Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Exactly - God is Spirit (John 4:24), and He was true and real before anything.
Is the Lord's Supper merely symbolic?
- Thread starter biblelighthouse
- Start date
- Status
Exactly - God is Spirit (John 4:24), and He was true and real before anything.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
I like the picture given by C.S. Lewis in "The Great Divorce". He says that the spiritual is actually "more solid" than the physical. In comparison to the spiritual world, the physical world is made up of phantasms.
I think that the best expression of this in Holy Scripture is Paul's treatment of this question at the close of 2 Corinthians 4 and the beginning of chapter 5...
Herein the Apostle speaks of two sets of realities, those things that are seen and those things that are not seen, those things that are temporal and those things that are eternal. And he goes on to argue that the set of things which are not seen have more substance & more reality than the set of things that are seen, because the former set is composed of those realities made of the substance of eternity, whereas the things of this world are passing away.
Blessings,
DTK
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
I like the picture given by C.S. Lewis in "The Great Divorce". He says that the spiritual is actually "more solid" than the physical. In comparison to the spiritual world, the physical world is made up of phantasms.
I think that C.S. Lewis's views on reality were neo-Platonic, but I would
the idea that the spiritual is just as real as the physical (and eternal as opposed to temporal). We are called to walk by faith not by sight (2 Cor. 5.7). Elisha prayed that his servant would be given eyes to see the invisible host which was prepared to destroy the army of Syria (2 Kings 6.17). Jesus after his resurrection had a very real spiritual body. As Paul said, "There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor. 15.44) and "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (2 Cor. 4.18).[Edited on 9-13-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Agreed.
Please understand: I was just quoting something I like from Lewis. I was not making a blanket-endorsement for all of his theology, by any means.
Please understand: I was just quoting something I like from Lewis. I was not making a blanket-endorsement for all of his theology, by any means.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Understood.
I quote him often too!
"The most valuable thing the Psalms do for me is to express the same delight in God which made David dance." -- C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms
Thanks for letting me in on some very civil discussions,and one more note,the whole debate I think hinges on what we can ALL agree Jesus'current body is like,Yes it is a spiritual body,but one is this Physical? I would say,Yes. It is one that has taken on the divine attributes of the Spirit,this brings up the issue,well is his spiritual body omnipresent,it may very well be,if it is indeed a spiritual body.
Jesus was able to do many things in his body,post-ressurection,than He was in his pre-ressurection body. Something to think about. Luther may be more right than the Reformed give him credit!!
[Edited on 9-14-2005 by Denny]
Jesus was able to do many things in his body,post-ressurection,than He was in his pre-ressurection body. Something to think about. Luther may be more right than the Reformed give him credit!!
[Edited on 9-14-2005 by Denny]
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Denny, that is an excellent question. Is Christ's resurrected body omnipresent?
The answer is no. Take a look in Scripture at Christ after the resurrection. He comes and goes, but you still never see Him in more than one place at once. He visits his disciples, but also leaves them. He ascends into Heaven, and then angels say that He will return again some day. All of this coming, going, leaving, returning, etc. doesn't fit well with omnipresence.
How about this:
Can you demonstrate anywhere in Scripture that gives a positive argument for the omnipresence of Christ's body? Do you ever see His body in more than one place at a time?
Christ's spirit, on the other hand, is omnipresent. I believe Jesus was telling us the truth when He said, "where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20). And I believe He was honest when He said, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). So when Jesus departed in Acts 1:9, was it His body that departed, or His spirit? It must have been His body. And when Jesus returns according to Acts 1:11, will it be His body that returns, or His spirit? It must be His body.
Of course, this whole discussion hearkens back to the age old opposing dangers of Nestorianism on the one hand, and Eutychianism on the other. The argument existed way back in the early church, but still exists today in a subdued form. Lutherans sometimes accuse Calvinists of being too "Nestorian", because they think we are dividing up Christ too much, making too stark a dichotomy between the physical and spiritual aspects of Christ, instead of just focusing on the entire unity of His Person. Calvinists, on the other hand, sometimes accuse Lutherans of being too "Eutychian", because they think Lutherans mix up the two natures of Christ too much, forgetting that there are aspects of Christ's deity that do not apply to His humanity, and aspects of His humanity that do not apply to His deity, even though both natures are inextricably, hypostatically bound together.
I believe the Calvinist approach is correct. Christ's human body is not omnipresent. However, I commend the Lutherans for warning us against the opposite error. Let us never "merely" think about Christ's spirit, to the exclusion of remembering that He is 100% human too, with a real physical body. Thankfully, God Himself has guarded us against that error, by instituting the Lord's Supper. Christ's Spirit is always with us. But while His body is absent from us, we have the communion bread to remind us that He has one!
