Since this topic is one that often arises when in dialogue with Romanists, I have found it necessary to make a list of some refutations of the Romanist heresy of transubstantiation. The Romanists believe that the elements of the Lord’s Supper become the literal body and blood of Christ. This is patently false for a myriad of reasons. Let us look just a couple of these.
While the New Testament does not explicitly teach us everything we would want to know about the glorified body of our Lord Jesus Christ, what it does teach us helps see just how false the doctrine of transubstantiation is. For if the bread and wine turn into Christ’s flesh and blood, then how is it that Christ says of His resurrected body that it is not composed of flesh and blood but of flesh and bones? For it is written:
“Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I Myself. Touch Me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
Further, we note that because Christ is no longer corruptible it would be impossible for the bread and wine to turn into the corruptible flesh and blood that our Lord bore while He was on the cross dying in the place of His elect sheep. What we also must note, before we move on to our next refutation of the heresy of transubstantiation, is that even if the Lord’s words concerning His flesh and bones were not intended to teach us about the constitution of His resurrected body, although that is the present author’s understanding of the passage in question, it nonetheless remains a hard and fast fact that the apostle Paul declares,
“What you sow does not come back to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or some other grain. But God gives it a body as He has chosen, and to each seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another…I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable…”
Thus, the heresy of transubstantiation is shown to be false in this way, for it purports to know of what nature the resurrected body of Christ is made apart from the Scriptures. Since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, then Christ’s resurrected body must be different than these, for He inherited the kingdom of God and now sits at the right hand of the Father. And if different, then it cannot be that the bread and wine become the literal flesh and blood of Christ Jesus our Savior.
The Lord tells His people that He does not change; therefore, the command to literally eat literal flesh and literally drink literal blood cannot be a command from God. For the Lord expressly forbids the eating of meat with blood still in it, as well as the drinking of blood; both of these practices were pagan abominations which the Lord strictly commanded Israel to not engage in. Therefore, it is impossible for God to be commanding the New Testament church to do what He identified as an abominable practice. To even suggest that God would do such a thing is to accuse God of sin. Either God does not change and He will always reject the consumption of human flesh and blood as a means of worship; or God does change and is self-contradictory. The Romanist does not want to choose either of these options, but there is no third option. Either God is worshiped by the consumption of human flesh and blood, or He is not. The clear evidence, then, is this: God never has and never will accept the consumption of human flesh and blood as an appropriate means of worship.
Moreover, we see that the doctrine of transubstantiation is patently false, for if the Law was not fulfilled until Christ proclaimed “It is finished!” from the hill of Calvary just prior to His descent into the grave, then He would have been guilty of breaking the dietary laws under which He was born and compelled to fulfill as our Substitute and Spotless Sacrifice. It would have also been sin for Him to teach others to do the same, for He Himself declares that,
“…not an iota, not a dot will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called the great in the kingdom of heaven…”
Therefore, if Christ established the Romanist doctrine of the transubstantiation, He is a sinner and least in the kingdom of heaven. This is the strongest refutation of the heresy of transubstantiation, but we may note another as well.
Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that Christ truly did establish the Romanist doctrine of transubstantiation. If it were the case that Christ taught “clearly,” as the Romanists pontificate, that the bread and wine turned into His flesh and blood, then why did the apostles in Acts 15:1-29 tell the Gentiles to not partake of sacrificial blood? The dilemmas that arise here are as follows. In the first place, if the Lord Jesus taught His disciples that the bread and wine turned into His flesh and blood, and that the consumption of this flesh and blood was requisite to one’s salvation, then the declaration of the council in Acts 15:1-29, which makes no distinction between the sacrificial blood offered to idols and the sacrificial blood offered to God, would be wrong for commanding the Gentiles to “stay away from blood.” However, how could the very same disciples that received the depositum fidei utter such words in contradiction to Christ’s command to “take and eat”? How is it that these men, among whom was Peter the Infallible, whose decisions were to be infallible proclaim infallibly what Christ infallibly contradicts, if the words He speaks at the Last Supper are indeed the “words of consecration” in which the accidents proper to bread and wine remain the same but the substance of each is fully changed into the respective flesh and blood of Christ?
More to the point, however, we have yet another dilemma that remains unanswered. For if the Lord commanded the disciples to command others to drink the blood of Christ, and the disciples taught the Gentiles to stay away from blood, then they were not “teaching them to observe all that [He had] commanded [them].” Yet, if they taught both, would this not make it so that if the Gentiles obeyed Christ’s command to drink His blood, which is an infallible command, then they could not obey the command of the apostles, which is an infallible command, to stay away from blood? If the Gentiles obeyed Christ, then they sinned against Him by disobeying the apostles. However, if the Gentiles obeyed the apostles, then they sinned against Christ by being obedient to Him! Madness!
We have shown that the heresy of transubstantiation is ontologically incorrect and, therefore, false. We have shown, moreover, that the doctrine of transubstantiation, if assumed to be true, raises a slew of moral dilemmas that cannot be glossed over, for they concern the very salvation of our souls. The logical consequence of the refutation of this one doctrine, however, is much greater than this, for if this one doctrine is shown to be an error, then the entire Roman religion is shown to be equally false, for this doctrine supposedly comes from the infallible man in Vatican city, as well as his infallible magisterium. The doctrine of transubstantiation is patently false; therefore, the pope and the magisterium are not infallible. Therefore, the Roman religion is equally false.
 Luke 24:38-39
 1 Cor 15:36b-50
 Cf. Mal 3:6
 Cf. Gen 9:4; Lev 19:26; Deut 12:3
 Matt 5:18a-19
 Acts 15:20b, 29a
 Matt 28:20a