Things I don't get about Real Presence

[RBerman]

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.

I assume you meant God is "still an immaterial being." If so, then I agree with you. God does not occupy space.

[Kelp]

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.

As a sci-fi nerd I find this highly appealing.

I suppose for the Orthodox, it's even more exotic when you factor in the idea the Divine Liturgy is a catching up to Heaven. I supposed that's what was most influencing me when I said it might involve alternate dimensions.

Who knows, maybe lack of caloric content is an emergent property from combining glorified Flesh with bread, sort of like the wetness of water!

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.

Well, to be fair, I'd put this more under, "evidence for Christianity in general." One might believe memorialism is only a faint shadow of the true Eucharist and thus will have nowhere near the benefits of RP (not to mentioning possibly containing curses for the memorialist) but quantifying the differences in the benefits to the various groups of communicants would be impossible.

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.

Didn't St. Augustine say on John 6 that if you believe in Christ you've already partaken of the Flesh and Blood, or is that out of context?

[Carrikature]

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 agree that immaterial and physical seem to be antonyms. I don't think an immaterial being is 'physically present' anywhere. That's kinda my point, though. Omnipresent would imply that he is 'physically present' everywhere at once, which doesn't make sense. I consider God to exist outside of our physical universe, which further reduces the usefulness of an omnipresent claim. He'd essentially be 'everywhere' at once while simultaneously being 'nowhere' at once, which gets silly pretty fast.

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.

Insofar as 'omnipresence' is used synonymously with 'omniscience', I would agree that Psalm 139 affirms it. I am not so sure that omnipotence entails omnipresence, though I would agree that it at least requires being able to manifest in multiple places at once.

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.

Which brings me back to why I find these terms confusing. 'He is in every place but doesn't fill every place' makes a certain sort of sense until you start naming specific places where He is present. Standing on Mount Rushmore would imply some sort of physical presence, which is where the confusion sets in.




I think the bottom line is that our concept of 'presence' is useless when you start applying it to God. At least, that's how it seems to me.

[Kelp]

I assume you meant God is "still an immaterial being." If so, then I agree with you. God does not occupy space.

Jesus' body occupies space, the rest of the Trinity do not.

[Kelp]

Standing on Mount Rushmore would imply some sort of physical presence, which is where the confusion sets in.

He takes up as much space as a five foot something man would (though He wouldn't let you bump into Him or anything like that). I'm just saying He can stand on top of the mountain without having to at the same time be stuck up Lincoln's nose. I'm going for a more colloquial definition of "place" as a general locality.

Don't conflate this with Berman's fine points on the immaterial side of omnipresence though. He probably thinks I'm on shrooms right now .

[Obsidian]

What do you think Psalm 139 intends to affirm in saying that you can't go anywhere to get away from God?

Either something like eternal security for David, or else just omnipotence.

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.

If the Bible says that God is present somewhere, such as in the temple or in heaven or in the heart of the believer, then that implies he is not present everywhere.

[RBerman]

I agree that immaterial and physical seem to be antonyms. I don't think an immaterial being is 'physically present' anywhere. That's kinda my point, though. Omnipresent would imply that he is 'physically present' everywhere at once, which doesn't make sense. I consider God to exist outside of our physical universe, which further reduces the usefulness of an omnipresent claim. He'd essentially be 'everywhere' at once while simultaneously being 'nowhere' at once, which gets silly pretty fast.

A proper definition of Omnipresence does not imply that God is "physically present" anywhere in the sense that he occupies space or is material. It means simply that God is aware of everything everywhere, and God can act everywhere. If you want to define omnipresence in such a way that God doesn't possess it, while still affirming what I affirm when I use the term omnipresence, you're breeding confusion.

Insofar as 'omnipresence' is used synonymously with 'omniscience', I would agree that Psalm 139 affirms it. I am not so sure that omnipotence entails omnipresence, though I would agree that it at least requires being able to manifest in multiple places at once.

My string of logic was that a being who can do anything (i.e. He is omnipotent) can known everything (i.e. He is omniscient). Omniscience is thus a corollary of omnipotence. And a being who is omnipotent (and thus omniscient) can act everywhere, and in that sense is omnipresent.

Which brings me back to why I find these terms confusing. 'He is in every place but doesn't fill every place' makes a certain sort of sense until you start naming specific places where He is present. Standing on Mount Rushmore would imply some sort of physical presence, which is where the confusion sets in.

Which is why it's important to stipulate that God's presence is not a material one, so that even the idea of "God standing" somewhere involves a level of metaphor and abstraction.

