Ubiquitous!

[MoreCoffee]

Is the resurrected Jesus Christ present in one place at one time because human nature is (allegedly) incapable of ubiquity? For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them. [SUP]Matthew 18:20[/SUP]

 

[Cassia]

Is the resurrected Jesus Christ present in one place at one time because human nature is (allegedly) incapable of ubiquity? For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them. [SUP]Matthew 18:20[/SUP]

The Holy Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of Christ and when we have the Spirit dwelling in us we are said to be abiding with the Father Son and Holy Spirit.
All we know about the fleshly state of Christ in resurrection is that as He is so shall we be.

What we are now is worm food in the unregenerated state. Satan looks for those whom he can devour. In becoming a new creation now in the sense that we're seated with Him, elevates up and away from that which is below.
Kinda like the speed limit doesn't apply to the seagull flying overhead.

 

[Rens]

Is the resurrected Jesus Christ present in one place at one time because human nature is (allegedly) incapable of ubiquity? For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them. [SUP]Matthew 18:20[/SUP]

No He lives in us and He's in heaven, that's why He went to heaven, we are His Body on earth.
If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There's another thread here in Christian Theology in which folk are discussing the meaning of the word is in the last supper statements of Jesus. Jesus says "this is my body and some say that is means symbolises while others say is means represents and a few say is means spiritually is. The Early Church taught that is means is. The implication is that in the Early Church the last supper was believed to be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ the Lord.

I think that Lutherans may believe that the human body and human blood of Jesus is present when Christians take the bread & wine in communion.

Catholics, Orthodox, and all of the ancient Churches believe that the bread & wine in communion is the body and the blood as well as the soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

I've read that the Reformed tradition teaches that Christ is spiritually present in communion.

Same say that for the early Church and (apparently) Lutherans there is an implication that the human nature of Jesus Christ is ubiquitous meaning that Christ is present in human nature everywhere and especially in the bread & wine of communion. For those from Reformed traditions the implication is that Christ's divinity (divine nature) is ubiquitous but his human nature is not because their tradition teaches that human nature is not capable of being everywhere at one time.

The dispute in the other thread hinges on what was taught by the council of Chalcedon. The Athanasian Creed presents the human and divine nature of Jesus Christ the Lord as distinct and unmixed yet present as one person. The creed says it this way:

our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God
and Man.

He is God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds, and He
is man of the substance of His mother born in the world; perfect God,
perfect man subsisting of a reasoning soul and human flesh; equal to the
Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His
Manhood.

Who although He be God and Man yet He is not two but one Christ; one
however not by conversion of the GodHead in the flesh, but by taking of the
Manhood in God; one altogether not by confusion of substance but by unity
of Person. For as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man
is one Christ.

Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again from the
dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, from
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all
men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own
works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they
who indeed have done evil into eternal fire.​

 

[atpollard]

Not to rain on anyones parade, but don't these Creeds tend to be carefully worded to say as little as necessary to stop the gross heracy that the council was created to address, while accomodating the theological debate among orthodoxy on other issues. In general they seem to reject one particular position, while avoiding and leaving open all of the other issues they were not attempting to address. I admit to minimal familiarity with the council of Chalcedon, but I know this to be an issue with other councils.

So my question is are we reading more into their statement than is prudent?
Are they intending to refute the position you are attempting to apply their words to.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Not to rain on anyones parade, but don't these Creeds tend to be carefully worded to say as little as necessary to stop the gross heracy that the council was created to address, while accomodating the theological debate among orthodoxy on other issues. In general they seem to reject one particular position, while avoiding and leaving open all of the other issues they were not attempting to address. I admit to minimal familiarity with the council of Chalcedon, but I know this to be an issue with other councils.

So my question is are we reading more into their statement than is prudent?
Are they intending to refute the position you are attempting to apply their words to.

I believe (based on my reading) that Lutherans regard ubiquity as an attribute of Christ - the whole Christ - and consequently rely on ubiquity for their claims regarding the real presence in the Eucharist.

Catholics do not take that route and do not explicitly endorse the views of some Lutheran theologians on this matter. But the Chalcedonian canons do teach that Christ is one person and two natures which may be difficult to reconcile with Presbyterian views on the real presence. I remember reading in Gordon Clark's book What Do Presbyterians Believe (published in 1965) which is an exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith that he rejected Lutheran teaching on the ubiquity of Christ's resurrected human nature. I cannot place my hands on the quote right now but you are welcome to look it up in the book. I think it is in the chapter(s) dealing with sacraments.

 

[atpollard]

I hate word games, so I'm going to take your argument at face value.

There must not be ANY Christians (or at least no more than one Christian) in any church or gathering of believers that I have ever attended. As you say, Jesus IS ubiquitous and where two or more are gathered in his name, there is his physical resurrected body among them. Yet I have NEVER seen the body of the resurrected Jesus nor heard of any service in which he literally, actually, physically ("place your hand in my side") appeared ... so I knew that the road was wide and the path narrow, but Jesus Save Us! I had no idea that it was THAT narrow. No church has even two Christians gathered at the same time!

