Things I don't get about Real Presence

[Maxentius]

Because God is powerful enough to change his form into other things.

The doctrine of the Incarnation does not state God changed into a human being, nor does the doctrine of the RP state that Jesus' body changes into bread. The doctrine of the Incarnation states that Jesus Christ is one person in two natures. This gives us a template for a single object having two natures--in this case, the consecrated bread having the nature of bread and the nature of Jesus' body.

Although the Bible doesn't spell out all the mechanics of it, there isn't anything all that puzzling about the Incarnation. I don't consider it contradictory. But it's one thing to say God can change the Son into a human, and quite another to say that he can change the Son into two contradictory things at once.

Again, the Incarnation is not about God changing. Indeed, to state God changed is to state he is no longer God. In the incarnation, the second person of the Trinity assumed human nature. In an analogous way, we can say that the bread is not bread alone but also Jesus' body.

Well then quit arguing with me, because my argument is against transubstantiation and probably doesn't apply to you if you don't believe in transubstantiation.

It applies to me as far as you believe the bread is not Jesus' body.

Catholicism teaches that the food is not actually bread, but only looks like it to the senses. On a side note, I'm not sure whether that "body" is referring to Jesus or to the church members.

OK, but Lutherans and EOs believe the bread and wine are Jesus' body an blood respectively without the Aristotelian baggage out of which the doctrine of transubstantiation arises. If you agree that the bread and wine are Jesus' body and blood, just say so and I will go away. :-)

[Obsidian]

Again, the Incarnation is not about God changing. Indeed, to state God changed is to state he is no longer God.

I think the Son did change, but that the rest of God did not.

Philippians 2

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

It applies to me as far as you believe the bread is not Jesus' body.

If you want to say that it is somehow "spiritually" his body but physically only bread, then I don't think that makes a lot of sense, but I don't have any particularly strong argument against it.

If you agree that the bread and wine are Jesus' body and blood, just say so and I will go away. :-)

I personally think it's just symbolic, but that it brings with it spiritual blessings when we eat it. But I guess arguably the line between spiritual reality and metaphor can become blurred.

[Kelp]

so unless the thread owner says so, I am using a legitimate line of argument.

Yeah, it's cool. This is about RP in general. I'm actually more interested in the Lutheran and EO views because those are the two I'd be most likely to convert to.

I gave an example from accepted Christian theology which you would have to say is basically a heresy if it is a contradiction to say a thing cannot have two natures at the same time.

So the change in the host amounts to a temporary Incarnation? I thought part of the doctrine of the hypostatic union was that the two natures once joined are inseparable.

[Kelp]

I think the Son did change, but that the rest of God did not.

No, I believe that's the heretical version of the kenosis theory. The correct version is to state that Jesus "emptied" Himself of the full, unrestrained Glory He had with the Father and allowed Himself to be hidden within flesh. But this does not mean He changed in Who He is. The Incarnation was the act of adding human nature to the Son, not subtracting anything.

[Obsidian]

There are a couple verses (Luke 2:52 and non-KJV Matthew 24:36) that indicate Jesus was not omniscient. Therefore, he must have at least subtracted some knowledge.

[Kelp]

There are alternative interpretations, but let's not go there. At any rate, "subtracting knowledge," is a far cry from saying the Incarnation involved a fundamental change in the Son. God changes not. If Jesus could change like that, He wouldn't be God.

Also, when you say God "changed form," you kind of sound like a Monophysite.

[Obsidian]

If taking away the Son's omniscience, and presumably his omnipotence too, isn't a "fundamental change," then I don't know what is.

God changes not. If Jesus could change like that, He wouldn't be God.

I think the idea that God doesn't change is sort of stupid, too. It's taking one verse and ignoring the context and taking the verse to the extreme. The real point of saying that God does not change is that God keeps his promises.

[Kelp]

If taking away the Son's omniscience, and presumably his omnipotence too, isn't a "fundamental change," then I don't know what is.

Like I said, there are alternatives. One of them is that these verses refer only to Christ's human nature, another that He willingly chose not to use His knowledge in certain areas while on earth.

Anyway, this is getting kind of off topic, so I'll drop it if you will.

I think the idea that God doesn't change is sort of stupid, too. It's taking one verse and ignoring the context and taking the verse to the extreme. The real point of saying that God does not change is that God keeps his promises.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Anyway, it seems to me that if you believe God is mutable, then you should have no objection to Real Presence at all.

[Obsidian]

Anyway, it seems to me that if you believe God is mutable, then you should have no objection to Real Presence at all.

I already showed why the Bible flatly contradicts transubstantiation. With regard to a spiritual real presence, I just don't see the point of it. And don't see any strong reason to interpret the Bible that way. I don't guess I have a serious "objection" to it, though.

[Kelp]

With regard to a spiritual real presence, I just don't see the point of it. And don't see any strong reason to interpret the Bible that way. I don't guess I have a serious "objection" to it, though.

