There are several approaches one can take to discussing / debating the sacraments (in particular the Eucharist) with those who teach a “merely symbolic” view. Generally, those holding to a non-sacramental view believe in sola-scriptura, and this complicates the debate. Any argument you utilize (even from Scripture) may or may not be dismissed as mere adherence to tradition. As such, the debate on this issue typically falls back into a debate on sola-scriptura vs. not-sola-scriptura. One approach, then, is simply to argue against sola-scriptura.
A second approach is to refuse to engage in the sola-scriptura debate and to focus on deep exegetical debates over the relevant passages of Scripture. Ultimately, I do think this can succeed, but not in a short and casual debate. Additionally, though many won’t like what I’m about to say, the Scriptures have a lot of ambiguity. That makes debating over them rather difficult. It’s the same difficulty people have in debating over literature – there are “better” interpretations (more insightful, more honest to the text), but it is difficult to establish (on the basis of the text itself) a single, correct, interpretation. Indeed, even the literary theory (new historicist, formalist, phenomenological, etc.) can vary. In a certain sense, this is the real issue between sola-scriptura and more traditional systems. We agree (to a point) on the text, but have different theories of interpretation.
So a third approach, the one I prefer and will use in this post, is to utilize the debate over the meaning of the Eucharist to demonstrate WHY sola-scriptura produces more division and tradition works better to produce concrete answers. This works, in particular, because the earliest sources really do show a consensus on the meaning of communion. Why? Because the docetist heresy denied the Eucharist’s reality (along with denying that Christ ever had a body at all), and this gave occasion to orthodox writers to defend the reality of the Eucharist.
Continued below the jump.
