Things I don't get about Real Presence

[Maxentius]

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.

Wasn't Calvin's view that the believer is spiritually brought up to heaven to feast on Christ's true body and blood? Calvin was not a "memorialist" either, but his explanation has the problem of not being anywhere in the Scriptures. It is another attempt to explain the RP, which is a little like trying to explain how the fullness of the godhead can dwell in Christ Jesus bodily.

[RBerman]

Wasn't Calvin's view that the believer is spiritually brought up to heaven to feast on Christ's true body and blood? Calvin was not a "memorialist" either, but his explanation has the problem of not being anywhere in the Scriptures. It is another attempt to explain the RP, which is a little like trying to explain how the fullness of the godhead can dwell in Christ Jesus bodily.

Calvin spoke of a spiritual feeding (i.e. nourishment) on Christ's body and blood. He did not believe we consume Christ's flesh in a carnal or physical fashion.

[Maxentius]

Calvin spoke of a spiritual feeding (i.e. nourishment) on Christ's body and blood. He did not believe we consume Christ's flesh in a carnal or physical fashion.

OK. Perhaps you could clear something up for me then. For Calvin, isn't this feeding on Christ's true body and blood? If I recall correctly, Calvin believed Christ's body and blood truly nourish the believer. So ISTM that even this "spiritual" feeding is feeding on Christ's body and blood. Correct?

[Obsidian]

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.

Well, I guess my scripture about the bread still being "bread" wouldn't debunk such a view, but such a view is self-contradictory. The food is supposed to be both physical human flesh and physical bread? Two different types of matter can't occupy the same space. And I think transubstantiation at least makes more sense, because the Catholics stress that the human flesh still tastes like bread because God deceives our senses. Do Lutherans also believe the same thing? Is it human flesh that has been altered to taste and look like bread, combined miraculously with bread true molecules that occupy the same physical space and taste like bread because they actually are bread? So with each bite, we are eating both bread-tasting flesh and actual bread?

It seems like we could scientifically test that theory, because such bread should have more calories than ordinary bread because it has human flesh mixed in. But then, I guess you could always say that God deceives the senses of the calorimeters.

But then again, Lutheranism does tend to be a self-contradictory religion in general. As RBerman has mentioned, historically Lutheranism tried to bridge the gap between Catholicism and true Protestant thought.

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. . . .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.

Heat is energy, not matter. It's more analogous to spirit than it is to flesh.

[Kelp]

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.

Fair enough. You just made it sound like Luther was knowingly making a flimsy "halfway house" view, I was just pointing out that this does not seem to be the case.

[Kelp]

Well, I guess my scripture about the bread still being "bread" wouldn't debunk such a view, but such a view is self-contradictory. The food is supposed to be both physical human flesh and physical bread? Two different types of matter can't occupy the same space. And I think transubstantiation at least makes more sense, because the Catholics stress that the human flesh still tastes like bread because God deceives our senses. Do Lutherans also believe the same thing? Is it human flesh that has been altered to taste and look like bread, combined miraculously with bread true molecules that occupy the same physical space and taste like bread because they actually are bread? So with each bite, we are eating both bread-tasting flesh and actual bread?

It seems like we could scientifically test that theory, because such bread should have more calories than ordinary bread because it has human flesh mixed in. But then, I guess you could always say that God deceives the senses of the calorimeters.

I doubt it is mixed in to that extent. Perhaps it is on the molecular level. Quantum mechanics seems to indicate a particle can at least be in more than one place at a time. How did Jesus appear in a locked room? How did He ascend into Heaven? Wouldn't He suffocate after leaving the atmosphere? Maybe we're looking at some sort of alternate dimension at play. That would explain the issue of His being bodily present in the church yet unseen.

But anyway, as Max said this is all speculation beyond what Lutheranism actually posits. It seems to me it's hard to say something is contradictory when it doesn't even go into the issue of how flesh and bread occupy the same place. The most you can say is that it leaves some interesting questions unanswered.

[Kelp]

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

Ok.

[Jawa Man]

I think Max would agree that these supposed illogical examples are completely based in a Western understanding of matter based on empirical science rather than true knowledge.

[Maxentius]

I think Max would agree that these supposed illogical examples are completely based in a Western understanding of matter based on empirical science rather than true knowledge.

Yes, I do agree. It is why the transubstantiation view "makes more sense"--it is a philosophical construct used to explain the revelation of Scripture. It is much simpler then a belief based more upon revelation or mystery.

Obsidian, if making sense is so important, could you explain how the fullness of the deity can dwell in Christ bodily? (Col. 2:9) Put another way, how can the finite contain the infinite? (2:8 has something interesting to say, too....)

