather, that having had some taste of its sweetness, we may long for it the more, and use it when it is offered to us. This we explained above. So long as we remain in this mortal life, Jesus Christ is never communicated in such a way as to satiate our souls, but wills to be our constant nourishment.
Calvin had been building to this argument for a while. He warned us back in 30. that it was coming. But essentially his argument is that those who say, “I got Jesus when I became a Christian – I don’t need the Supper” miss the point. Elsewhere he argues that in a strange way (and definately not in the way Luther meant) the Supper communicates something of Jesus to us.
Trouble is, from my default Zwinglian position – this was exactly what I believe(d). Taking the supper out of it, he’s right of course. I can never get enough of Jesus to satiate my soul. If it follows then that eating and drinking in the Lord’s supper s a means of continuing to hook in then I’m all for it. But the assumed premise is still where my question mark sits.
So for now, after some thinking, I remain unsure on the issue of the Lord’s supper. I know I’m not Popish (Transubstantiation), or Lutheran (Consubstantiation), but I can’t decide between Calvin and Zwingli.