Arius taught that there was a time when the Son was not. This teaching is clearly at odds with the prologue to the Fourth Gospel where we are taught 'In the beginning was the word ... and the word became flesh and tabernacled in our midst'. Expecting to see explicit condemnations of heresy that had not been imagined at the time scripture was written is unrealistic. Following the 1st Council of Nicaea, Arius was banished. Of course we know little of what happened then, save that before his death he was to be restored by the Patriarch of Alexandria, but died before that happened. It seems quite clear to me, that for all the councils, and all the creeds, and all the efforts to stamp it out, Arianism continues to this day. The question is really, is the Nicene Creed the statement of faith required of those who would come to the table, or is it the Apostles Creed, or is their some other statement of faith that is to be upheld.
I stumbled across an interesting quotation tonight, one I've never read before this. It's from Augustine's Letter 138 to Marcellinus, 1:7. 7. It would, however, take too long to discuss with adequate fullness the differences between the symbolic actions of former and present times, which, because of their pertaining to divine things, are called sacraments. For as the man is not fickle who does one thing in the morning and another in the evening, one thing this month and another in the next, one thing this year and another next year, so there is no variableness with God, though in the former period of the world's history He enjoined one kind of offerings, and in the latter period another, therein ordering the symbolic actions pertaining to the blessed doctrine of true religion in harmony with the changes of successive epochs without any change in Himself. Surprising to see Augustine refer to the sacraments as "symbolic actions... pertaining to divine things." But then Augustine did say elsewhere that Jesus' words in John 6 ("Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you") were meant figuratively.
In order to respond these accusations, Augustine had to clarify the doctrines of ecclesiology and sacramentology. In regards to the doctrine of the sacraments, Augustine decided to depart from Tertullian’s definition of a sacrament as a spiritual oath. Instead Augustine relied upon his strong Neo-Platonist mode of thinking in order to provide the church with a better working definition of what a sacrament truly is. He proposed that sacraments were by definition “visible signs of an invisible reality.” In Neo-Platonist thought the physical world is only a shadow of the invisible world of the forms. Augustine believed that, especially in baptism and the Eucharist, the church was not merely declaring her loyalty to God, as in the case of the sacramentum of the Roman army, but also taking part in a necessary demonstration, in a way attainable to the senses, of what takes place in the spiritual realm to the believer’s soul. His definition dos not contradict what Tertullian had proposed hundreds of years earlier but it does provide a much richer definition to the sacramental acts. In his book On Christian Doctrine Augustine provides a detailed explanation of the relationship between signs and things. He defines things as anything that has the quality of existence. Signs are things which point not to their own existence but rather to the existence of something else. He writes that “every sign is also a thing, since what is not a thing does not exist. But it is not true that every thing is also a sign.”11 In order to present his definition in such a way that most people could understand, Augustine gives the example that words are perfect signs because they are symbols that point to an idea. “Nobody uses words except in order to signify something.” In regards to sacraments both the elements and the act of partaking in them are symbolic because it all points to a deeper spiritual reality. Guilherme Oliveira Augustine & Sacramental Theology Given Augustine's place in the development of Western Sacramental theology, even to the point where his words echo in the Catechism of 1662, 'A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality', I suspect you may be eroding his meaning. You need to allow that he was operating within the Neo-Platonic thought forms of his day, so the physical appearance was figure of the spiritual reality.
As I am sure others have pointed out I believe you have not used the phrase 'Open Communion' correctly. It does not mean giving Holy Communion to the unbaptised. It refers to giving Holy Communion to anyone who is a baptised Christian. In fact, if I am correct in the Church of England then you are supposed to be confirmed before you receive Holy Communion. I am not sure how they reconcile that with the many Christian churches whose members they would give Holy Communion to but which do not have confirmation. Personally, I do not agree with giving open communion. I think receiving Holy Communion is, inter alia, as sign that you are in communion with those who receive. Of course, we are not in communion with many to whom we would give Holy Communion. Of course, whilst it is available there are many that would not avail themselves of it such as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
True. The spiritual reality behind the symbol is that He has come into us when we believed and has made His abode in us. "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27). No way do I want to erode that truth!
This wonderful essay by Peter Leithart on Barth's Neo-Zwinglian account of the sacraments breaks a lot of much needed fresh ground on the subject, in my view. Throughout the different stops along my journey, Leithart's (and Barth's) insights have always stuck with me. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/leithart/2004/09/barth-on-sacraments/