Thank you for your comments, Denny.
Your brother in Christ,
Joseph
Denny,
I want to propose to you a question, with which (at least I think) you need to wrestle. At first, it may not appear overtly connected with the issue at hand over the nature of Christ's presence in the Lord's supper, but if you give it careful considerration, perhaps it might help you to further your thoughts along on this matter.
Here's the question: How can Paul be "in Christ", which he posits repeatedly throughout his epistles for himself and all Christians, and yet at the same time long to depart and be with Christ?
Cheers,
DTK
Here is the way I understand it, We always have the fellowship and communion of God the Holy Spirit with us,no matter where we are,even if we are alone. The same can't be said about Jesus Christ ,the God-Man. His Presense is only at the Right Hand of the Father,but through the Sacrament of the Eucharist,this presence can be enjoyed by the Saints(The Body of Christ) gathered around the Table,where we enjoy and celebrate this union with our Head,Christ Himself,much in the same way as it was in the Upper Room,it is only at this time that we can come together,until the Ressurection,in which will will continually be in the Presense of Christ.
This encourages faithfulness to Christ,Do you think a bride who is separated from Her husband for years on end,would remain faithful,especially if she feels he has desserted Her. Calvin always emphasised Union with Christ,we are in a sense,ONE FLESH with Christ,this is what is meant by KNOWING Christ,or to know Christ.
Paul is simply stating that His desire is to be Present with Christ always.
Thanks Denny
Denny, all of this would be rather plausible were it not for the explicit, often repeated language of the Apostle Paul throughout his epistles that stand in stark contrast to your understanding. In Ephesians 2:6 he is even bold by the Spirit to state that we are presently seated in the heavenly places in Christ. Your response doesn´t even begin to address such biblical language as this. Moreover, we have the testimony of a greater than Paul, even the Lord Jesus himself who said, "œand lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt 28:20). Your presupposition seems to be that unless it is a physical presence of Christ, there can be no genuine presence of Christ. The witness of the New Testament is against your presupposition.
Actually, brides have remained faithful to husbands, even when they´ve been deserted by them. But leaving that analogy aside, I reject your presupposition for for better reasons...
1) Christ hasn´t abandoned us even when we feel deserted, and
2) He has granted us the assurance of his own word that this will never happen as per Matt 20:28, and that is what encourages faithfulness to Christ.
3) And yes, Calvin did emphasize union with Christ, and did so as a present reality. It is union with Christ by his Spirit, for the Apostle Paul states again in Romans 8:9, "œBut you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." Calvin states explicitly the very contrary of your presupposition...
I could enter into the technical language regarding Christ's presence in the supper, but I don't think that would be helpful to you at this point. I have the distinct impression that your thinking isn´t properly informed either biblically or historically with Calvin´s position. I hope this encourages you to further study.
Blessings,
DTK
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
"it is only at this time that we can come together,until the Ressurection,in which will will continually be in the Presense of Christ."
Denny: Do you believe the person of Christ is present in the preaching of the Word? I would encourage you to remember that Christ is the Word. Christ has always existed and before the incarnation he existed without a human body. He was no less real and active prior to the incarnation. He was and is the Word. He is really present in the Word, especially in the preaching of the Word by his lawfully called ministers.
I agree with you that He is also present in the sacrament, even though it sounds like we differ in our understandings of what that real presence means.
Denny: Do you believe the person of Christ is present in the preaching of the Word? I would encourage you to remember that Christ is the Word. Christ has always existed and before the incarnation he existed without a human body. He was no less real and active prior to the incarnation. He was and is the Word. He is really present in the Word, especially in the preaching of the Word by his lawfully called ministers.
I agree with you that He is also present in the sacrament, even though it sounds like we differ in our understandings of what that real presence means.
"Therefore, since the whole Christ is everywhere, our Mediator is ever present with his own people, and in the Supper reveals himself in a special way, yet in such a way that the whole Christ is present, but not in his wholeness"
You quoted Calvin,and even He contradicts himself "the WHOLE Christ is present,but NOT in his WHOLENESS" What does this mean,don't you think this is contradictory?
Calvin quotes Augustine and Chrysostom often,but is not faithful to Them entirely,and to the witness of the other Patristics. We have to understand that while they were not representitive of Roman Catholicism,that they were Catholic and Orthodox none the less.