I am also confused about his promise to leave, prepare a place, and return for us if Jesus is physically ubiquitous? Doesn't that mean that he never left? Perhaps you need to define "ubiquitous" for me.

**********

On the other hand, perhaps Jesus glorified body is in heaven, making intercession for us, preparing a place, and awaiting the day when the Father sends the angels to gather His Bride, when he returns as he left (like it said he will), when we meet him in the air.
In the mean time, we just have to 'make due' with 'His Spirit' (aka the Holy Spirit), third person of the Triune Godhead dwelling within the chosen (God's sheep) as a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance and sealing us for the day of redemption and fulfilling the promise to make us one even as GOD is one.

**********

So please just talk straight to me and let me know if I am using any 'Christianese' that needs to be restated in plain talk.

[EDIT: This is directed at the position rather than anyone personally. No offense is intended. I see that MoreCoffee is mostly presenting alternative views, so please do not take the pronoun "you" as personal.]

 

[MoreCoffee]

I found some mp3 files for the chapters of the book I mentioned in my previous post. They are available at https://confessionalism.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/gordon-clark-wcf/

 

[atpollard]

I believe (based on my reading) that Lutherans regard ubiquity as an attribute of Christ - the whole Christ - and consequently rely on ubiquity for their claims regarding the real presence in the Eucharist.

Catholics do not take that route and do not explicitly endorse the views of some Lutheran theologians on this matter. But the Chalcedonian canons do teach that Christ is one person and two natures which may be difficult to reconcile with Presbyterian views on the real presence. I remember reading in Gordon Clark's book What Do Presbyterians Believe (published in 1965) which is an exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith that he rejected Lutheran teaching on the ubiquity of Christ's resurrected human nature. I cannot place my hands on the quote right now but you are welcome to look it up in the book. I think it is in the chapter(s) dealing with sacraments.

I believe that Jesus had two natures in one person as well (and still does, for what it might be worth).
I also think that the Godhead eternally existing as one being in three 'persons' (a mystery which can never be fully comprehended) and the Godhead existing outside of our time-space frame of reference lend a heavy dose of confusion when God attempts to communicate heavenly truths to us. It is not unlike attempting to describe color to someone born blind. There is no frame of reference which will allow them to really understand completely what you are describing. In the same way, God's reality is different and higher than our reality and it is something that we will have to 'see dimly' until we get there.

That said, the ubiquity of a physical body that obviously isn't literally there is playing some sort of word game. I have grown to hate many theological terms because they get pre-loaded with different, false and contradictory meanings that render communication impossible. I have found that talking theology with Lutherans often feels like nailing Jello to the wall, the words keep sliding around to take on new meanings and I can't follow the conversation.


I have a vague memory of once reading about Transubstantiation vs Transubstitution and coming away thinking that I couldn't believe that people would actually kill each other over this. They needed an Ativan Salt Lick (one of those blocks of salt that cows have, only laced with Ativan so that when you are feeling like killing someone over something like the Eucharist, you can just take a lick and chill out).

 

[MoreCoffee]

I believe that Jesus had two natures in one person as well (and still does, for what it might be worth).
I also think that the Godhead eternally existing as one being in three 'persons' (a mystery which can never be fully comprehended) and the Godhead existing outside of our time-space frame of reference lend a heavy dose of confusion when God attempts to communicate heavenly truths to us. It is not unlike attempting to describe color to someone born blind. There is no frame of reference which will allow them to really understand completely what you are describing. In the same way, God's reality is different and higher than our reality and it is something that we will have to 'see dimly' until we get there.

That said, the ubiquity of a physical body that obviously isn't literally there is playing some sort of word game. I have grown to hate many theological terms because they get pre-loaded with different, false and contradictory meanings that render communication impossible. I have found that talking theology with Lutherans often feels like nailing Jello to the wall, the words keep sliding around to take on new meanings and I can't follow the conversation.


I have a vague memory of once reading about Transubstantiation vs Transubstitution and coming away thinking that I couldn't believe that people would actually kill each other over this. They needed an Adavan Salt Lick (one of those blocks of salt that cows have, only laced with Adavan so that when you are feeling like killing someone over something like the Eucharist, you can just take a lick and chill out).