You're forgetting consubstantiation which is how the Lutherans define it. Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, both spirit and body, but He does not replace the bread and wine. He adheres to, "over, under, above, and inside by the power of God." Luther's analogy was of a hot iron. The iron does not "become" the fire, through being exposed to the fire and heated up it takes on something of the fire's essence. Not a perfect analogy I suppose, but it seems to convey how it could work.

So in partaking of the Eucharist, we partake of both bread and wine as well as of Christ both spirit and body.

As for a need, I suppose it represents some of the most intimate communion with our Savior possible. To bathe in His life giving presence like that, to be truly closer to Him than even the Apostles were during His earthly ministry.

To have such a level of intimacy must impart something of His transfiguring glory to us, how could it not? It confirms and re-demonstrates "Christ in us, the hope of glory" in the most dramatic way I can think of, honestly. Given the option of believing it and not believing, it seems like no contest to me. It's like asking someone if they'd like more cake or less . But, my conscience continues to compel me to search out if these things, appealing as they might be, are really the truth of God.

Max, you'll have to correct me if I'm off base here.

[RBerman]

You're forgetting consubstantiation which is how the Lutherans define it. Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, both spirit and body, but He does not replace the bread and wine. He adheres to, "over, under, above, and inside by the power of God." Luther's analogy was of a hot iron. The iron does not "become" the fire, through being exposed to the fire and heated up it takes on something of the fire's essence. Not a perfect analogy I suppose, but it seems to convey how it could work.

So in partaking of the Eucharist, we partake of both bread and wine as well as of Christ both spirit and body.

As for a need, I suppose it represents some of the most intimate communion with our Savior possible. To bathe in His life giving presence like that, to be truly closer to Him than even the Apostles were during His earthly ministry.

To have such a level of intimacy must impart something of His transfiguring glory to us, how could it not? It confirms and re-demonstrates "Christ in us, the hope of glory" in the most dramatic way I can think of, honestly. Given the option of believing it and not believing, it seems like no contest to me. It's like asking someone if they'd like more cake or less . But, my conscience continues to compel me to search out if these things, appealing as they might be, are really the truth of God.

Consubstantiation was Luther's way of denying the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation without really putting forth a viable alternative. He knew the elements didn't really change, and he knew that there was nevertheless a spiritual significance to the act of Communion. So he invoked the idea that Christ was "really present" in a vague and undefined way, "in, under, over, and around" the bread and wine. Later Reformers had more success in articulating things. Christ is at the right hand of the Father, and by the indwelling of His Spirit, when we partake of the bread and wine we experience a fuller awareness that we are there, with Christ, in the presence of the Father. Our life is hid in Christ, as Colossians 3 says.

[Kelp]

As I recall Zwingli taught memorialism and he and Luther fought over it several times. Consubstantiation was not just Luther's convenient out and I don't think the evidence points to him being a closet memorialist or something, he just didn't buy transubstantiation.

Calvin came up with spiritual presence because he thought Real Presence implied that Christ's body was omnipresent (the extra Calvinisticum). He was pretty scathing towards Luther's view, as opposed to viewing it as a "good first try" or something.

[Maxentius]

Yeah, it's cool. This is about RP in general. I'm actually more interested in the Lutheran and EO views because those are the two I'd be most likely to convert to.


So the change in the host amounts to a temporary Incarnation? I thought part of the doctrine of the hypostatic union was that the two natures once joined are inseparable.

Well, now we are getting into the thickets of "how" the RP works. we do not have a dogma which purports to explain how the Rp operates; our dogma is that hte bread and wine are Jesus' body and blood respectively. Here is the traditional Lutheran explanation, but I would like to point out that this is not a dogma of ours, but was more or less formulated to differentiate our doctrine, which we believe is apostolic, from the RC dogma of transubstantiation.

The RP of Jesus' body and blood is like the heat in a red hot iron. There is "iron" and "heat" there, they are not mixed nor are the natures changed. But at the same time there is more in the iron than iron.

The real body and blood are received in, under and with the bread and wine.

I am not content with the idea of a "temporary incarnation", because be definition the Incarnation is a one off event. The usefulness of the Incarnation analogy is to show that within the Christian tradition, we already have a way of speaking in terms of "both/and" instead of "either/or". The latter pair seems to me to be the extreme position of either symbolism or body/blood only. Both extremes, in my opinion, suffer from the defect of being based on philosophy more than on God's word.

[RBerman]

As I recall Zwingli taught memorialism and he and Luther fought over it several times. Consubstantiation was not just Luther's convenient out and I don't think the evidence points to him being a closet memorialist or something, he just didn't buy transubstantiation. Calvin came up with spiritual presence because he thought Real Presence implied that Christ's body was omnipresent (the extra Calvinisticum). He was pretty scathing towards Luther's view, as opposed to viewing it as a "good first try" or something.

I reserve the right to agree with what Calvin taught without agreeing with how he responded to alternative views. Luther was not a memorialist, but his "above, below, around" doctrine strikes me as vaguer than either the Roman or Calvinist or memorialist view.

[Maxentius]

Max, you'll have to correct me if I'm off base here.

Good explanations, but we do not define the mode of the RP, as I pointed out above.