[RBerman]

Fair enough. You just made it sound like Luther was knowingly making a flimsy "halfway house" view, I was just pointing out that this does not seem to be the case.

I don't think Luther was trying to be vague; there's only so much one man can do, and he did so very many things.

[Carrikature]

I think it's just a physical representation of the spiritual reality of taking Him into ourselves(our bodies being the Temple of God and all), made possible by the sacrifice of His Body and His Blood. It's just that physically, as humans, we have precious few means of taking things into our physical body. Even fewer -- that is to say, exactly one -- is both safe and convenient, and that one is ingestion. So it only makes sense that He'd use the act of eating to correlate to the spiritual truths about His Sacrifice that He was trying to communicate.

So we physically ingest representations of the means by which we are able to spiritually take God into ourselves and serve as His Temple.

That's how I see it, anyway, and why I think that if someone rejects the Real Presence there's nothing to be disturbed about. It's just symbolism making use of the only safe and convenient physical correlate that we possess.

I think I'm pretty much in agreement with you. Not having done any research on the subject, I've yet to see anything to convince me that more than symbolism exists.

And yet, as I am sure you can recall from any number of conversations with Catholics on this issue, one does not risk very much when one disrespects what is merely a colored piece of paper as compared to disrespecting the bread or the cup of the Lord (1 Cor 11:27-31)

I have to admit that this passage makes very little sense to me.

[Obsidian]

Quantum mechanics seems to indicate a particle can at least be in more than one place at a time. How did Jesus appear in a locked room? How did He ascend into Heaven? Wouldn't He suffocate after leaving the atmosphere? Maybe we're looking at some sort of alternate dimension at play

If the human flesh is in another location or another dimension, then we aren't eating it!

Obsidian, if making sense is so important, could you explain how the fullness of the deity can dwell in Christ bodily? (Col. 2:9) Put another way, how can the finite contain the infinite? (2:8 has something interesting to say, too....)

I don't consider omnipresence to be a necessary attribute of God, so I see no problem with saying that the finite can contain the infinite.

How do you interpret Hebrews which says that Jesus suffered once for all? How do you interpret John 6 which in the context of eating bread and drinking blood, says that the flesh profits nothing? If you start saying that we are simultaneously eating human flesh and bread (but that the flesh calories have no impact on our senses or chemistry), then it answers my "bread" objection from 1 Corinthians 11 but it opens you up to basically all the other arguments against the ridiculous theory of transubstantiation.

[Kelp]

I think Max would agree that these supposed illogical examples are completely based in a Western understanding of matter based on empirical science rather than true knowledge.

Empirical science isn't true knowledge?

If the human flesh is in another location or another dimension, then we aren't eating it!

Ok, if you're going to start shouting, this conversation's over. You do this a lot, I've noticed...

I don't think Luther was trying to be vague; there's only so much one man can do, and he did so very many things.

Ok.

[Obsidian]

Ok, if you're going to start shouting, this conversation's over. You do this a lot, I've noticed...

Oh I'm sorry, you can't handle an exclamation mark?

I would have thought that the tremendous sarcasm and scientific ridicule I was heaping on Maxentius's view would have been the more offensive part of my argument.

[Maxentius]

If the human flesh is in another location or another dimension, then we aren't eating it!

Again, why? What are all the possibilities for "another dimension"?

I don't consider omnipresence to be a necessary attribute of God, so I see no problem with saying that the finite can contain the infinite.

The Scripture I gave you does not say God's omnipresence dwelt in Jesus Christ--but that the the fullness of the godhead did. Godhead means all the qualities of deity, which we are told dwelt in him bodily. You missed the point. (Leaving aside the fact that your statement that omnipresence is not an essential thing for God to have). This brings us back to my question: please explain to me how the finite can contain the infinite. And if you accept that you cannot explain it but believe none the less that the fullness of the godhead dwells in Jesus Christ bodily, then you will have to grant that when I argue that just because we cannot rationally explain that the bread and wine are Jesus' body and blood does not make the statement false.

How do you interpret Hebrews which says that Jesus suffered once for all? How do you interpret John 6 which in the context of eating bread and drinking blood, says that the flesh profits nothing? If you start saying that we are simultaneously eating human flesh and bread (but that the flesh calories have no impact on our senses or chemistry), then it answers my "bread" objection from 1 Corinthians 11 but it opens you up to basically all the other arguments against the ridiculous theory of transubstantiation.

I cannot answer your rational argument until you explain how the finite can contain the infinite.