Having a debate - minus the killing - is one of the few civilised ways of discovering what each party means and if what they mean corresponds with the truth. Catholics have their own obscure terms that - sanctioned by the church as they are - do not really add much light do the kinds of discussion we have here in CH. But Catholics teach and believe that the whole Christ - body, blood, soul, and divinity which is to say every aspect of his person - is the bread and is the wine of communion. And Catholics also believe and teach that bread and wine that is not consecrated in the Eucharist is not the body blood soul and divinity of Christ thus effectively disagreeing with Lutheran theological speculation about the Eucharist. Catholics also disagree with Presbyterian views about communion as they are expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

 

[atpollard]

Having a debate - minus the killing - is one of the few civilised ways of discovering what each party means and if what they mean corresponds with the truth. Catholics have their own obscure terms that - sanctioned by the church as they are - do not really add much light do the kinds of discussion we have here in CH. But Catholics teach and believe that the whole Christ - body, blood, soul, and divinity which is to say every aspect of his person - is the bread and is the wine of communion. And Catholics also believe and teach that bread and wine that is not consecrated in the Eucharist is not the body blood soul and divinity of Christ thus effectively disagreeing with Lutheran theological speculation about the Eucharist. Catholics also disagree with Presbyterian views about communion as they are expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

How can the physical body, that Thomas touched and chewed the fish and bread, be the communion wafer?
The 'wine' I had at a Catholic Church tasted like grape juice, not blood (I know, I have tasted blood).

If you mean this in a literal sense, how do you reconcile it with your 5 senses that say otherwise?
How do you respond to the 'flippant' criticism that Catholics are practicing cannibalism? Yes, it is true because we eat the literal body of God?

This is not a challenge, just semantic confusion (or theological confusion if you meant what you said in the most literal way possible).

 

[MoreCoffee]

How can the physical body, that Thomas touched and chewed the fish and bread, be the communion wafer?
The 'wine' I had at a Catholic Church tasted like grape juice, not blood (I know, I have tasted blood).

If you mean this in a literal sense, how do you reconcile it with your 5 senses that say otherwise?
How do you respond to the 'flippant' criticism that Catholics are practicing cannibalism? Yes, it is true because we eat the literal body of God?

This is not a challenge, just semantic confusion (or theological confusion if you meant what you said in the most literal way possible).

It is a mystery like the hypostatic union is a msytery and like the Blessed Trinity is fundamentally mysterious to us. It is believed but understanding it in something approaching scientific detail is not going to happen so the bread tastes and looks like bread (or a wafer if you prefer that name for the unleavened bread used in Catholic Churches of the Roman Rite) and the wine looks like and tastes like wine yet is declared to be the body and the blood of Christ. I remember reading John Calvin's Institutes on the matter and coming away no better informed than if I had not read it. "Spiritually present" is not very meaningful to me. Jesus said "This is my body" and one human sense confirms it, the sense of hearing with which his words are heard, believed, and received as true. Sight, taste, smell, and texture all fail to confirm the Lord's words yet hearing (with child like belief) receives it as true.

 

[Cassia]

It is a mystery like the hypostatic union is a msytery and like the Blessed Trinity is fundamentally mysterious to us. It is believed but understanding it in something approaching scientific detail is not going to happen so the bread tastes and looks like bread (or a wafer if you prefer that name for the unleavened bread used in Catholic Churches of the Roman Rite) and the wine looks like and tastes like wine yet is declared to be the body and the blood of Christ. I remember reading John Calvin's Institutes on the matter and coming away no better informed than if I had not read it. "Spiritually present" is not very meaningful to me. Jesus said "This is my body" and one human sense confirms it, the sense of hearing with which his words are heard, believed, and received as true. Sight, taste, smell, and texture all fail to confirm the Lord's words yet hearing (with child like belief) receives it as true.

So with the physical aspect of hearing alone you will "reckon" yourself alive to Christ? That is what your saying, right?

Reckoning is summed up in the 6th chapter of (Romans 6).But that chapter also explains the spiritual sense of the words.

17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

19 I am using an example from everyday life because of your human limitations. Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

Reckoning isn't a technique ... it's a spontaneous believing or considering that is produced by seeing the facts that are revealed in Romans 6.. Seeing, believing the facts in recognition of those facts, and, according to those facts, we reckon ourselves dead to sin and living to God.

That is how the spiritual aspect is recognized as truth. When we reckon ourselves as edifying ourselves from the reality of the Truth then we have placed ourselves in the correct position to recieve Him.

Not Reckoning nor eating the bread can cause the death of the old nature. Only life from the Holy Spirit explained in chapter 8 of Romans can do that. But that is the other side of the coin of reckoning, because we're to allow His work in us.

Objective facts need claiming/reckoning so that the subjective work of the Holy Spirit can accomplishe the facts in our lives. that's fellowship with God in experience.

Romans 6 plus Romans 8 (hearing plus seeing) is the spiritual aspect of feeding on the Lord for life.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So with the physical aspect of hearing alone you will "reckon" yourself alive to Christ? That is what your saying, right?

No.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Sacrament of the holy Eucharist: During the celebration of the Mass, by the power of the Holy Spirit and the proclamation of Jesus’ words by the priest, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, which is offered in an un-bloody manner in sacrifice for us and in praise to the Father. The assembly actively participates by prayers, hymns, psalms, responses, and an inner self-offering along with Christ to the Father. All who are properly prepared can receive Holy Communion, by which Jesus gradually transforms the receivers into himself and which leads them to Gospel witness in the world.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION: A term used to describe the unique change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. By the consecration, the substance of bread and wine is changed into the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood.