Things I don't get about Real Presence

[T-Shirt Ninja]

True, but just because science does not know everything doesn't mean it knows nothing. It seems like under the EO view, if not the Lutheran, the host should be detectible as body and blood even if just by caloric analysis. It's not quantum physics, just basic properties of real matter, unless the EO believe God deceives us.


I'll keep that in mind, thanks. It does seem difficult to argue with Ignatius, I must say.

The fact that Ignatius of Antioch believed in the Real Presence really helped me to believe in it and become an Orthodox Catachumen.

[Obsidian]

But you still undercut your objection to Maxentius' view of Christ's body being omnipresent.

I don't see how.

He could just as easily say we take communion because God commands it.

And if he said that, he would be right. And we also need to do it because it reminds us of Jesus's sacrifice. But instead, Maxentius argues that we need to physically consume Jesus in order to be physically and/or spiritually nourished, somehow.

If you're aren't diminishing the spiritual benefits of communion, then neither is he diminishing Christ's bodily presence.

I stated that whenever we obey the will of God, we open ourselves up to spiritual benefits. Communion is not the only source of spiritual benefits. Other forms of obedience are other sources. That does not in any way imply that every action every human ever takes is a source of spiritual benefit. In fact, the spiritual benefits derived from different forms of obedience could even very well be different, such that someone who gave a ton of money in the offering plate but failed to take communion would be less well off than someone who gave less but also ate communion. It may even be the case that God could curse someone who continuously failed to take communion, even if that person did other things right.

If Maxentius were correct that Jesus's body were present everywhere, then even unbelievers would be taking communion every time they eat breakfast. And Christians, too. So anyway, I don't understand your comparison of my view to Maxentius's strange position. And once again, you haven't taken much effort to explain yourself.

[Kelp]

And if he said that, he would be right. And we also need to do it because it reminds us of Jesus's sacrifice.

Lutherans believe both these things. They also believe that it gives us a unique closeness to God and to the Body of Christ worldwide, mystically uniting us in His spirit and with His Flesh. Upon further reflection, I'd say this is the reason your objection to Max doesn't work. An unbeliever might eat the Flesh of Christ on accident, but this is not communion because he is not a believer receiving Christ as a sacrament along with other believers for the express purpose for which Christ performs the sacrament. A man might rape another mans wife, but this doesn't mean he had God-approved relations with her. That isn't possible.

In fact, the spiritual benefits derived from different forms of obedience could even very well be different, such that someone who gave a ton of money in the offering plate but failed to take communion would be less well off than someone who gave less but also ate communion. It may even be the case that God could curse someone who continuously failed to take communion, even if that person did other things right.

Have I explained well enough now? My apologies for being unclear before.

[Maxentius]

If Jesus's body is omnipresent, then what difference does it make if we eat communion bread? We should be getting our fill of Jesus every morning when we eat bacon and eggs.

Because he told us to "do this"--i.e. eat his body and drink he blood. As for the "difference", I don't see how it is a contrary argument at all. The question at hand is whether the bread is Jesus' body and the wine is his blood. So far, all your arguments are based on your understanding of the qualities of a human body. My counter point, and I think it is a defeater of yours, is that the creator of human nature said the bread is his body, and one of his apostles stated that to fail to discern the body is the blaspheme the body and blood of the Lord. When challenged with the finite containing the infinite, you waved your hands, which is just more evidence for me that your paradigm is insufficient to account for what the Scriptures say.

Also, in what sense can we truly be eating Jesus physically, if his "flesh" provides us with no calories or nutrients or unusual taste or texture?

Again, "scientific" questions. When you can explain how the finite can contain the infinite, I can take this particular tack by you seriously. When you can explain how Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, I can take this argument seriously. The issue between us seems to me to be whether science is magisterial or ministerial when dealing with revelation. You believe science tells us what Jesus meant at the Last Supper; hence all these questions based upon physics. But that cuts both ways. If science is magisterial, then you have to explain scientifically how Jesus could change the surface tension of water so he could walk on it. How a body which didn't have oxygen for a long while could be revived. You don't just get to assert exceptions when it suits you unless you have Scripture to do so.

[Maxentius]

My reading of the orthodox position is that God died, but that we have to be a bit careful about the sense in which this is said. For humans, death is terminal in a way that it can't be for God. I would say that while God died, he died by virtue of his union with humanity. I.e. he truly experienced death, but through his human nature, and not directly in his divine form. Of course just as I as a person am injured when part of me is injured, it's completely appropriate to say that God died. But we have to understand that we mean this somewhat differently, or we end up with "God is dead", which is true, but not in the obvious sense.

I agree we have to be careful, but I submit that Obsidian's approach is just as fraught with difficulties. The reason I ask if God died for our sins is that I am looking for some statement from Obsidian that he believes Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. The way he writes, it sounds like Jesus is something less than the second person of the trinity, and he uses a more or less Arian reading of certain passages. (I do not accuse him of being an Arian).

[Obsidian]

An unbeliever might eat the Flesh of Christ on accident, but this is not communion because he is not a believer receiving Christ as a sacrament along with other believers for the express purpose for which Christ performs the sacrament.

If you want to argue that every food on the planet is actually Christ's body, but that the only thing special about communion food is that we recognize it in our minds, then I think you have basically agreed with my position. That argument concedes that there is nothing special about the food, but that the mental appreciation of the crucifixion is the only important thing.

Again, "scientific" questions. When you can explain how the finite can contain the infinite, I can take this particular tack by you seriously. When you can explain how Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, I can take this argument seriously. The issue between us seems to me to be whether science is magisterial or ministerial when dealing with revelation. You believe science tells us what Jesus meant at the Last Supper; hence all these questions based upon physics. But that cuts both ways. If science is magisterial, then you have to explain scientifically how Jesus could change the surface tension of water so he could walk on it. How a body which didn't have oxygen for a long while could be revived. You don't just get to assert exceptions when it suits you unless you have Scripture to do so.

I haven't just asked you scientific questions. I have asked you some other questions, too, but you deflected them by demanding that I explain the Chaldeconian Creed.

For example, I asked you how communion bread is any different from breakfast cereal, under your view, if Jesus's body is omnipresent.

My counter point, and I think it is a defeater of yours, is that . . . one of his apostles stated that to fail to discern the body is the blaspheme the body and blood of the Lord.

I could just as easily accuse you of failing to discern the body when you equate the body with piece of bread instead of the actual crucified flesh. And that said, I'm no expert but I have heard plenty of people argue that the "body" in that verse is the church, and not the communion bread or the physical broken body.

[Kelp]

If you want to argue that every food on the planet is actually Christ's body, but that the only thing special about communion food is that we recognize it in our minds, then I think you have basically agreed with my position. That argument concedes that there is nothing special about the food, but that the mental appreciation of the crucifixion is the only important thing.

I don't argue that, I was just poking at your own logic.


I think you misunderstand what omnipresence actually means. God is not some gas that expands until He fills the universe but rather He has unique access to each place and every person in the universe simultaneously, He could make Himself coterminous with breakfast cereal but He hardly has to, the point is He's there while you eat it.

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/wor.../omnipresence/

Some have described this as the belief not so much that God is everywhere, but that everything is necessarily in God’s immediate presence. This understanding seems to be the most consistent with Christian theology and philosophy and avoids the common mis-identification with pantheism.

[Obsidian]

God is not some gas that expands until He fills the universe but rather He has unique access to each place and every person in the universe simultaneously, He could make Himself coterminous with breakfast cereal but He hardly has to, the point is He's there while you eat it.

Sounds more like omnipotence than omnipresence. And I agree with the site that omnipresence terminology resembles pantheism.

[Kelp]

Sounds more like omnipotence than omnipresence.

How can God be omniscient without being omnipresent?

[Jawa Man]

True, but just because science does not know everything doesn't mean it knows nothing. It seems like under the EO view, if not the Lutheran, the host should be detectible as body and blood even if just by caloric analysis. It's not quantum physics, just basic properties of real matter, unless the EO believe God deceives us.

I never said science was wrong, just hopelessly limited. We are trying here to explain a supernatural and divine miracle, as miraculous as Christ making 5000 loaves out of a few loaves. Our understanding of matter is workable obviously, but is not exhaustive so has no right to prove or disprove the Eucharist. There is a good example I once heard from a Protestant friend about a separate issue. Let's say you live in a 2D world. Instead of a sun, they have a circle that gets bigger and smaller. Scientists spend years trying to discern why this phenomenon happens. One day, a man from the 3D world joins the 2D world and tells them, "This is actually not a circle, but a sphere, and it grows larger when it gets closer to your world and smaller when it goes farther." Theologians and scientists laugh him to scorn, saying it is physically impossible.

In other words, our limited perspective can't possibly understand the true depth of God's creation of matter. Even now, some scientists wonder if, instead of just 3/4 dimensions, there are actually about a dozen. These should simply be reminders to us that matter is much more complicated and mysterious than the human mind can rationally figure out. What we do have, though, is empirical evidence in the communicants: communion has a real and detectable effect on those who partake with preparation and purity.

I'll keep that in mind, thanks. It does seem difficult to argue with Ignatius, I must say.

What is amazing is that I have never heard of an exception among the Fathers. This isn't an issue for them. It was only an issue for the Gnostics.

[RBerman]

How can God be omniscient without being omnipresent?

Indeed. More specifically, what does it mean for an immaterial being like God to "be present" in some location? It means that he knows what's going on there, and it means that he can act there. So if you think God is omnipotent and omniscient, then you think that God is omnipresent. And really, if you think that God is omnipotent, then you think that God is omniscient as well, because knowledge is power.

[RBerman]

omnipresence terminology resembles pantheism.

Depending on how you define it, it might. Some versions of omnipresence make God physically co-existent with creation. That does sound like pantheism. But if God is immaterially present everywhere, then he's not "one with creation" in a pantheist way. What do you think Psalm 139 intends to affirm in saying that you can't go anywhere to get away from God?

[Carrikature]

Indeed. More specifically, what does it mean for an immaterial being like God to "be present" in some location? It means that he knows what's going on there, and it means that he can act there. So if you think God is omnipotent and omniscient, then you think that God is omnipresent. And really, if you think that God is omnipotent, then you think that God is omniscient as well, because knowledge is power.

Depending on how you define it, it might. Some versions of omnipresence make God physically co-existent with creation. That does sound like pantheism. But if God is immaterially present everywhere, then he's not "one with creation" in a pantheist way. What do you think Psalm 139 intends to affirm in saying that you can't go anywhere to get away from God?

This kind of terminology always confuses me. On the one hand, you say that an immaterial being is 'present' if it is aware and able to act at a specific location. If that's true, then omniscience and omnipotence are sufficient. Claiming that God is also omnipresent is redundant at best since, by your own definition, it entails the other two qualities.

I have more often heard omnipresence used as a 'physical' concept. That is, that God is physically present at all locations simultaneously (which I agree sounds like pantheism).

Psalm 139 could just as easily be speaking about omniscience in my opinion. To paraphrase: "You know me, you've always known me, and no matter where I go you know what I'm doing."

[RBerman]

This kind of terminology always confuses me. On the one hand, you say that an immaterial being is 'present' if it is aware and able to act at a specific location. If that's true, then omniscience and omnipotence are sufficient. Claiming that God is also omnipresent is redundant at best since, by your own definition, it entails the other two qualities. I have more often heard omnipresence used as a 'physical' concept. That is, that God is physically present at all locations simultaneously (which I agree sounds like pantheism). Psalm 139 could just as easily be speaking about omniscience in my opinion. To paraphrase: "You know me, you've always known me, and no matter where I go you know what I'm doing."

What would it mean for you for an immaterial being to be "physically present" somewhere? I don't even know what that means. "Physical" and "immaterial" seem like antonyms.

I wouldn't say that omnipresence is redundant, but it is entailed by omniscience and omnipotence, just as omniscience is entailed by omnipotence. Thus Psalm 139, in affirming God's omniscience, is affirming God's omnipresence in a non-pantheistic, non-material sense.

[Kelp]

What would it mean for you for an immaterial being to be "physically present" somewhere? I don't even know what that means. "Physical" and "immaterial" seem like antonyms.

I wouldn't say that omnipresence is redundant, but it is entailed by omniscience and omnipotence, just as omniscience is entailed by omnipotence. Thus Psalm 139, in affirming God's omniscience, is affirming God's omnipresence in a non-pantheistic, non-material sense.

Right, so what I think it means for Christ's body to be omnipresent means that He is in every place but He doesn't fill every place like a gas since He's still a material being. So, Christ is here in my room as I type this. He's right next to you as you read it, He's in the Taj Mahal, He's standing on top of Mount Rushmore, etc.

Max and I may have a different understanding but this is what makes sense to me.