Lutheran argument for Lord's Supper?

Discussion in 'Theological Forum' started by jwright82, Aug 11, 2019.

  1. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    I hold a Westminster/Reformed view on the Lord's Supper and after studying the debate between Lutherans and Reformed on the subject it seems to me that the whole debate comes down to Christology, which is very important. But I thought of an argument that Lutherans could make while affirming our Christology.
    They could agree yes Christ's human nature is limited by being human but God could "multiply" his physical presence in the Lord's Supper miraculously. What do y'all think?
     
  2. Reformed Apologist

    Reformed Apologist Puritan Board Freshman

    I think if Christ is present bodily, at the right hand of the Father, he can't possibly be present in the bread.
     
  3. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    Right, I agree. But a skilled Lutheran debaters could agree on Christology and yet cite the bread and fish miracles as "proof" that God multiply any finite created thing. How would we respond?
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2019
  4. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    A skilled Lutheran debater wouldn't concede that premise on Christology
     
  5. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    That still begs the question, what if they did? Is there a way to argue against such an argument as I laid out?
     
  6. Reformed Apologist

    Reformed Apologist Puritan Board Freshman

    Good luck with that brother. I have been trying to win Lutherans over in that area for years.
     
  7. Reformed Apologist

    Reformed Apologist Puritan Board Freshman

    I get what you are saying, but it just doesn't matter. Lutherans are only logical to a particular point. Their ministerial reasoning always prevents them from going any further.
     
  8. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    When Jesus multiplied the bread and fish, he essentially created new entities. If you apply that to Christology you get Nestorianism x 1000.
     
  9. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    I don't follow. Jesus' human nature is created and finite. The bread and the fish are created and finite. By analogy it seems to work.
    My thinking was Jesus' glorified body is a different kind of nature. Also I don't see how it's Nestorian for them to argue that. If they grant our Christology and use those arguments how would we reply, with more Christology?
    If you want to stick with Christology than how would our Christology forbid the arguments I've given?
     
  10. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    Also though good on ya for offering an argument that wasn't christological, but I think it's a bit speculative. We don't know how the miracle worked.
    Another argument I read, that wasn't primarily christological, was that Lutherans want their eschatological present here and now. We have a real spiritual communion with Christ's body and blood now but one day will physically commune with our Lord.
     
  11. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    One of the properties of physical extension is being circumscribed in one location. That's why the analogy proves that Jesus created new bread and fish. He didn't keep pressing "ctrl +v."
    Multiple human natures
     
  12. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    That seems a bit speculative to me. And it seems to imply the christological problem. If we are forced to admit that the fish and loaves must be new or different loaves and fish or the argument in the OP is plausible. That would be Nestorian unless they argue that the fish and loaves were the same fish and loaves, only miraculously extended. And in the Lord's Supper the same thing happens. It's also mysterious what's going on. I think the eschatological argument is better because it skirts the problem I raised, making it irrelevant.
     
  13. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    I think that both Catholics and Lutherans get to their positions but not saying that the scriptures were given with spiriitual meaning and not a literal physical meaning in regards to the Communion.
     
  14. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    One of the properties of human nature is being circumscribed in a location. I'm not the one who is speculative here.

    The only faculty in human nature that is theoretically able to move beyond the body is the mind, and even that is not normal.
     
  15. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    So bread and fish don't have that property?
     
  16. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    The fish wasn't enhypostatized. He had to have created new fish. The new fish couldn't have been the same entity as the old fish (which we'll call f1). If the new fish (f2+a....z) were identical to the old fish, then it would be f1 and not new entities.

    Otherwise we are left saying that the new circumscribed fish (which it must be, since it isn't omnipresent) is the same as the old circumscribed fish, which is absurd.
     
  17. Tom Hart

    Tom Hart Puritan Board Junior

    I really don't think a skilled Lutheran debater would argue that Christ is physically multiplied in the Lord's Supper.

    In any case, none have agued that, have they? Your question is speculative, so I am not sure it is useful.
     
  18. A.Joseph

    A.Joseph Puritan Board Freshman

    I heard Dr. Phillip Cary argue that the crux is in emphasis of nature vs. person. We emphasize the nature aspect and them (Luther/the Lutherans) the person. Or maybe I have that wrong....

    “The three Persons are distinct, yet are one"substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).”

    Maybe his point was that we emphasize the person and they the one God....

    And he also said that to say Jesus is at the right hand of God gets tricky because where is God? He’s everywhere.... so in the divine sense so is Jesus, so maybe they are emphasizing his divinity after all. Obviously, Zwingli emphasized the body in strictly the memorial sense.... and sometimes I tend to lean that way with the exception that the word preached to our hearts makes active that special bond (in which we’ve been ingrafted in) prior to us receiving Him by faith in the sacrament. Anyway, I know I’m not using proper terminology, but I ultimately believe Calvin’s Reformed view on these matters as upheld by my confession. And I disagree with the Lutherans and probably Cary’s characterization of the debate although I found his analysis very insightful.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
  19. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Jesus is omnipresent through his Holy Spirit (Filioque, anyone?). His human nature was assumed by his divine person. That's why the analogy breaks down. The fish's (I am just going to say "fishes" because it sounds better) nature wasn't enhypostasized by another fish.
     
  20. A.Joseph

    A.Joseph Puritan Board Freshman

    But don’t we argue that His body is in heaven? I’m not saying your point negates that.... is that simply where it ascended to and Jesus is now strictly a divine person? Or was Jesus no longer a physical body after the resurrection in the same sense? I’m a little lost, sorry
     
  21. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    I see your point but it's pure speculation aabout a mystery to say that they were different fish, that doesn't even make sense.
    The point of the analogy is simple: fish and bread were multiplied somehow as finite created things. Jesus' human nature is created and finite but for some reason your saying that can't be multiplied like the fish and bread?

    I think the eschatological route is the best way around this.
     
  22. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    That's speculation you don't know how it was done, no one but God does.
     
  23. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Yes. Jesus is a person with a single identity. The fish(es) is not. The way your argument is constructed is that there is a fish (e.g., Nemo) who is multiplied. That fish now has multiple identities. If we apply that to Jesus, then Jesus has multiple identities.
     
  24. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    That is word for word what Lutherans and EO say to Reformed in order to reject Reformed Christology. I have mp3 audio files were Rod Rosenbladtt makes exactly that claim.

    I am not saying that God can't do it. I am saying I don't want to give up Chalcedon.
     
  25. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    His body is in heaven. We commune through his Spirit (which is the Holy Spirit; again, Filioque).
     
  26. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    You can't accuse us with speculation when you basically admitted that this is a possible way out for Lutherans. That is what speculation is. (And I am not saying all speculation is bad. I have about 20 good conspiracy theories that I can't prove but they are nonetheless true).
     
  27. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    No I'm not diving into the metaphysics of a mystery. You would be correct that it is Nestorian if what I'm saying is there are multiple physical nature's of Christ. As far as the fish goes all we know is Jesus starts out with a certain number of fish and loaves and ends up with a certain number of baskets of leftovers. To speculate beyond that to the mode by which the miracle is accomplished, which scripture does not say, is speculation. And it seems, with all do respect, speculation that forces our imaginary Lutheran into heretical grounds (On mere speculation).
    It is not speculation to start where scripture begins and end where scripture ends.
     
  28. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    And that's my point, how would granting my point, without undue metaphysical speculations about what I must be saying, violate Chalcedon?
    For me speculation means going beyond either what scripture says or what someone must be saying without proof or them acknowledging it.
    But I do find it ironic that the discussion for you automatically goes back to the Christological debates my OP and subsequent arguments I've made to show that that is not as sound footing as one might think. If the OP was designed to circumvent the Christological issue arguing Christologically seems moot.
    Which is why I think that the eschatological argument circumvent our imaginary Lutheran friend.
     
  29. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    human nature, particularly in its embodiment, is circumscribed. That means my body is here, not there.
     
  30. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    Jesus is the same Person He was in the Incarnation, just now has a physical glorified body.
     

Share This Page