And Did you Read my A.A. Hodge post,regarding the Presence of Christ in the Supper? He seems to agree with me.
[Edited on 9-17-2005 by Denny]
[Edited on 9-17-2005 by Denny]
It would be my observation that since in eternity,there is no past,present or future,that Christ has always existed as the God-Man,doersn't it say in the Most Holy Scriptures that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,today,and forever".
In the Incarnation Christ becomes for us,what He has always been from OUR beginning.
Denny,
I've read your posts carefully, and given some of your ideas, and how either unwilling or unable you are to look at things differently from the way to which you've become accustomed (judging by your responses to Scott and myself), I don't think I can be of any help to you.
Cheers,
DTK
I've read your posts carefully, and given some of your ideas, and how either unwilling or unable you are to look at things differently from the way to which you've become accustomed (judging by your responses to Scott and myself), I don't think I can be of any help to you.
Cheers,
DTK
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
I'm not a Zwinglian, but I'm wondering if you can tell us precisely what "Zwingli's views on the Supper" actually were. I encourage you to be cautious in describing his position.
The traditional understanding of Zwinglian is that he held a memorialist view, i.e., the supper is purely a remembrance of Christ and that we do not feed on him "really."
Peter Stephens and others have encouraged a revision of this view suggesting that Zwingli has been misunderstood. They suggest that Zwingli had an earlier and later view and that the later view was not far from Calvin's.
I was briefly swayed by Peter and others, but upon re-reading Zwingli's mature writings on the supper, I find that Zwingli never really moved. The only way he talks about Christ being present is in psychological categories. The supper is to be an intense psychological and perhaps emotional experience, but there's no sense in Zwingli that in the supper Christ feeds us with his body and blood by the mystical operation of the Holy Spirit (Calvin's view and that of the Belgic, Heidelberg and Westm. standards as I read them).
rsc
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Do you really mean to say that God the Son took on flesh before the Spirit conceived Jesus' humanity in the womb of the virgin?
Such a claim would seem to be contrary to the Christology of the Creeds (Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian, Definition of Chalcedon).
The Apostles' Creed says that he took his humanity "from the virigin Mary" (ex Maria virgine). This is the catholic (universal; not particular to either Lutheran or Reformed or even Roman view) Christology.
The Reformed have always taught that the Son operated beyond the humanity in that he was working, saving, and revealing before he became incarnate and after.
They typically took most of the theopanies in the Hebrew Scriptures to be the pre-incarnate Son, esp. the some of the Angel of the Lord passages; see Gen 16; Zech 3.
This is the force of the prologue to John's gospel, which teaches that the same pre-incarnate Logos/Word (revelation?) of God, who became flesh, whom we know in the incarnation, is the God the Son, the "only begotten God" (John 1:18). He "became flesh" (sarx egeneto) in 1:14. It was in the incarnation, ironically, that we beheld his glory (Luther called this the theology of the cross).
The Reformed describe this operation of God the Son before and during the incarnation (he remains incarnate, contra some Pentecostals) as the "etiam extra carnem" (also beyond the flesh) and it was described by the Lutheran critics of the Reformed as the "extra Calvinisticum" (the Calvinistic extra, i.e., "beyond"). The point being that there never was when the Son was not (Athanasius contra mundum!) but there was when the Son was not incarnate. This would seem to be the point of Phil 2. He was "en morphe tou theou" ("in the form of God," i.e., he was consubstantial with the Father) but "poured himself out," not that he shed his deity (contra the Kenotic Christology) but, Paul is speak ing metaphorically saying that Jesus gave himself totally for our salvation, "being born in the likeness of sinful flesh" (he is true man but not sinful). In other words, his humiliation which continued to the cross and death, began in his incarnation.
The reason Hebrews speaks as it does is that we know God the Son in the incarnation. The Trinity is progressively revealed in Scripture. The God who thundered (through Angels) at Sinai is God the Son incarnate (Heb 12), Jesus Christ. Tthus it speaks by metonomy (one thing for another).
Hebrews is not intending to impute the incarnation to all eternity.
We must distinguish between the decree, which is from all eternity and its actuation which occurs in time and space. This is why the Reformed taught in the doctrine of the pactum salutis (the covenant of redemption) that the Father would and did prepare a body for the Son (Heb 10:5; Ps 40:6-8).
rsc
It could be the explanation of my position regarding the incarnation, that I am having trouble with, I Have been reading Athanasius,and other Greek Fathers to get a better grasp on their incarnational theology,I have to read over things several times to get a handle on what they are trying to say.
- Status