I think the bottom line is that our concept of 'presence' is useless when you start applying it to God. At least, that's how it seems to me.

Well, at the very least it's not something that can be applied unthinkingly. You have to consider the ways that God is not a creature when you use any human terminology to discuss Him. Even the idea of God being a "Him" means some different things than it means for a human, yes?

[RBerman]

If the Bible says that God is present somewhere, such as in the temple or in heaven or in the heart of the believer, then that implies he is not present everywhere.

The Bible does speak of a special sense of "God's presence" referring to his Shekinah glory in the tabernacle tent or the temple of Solomon. By association, "the presence of God" also means the condition of being in God's favor. Thus the Israelites were said to be carried off to Babylon, "away from the presence of God" even after the temple had been destroyed and the Shekinah glory was no longer there anyway.

[RBerman]

Jesus' body occupies space, the rest of the Trinity do not.

That is true. When we speak of God's omnipresence, we speak of those attributes common to all members of the Trinity. Christ's incarnation is not an attribute shared by the Spirit and the Father.

[Obsidian]

And a being who is omnipotent (and thus omniscient) can act everywhere, and in that sense is omnipresent.

Having the ability to act everywhere and actually acting everywhere are fairly different.

The Bible does speak of a special sense of "God's presence" referring to his Shekinah glory in the tabernacle tent or the temple of Solomon. By association, "the presence of God" also means the condition of being in God's favor. Thus the Israelites were said to be carried off to Babylon, "away from the presence of God" even after the temple had been destroyed and the Shekinah glory was no longer there anyway.

Doesn't that sort of concede that the omnipresence language is unbiblical?

[Carrikature]

A proper definition of Omnipresence does not imply that God is "physically present" anywhere in the sense that he occupies space or is material. It means simply that God is aware of everything everywhere, and God can act everywhere. If you want to define omnipresence in such a way that God doesn't possess it, while still affirming what I affirm when I use the term omnipresence, you're breeding confusion.

My string of logic was that a being who can do anything (i.e. He is omnipotent) can known everything (i.e. He is omniscient). Omniscience is thus a corollary of omnipotence. And a being who is omnipotent (and thus omniscient) can act everywhere, and in that sense is omnipresent.

Aha! The difference here is between using omnipresent as 'being able to act everywhere' versus using it as 'is everywhere'. This may be semantics, but I consider it an important distinction. You seem to be using the former, which is fine, but I have always considered that an inherent part of omnipotence.

Which is why it's important to stipulate that God's presence is not a material one, so that even the idea of "God standing" somewhere involves a level of metaphor and abstraction.

Agreed.

Well, at the very least it's not something that can be applied unthinkingly. You have to consider the ways that God is not a creature when you use any human terminology to discuss Him. Even the idea of God being a "Him" means some different things than it means for a human, yes?

I'm not sure about that last statement. Speaking for myself, I call God 'Him' because He is identified as God the Father (and later God the Son). I also come from a culture where the male gender is used for gender-neutral things as well. (My unborn baby is a 'he' even though we don't yet know its gender. People get mad when I use 'it'. )

The difference, in my opinion, is that calling God a 'him' isn't intended to convey something meaningful while discussing God's presence is. That could just be a difference in understanding/upbringing, though.

[Maxentius]

That is true. When we speak of God's omnipresence, we speak of those attributes common to all members of the Trinity. Christ's incarnation is not an attribute shared by the Spirit and the Father.

Regarding Jesus' body, here is part of what the Book of Concord have to say about it:

Epitome VIII

VIII. The Person of Christ. From the controversy concerning the Holy Supper a disagreement has arisen between the pure theologians of the Augsburg Confession and the Calvinists, who also have confused some other theologians, concerning the person of Christ and the two natures in Christ and their properties.



STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
Chief Controversy In This Dissension.


The chief question, however, has been whether, because of the personal union, the divine and human natures, as also their properties, have realiter, that is, in deed and truth, a communion with one another in the person of Christ, and how far this communion extends.



The Sacramentarians have asserted that the divine and human natures in Christ are united personally in such a way that neither has realiter, that is, in deed and truth, in common with the other that which is peculiar to either nature, but that they have in common nothing more than the name alone. For unio, they plainly say, facit communia nomina, i. e., the personal union makes nothing more than the names common, namely, that God is called man, and man God, yet in such a way that God has nothing realiter, that is, in deed and truth, in common with humanity, and humanity nothing in common with divinity, its majesty and properties. Dr. Luther, and those who held with him, have contended for the contrary against the Sacramentarians.

© source where applicable

http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#V...%20of%20Christ


What this boils down to is the idea that because of the unity of the natures within the second Person of the Trinity, what the person does and is can be attributed to both natures--hence 'God doed for our sons", and Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow". This impacts the discussion at hand because due to some philosophical commitments, other communions do not believe that e.g. Jesus' body can be anywhere else but in its circumscribed place in space. The problem arises when we realize that Jesus' body seems to have "something extra", i.e. he can apparently pass through a sealed tomb stone, walk through locked doors etc. Interestingly, Calvin himself dealt with this issue, stating that because Jesus' body is just like ours, that obviously the stone was rolled away so Jesus could leave the tomb, and then rolled back into place. (Calvin Institutes IV 17:29) But what if Jesus' exalted, divinized body is not precisely like ours, but like what ours will become at the eschathon? If you are open to that possibility, then you should be open to the possibility of the Real Presence. Much of modern American Christianity is not open to it, so it is not open to the Real Presence.



My point is that a lot of these assumptions are based on our scientific observation, as Jawa said--which can change as we learn more.

[RBerman]

Having the ability to act everywhere and actually acting everywhere are fairly different.

True, but my definition of omnipresence only requires the ability to act everywhere.

Doesn't that sort of concede that the omnipresence language is unbiblical?

Depends on how you define omnipresence. There are some versions of it that are unbiblical. "Presence" can mean more than one thing. God's omnipresence in one sense does not exclude God's presence in another sense. A single man can be both a father and a grandfather.

[RBerman]

Aha! The difference here is between using omnipresent as 'being able to act everywhere' versus using it as 'is everywhere'. This may be semantics, but I consider it an important distinction. You seem to be using the former, which is fine, but I have always considered that an inherent part of omnipotence.

Well, you're going to have to explain what it means for an immaterial God to be somewhere if you want to make a distinction between where God is and where God acts. There's a special sense in which God is in heaven, and a sense in which God is in our hearts, but I don't consider either of those in opposition to the idea that God is everywhere in another sense.

I'm not sure about that last statement. Speaking for myself, I call God 'Him' because He is identified as God the Father (and later God the Son). I also come from a culture where the male gender is used for gender-neutral things as well. (My unborn baby is a 'he' even though we don't yet know its gender. People get mad when I use 'it'. ) The difference, in my opinion, is that calling God a 'him' isn't intended to convey something meaningful while discussing God's presence is. That could just be a difference in understanding/upbringing, though.

My point is that it's appropriate to call God "He" because that's how he identifies himself. That doesn't mean that everything true of a human "he" is true of God, though. Such terms are helpful when all parties understand what they do and don't mean, and unhelpful otherwise.

[RBerman]

What this boils down to is the idea that because of the unity of the natures within the second Person of the Trinity, what the person does and is can be attributed to both natures--hence 'God died for our sins", and Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow". This impacts the discussion at hand because due to some philosophical commitments, other communions do not believe that e.g. Jesus' body can be anywhere else but in its circumscribed place in space. The problem arises when we realize that Jesus' body seems to have "something extra", i.e. he can apparently pass through a sealed tomb stone, walk through locked doors etc. Interestingly, Calvin himself dealt with this issue, stating that because Jesus' body is just like ours, that obviously the stone was rolled away so Jesus could leave the tomb, and then rolled back into place. (Calvin Institutes IV 17:29) But what if Jesus' exalted, divinized body is not precisely like ours, but like what ours will become at the eschathon? If you are open to that possibility, then you should be open to the possibility of the Real Presence. Much of modern American Christianity is not open to it, so it is not open to the Real Presence.

The stone was rolled away from Jesus' tomb; it was not rolled back into place. I don't have a problem with saying that Mary is the Mother of God, or that God died for our sins, in the sense that I am affirming that Jesus is truly God. However in saying those things it should be understood that Mary is not the Mother of God the Father, and that God the Father did not die for our sins. Likewise for the Holy Spirit. Jesus' post-resurrection body does show unusual attributes, although arguably not more unusual than walking on water, which he did prior to the resurrection. I also don't view "Jesus has a resurrected body" to justify an "anything goes" approach to speculations about the Real Presence. But more importantly, I don't see anything in the Lord's Supper, either in the gospels or in 1 Corinthians, to make me think that Jesus intended to be speaking of his physical presence within the bread and wine that he was passing around at the table, which of course was prior to Jesus' resurrection body.