jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Does circumscribed mean incapable of being used as part of a miracle?human nature, particularly in its embodiment, is circumscribed. That means my body is here, not there.
Let me lay all my cards on the table, I know some people don't like poker but I love it (so forgive the analogy).
It seems to me that arguing from Christology primarily can lead one into the problems I've laid out. Now we're not discussing the comunicoto idiomodum, for that I recommend Rev. Winzer's response to that in the thread on this subject in this subforum. Christ's human nature is subject to all the things any other finite created thing is. But God can do what he wills with whatever he created, including multiplying a finite thing beyond its circumscribed location.
As long as we don't confess that this multiplying creates new nature's, Nestorianism, than we are ok. Unless one could show that any multiplication of Christ's human nature in any way shape or form results in said problem.
Now the miracle of the fish and the loaves is, at least prima facie, biblical evidence of this multiplying of a finite created thing. Provided we don't speculate as to what went on, seeing the bible isn't clear there. We must confess a mystery.
Now perhaps there is something in Christology that destroys the argument that I'm unaware of.
Perhaps it is possible to argue that the glorified body of Christ can't be made to do that, I don't see why?
So any appeal, without proper explanation, to Christology will fall back into my original problems. Hence taking the suggestion I read ( in I believe "Four views on the Lord's Supper") that there is an eschatological problem with the Lutheran position, they want dessert too early.
Just as in biblical theology in earlier times (as all earthly times) there is an already/not yet paradigm. In these last days we have an already, spiritual feeding/communion with Christ's body and blood but one day, not yet, we'll have a physical communion with Christ (face to unworthy face). So to put the whole meal off for the future (memorial view) is wrong.
To have our meal and dessert early (Lutheran view) is wrong. But to have our meal and dessert early and get an unlimited amounts of seconds (Catholic/EO view) is wrong, and glutinous.
We are left with the Reformed view. Already our appetizers here and now. Later our full feast with dessert in physical communion with our Lord.
This follows redemptive historical theology as well., and biblical theology. Adam and Eve sinned so physical sacrifice had to happen for us. The sacrifices continued in a more restricted fashion, Mosaic covenant, which involved physical eating of the sacrifice.
Than the Messiah comes and the physical eating is set aside, death is being set aside. Now we have spiritual eating and drinking (and communion). Then at the consummation we will have no more eating and drinking spiritually but both physical and spiritual communion with our Lord, the great wedding feast of the lamb.
I'm probably wrong somewhere, so don't be gentle I can take it. Thanks.