Here's why I think someone is fooling himself with that argument, Sean. If we say "this is" --just is, and that's all-- we cannot simultaneously insist that the presence is carnal rather than spiritual. Obviously, both of those meet the definition of is, of real. Once you stipulate that the body and blood are real in a physical sense and also joined to bread and wine that has not changed its nature in the process, etc. etc. you have abandoned the "doesn't attempt to use human logic to try to understand it" concept.
[MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION] [MENTION=653]Sean611[/MENTION]
My theology teacher commented that error is nearly always the case of "over-thinking".... of essentially subjecting what Scripture says to all the processing of their brain, to their concepts and philosophies.... My Greek Orthodox friend says that error is nearly always the case of people not being willing to "leave well enough alone" and "not knowing how to shut up."
In my heart, Christianity is pretty simple. Now, I'm not a stupid man.... I have a brain and it does tend to zip along pretty well.... but one of the things that appeals to me about Lutheranism is that it seems to embrace Luther's comment that "Humility is the foundation of all good theology." Luther's emphasis that we are STEWARDS (caretakers) of the MYSTERIES of God (Lutherans use that word "mystery" a lot). Now, Lutherans don't press that to an extreme.... they aren't opposed to thinking or theorizing per se, but there is an unmistakable attitude, a humility that underpins everything.... there is a respect, an AWE as we bow before God (and to a lesser extent, historic/ecumenical Tradition)... and even a bit of caution as we approach some NEW, individual thing (from a singular person acor denomination) seeking to correct God. As a convert from Catholicism to Lutheranism, this was probably the first thing that stunned me. My wife is a convert from very conservative Reformed to Lutheranism and she (altogether on her own) noted the same thing. There is a respect, a humility, an awe.... willingness to accept our puny brains may not be able to wrap around the things of God. And that's okay.... AND THAT'S OKAY. One of the reasons why my Greek Orthodox friend (whom I met as a undergrad) and I found "theological soulmates" and enjoyed discussing together is that we share a bit of this attitude... we come at all this from different directions (I'll forever have Catholic roots, as does Lutheranism - we are Western, for better or worse) but with much the same spirit.
Lutherans embrace
Real Presence. It's really very simple. "Is" = is (real, being, existing, present) ... "Body" = body. "Blood" = blood. "Forgiveness" = forgiveness (funny how that last part seems forgotten by so many). That's it. That's all. True - Christians have rejected since the Second Century that this makes us canibles BUT we accept that "is" means "is" and not "sort of is." There is MYSTERY here.... we don't get into the physics here (not even me, and I have a Ph.D. in physics)... we don't deny anything... this isn't about denial and doubt and limiting, it's about believing an celebrating and blessing. Now.... I admit.... at least for several centuries before Trent and Zwingli, people asked questions.... even proposed human theories formed out of the philosophies and prescience ideas of the day... but these weren't dogmas, these didn't displace Real Presence.... they were just possible ways of looking at the mystery, of addressing questions people have that God didn't address.
For 1500 years, no Christian had any "problem" in Real Presence. It was even typically referred to as "The MYSTERY of Real Presence" (by the way, people referred to the Trinity as "The MYSTERY of the Trinity", as well - another doctrine that has some physics loose-ends). Then came along Zwingli and the RCC's meeting at Trent and their dogmas of "Real Absence" and dogmatically insistences about what is NOT there and their dogmatic "science" declarations about what "is" isn't. Lutherans are pretty uncomfortable with such.... both the attitude that seeks this and the resulting new dogmas.
As for the Anglican pov.... all this is new to me.... I thought the Anglians had ONE dogma: "Transubstantiation is wrong" but that informally, some Anglicans accepted and taught Real Presence and some taught Calvin's view and the majority followed Zwingli's invention - but all those unofficially. At least that's what the Anglicans/Episcopalians I know have told me. The "SPIRITUAL" view you are conveying is... well.... suspect. Is this the same as "Jesus rose from the dead SPIRITUALLY?" "Jesus was SPIRITUALLY God but only a man?" Or is it denouncing the Mystery of the Two Natures by saying that the Divine Nature is present but not the Human nature (a problem of some of Calvin's followers, as well... a view that leads to Zwingli's invention)? Ah.... probably another discussion. Lutherans - like Catholics - accept that Christ ALWAYS has TWO inseparable natures - He always is 100% God and 100% man - although that is MYSTERY. Destroying the Doctrine of the Two Natures of Christ in order to substantiate doubting what Jesus said and Paul penned seems to ME (ex-Catholic, now Lutheran) making a bad situation much, much worse.... if you remove Christ from the Eucharist, you just have an empty Eucharist..... remove the Two Natures from Jesus and you have an empty Savior. But again, maybe that's a discussion for another day.
You and I may or may not agree on Real Presence.... but I hope you better understand the perspective and perhaps a bit more why Lutherans embrace and continue it. IF so, my hope is fulfilled. I don't seek to convince or convert, just to improve understanding.
Thank you!
- Josiah
.
