The sound of many waters

***QUOTE***

Meanwhile, I've added this comment:

If I might jump in here, it might be well to explain a point which Calvinists often miss: ubiquitarianism is not, and never has been, a Lutheran dogma. Luther never insisted upon it, and the Confessions nowhere teach it.

But one reason why Pr. McCain has not been more responsive to your arguments is that you're missing his point. He hasn't been necessarily arguing for ubiquitarianism- which, like a number of other philosophical positions (consubstantiation comes to mind), Calvinists often mistakenly characterize as Lutheran doctrine. That's what happens when one imposes one's own questions upon somebody else's answers!

But ubiquitarianism is a side issue. For now, I'm going to assume, out of charity, that you were being facetious in your remark about the key. Obviously, in the absence of any mention of such a key in the text, the care with which John makes the point that the room was locked implicitly asserts that Christ's entry into the room was remarkable in view of that fact. A key wouldn't cut it. Rather than reflecting careful adherence to the historical-grammatical method, to go reaching for a naturalistic understanding of what the text describes would demonstrate an unwillingness to submit one's own, naturalistic dogmatic and philosophical presuppositions to the judgment of the text.

If one does, indeed, faithfully interpret the text, Christ's entry into the room must at least be seen, as I mentioned, as remarkable in view of the fact that the door was locked. In fact, I would go so far as to say that to substitute the word "miraculous" for "remarkable" would not do violence to the apparent intention of the text.

Now, the nature of the miracle is an interesting question. Could Jesus have made Himself invisible, been in the room all the time, and suddenly appeared to His disciples- a divine game of "peek-a-boo," as it were? Sure. He's God. He can do anything He wants with His human nature. Or yours or mine, for that matter. It would have been an easy thing for Him to have concealed His presence from them.

Could He have simply walked through the door, without being ubiquitous? Of course. He's God. He can do anything He wants with His human nature. He once walked on water, didn't He? Would walking through a door or a wall be that much harder?

Could He have created a key? Absolutely! He created the world! Why not a key?

You're right: there are all sorts of things which might have happened. But we are limited by the text's clear implication that whatever happened was remarkable, in view of the fact that the doors were locked.

So could He cause His own body and blood to be literally present in, with, and under the bread and wine every time the Sacrament is celebrated?

Of course. He's God. He can do anything He wants with His human nature.

Is it possible for His body and blood to be present in he Supper, but not physically? No- not because He can't do what He wants with His human nature, but because a non-physical presence of a body is an oxymoron. "Physical" is merely a synonym for "bodily," an adjectival equivalent of the very noun Jesus uses. And as we've seen, the Zwinglian position, which Calvin rightly rejected, has no possible basis- if it be conceded that Christ, being God, can do whatever He wants with His human nature.

Could Jesus be present everywhere in the created universe according to His human nature, if He chose to be? Sure. He's God. He can do anything with His human nature He wants.

Hmmm?

Would it cease to be fully human if He willed it to be omnipresent? Only if one is limited by the terms of a single completely human and far from universally accepted philosophical system that is in no sense endorsed by Scripture.

Would it the human and the divine thereby be conflated into a single nature? Not at all. Omnipresence could remain a proper attribute of the divine nature, while being communicated to His human nature not as its own proper attribute, but by means of the personal union. On the same basis, if He chose that I should be present simultaneously, though non-locally, throughout the universe, it would be so- and I would be no less human for it. Nor would it make the human nature of Jesus less than human if the person of Jesus, through the hypostatic union, were to access the perogatives of divinity with relation to a condition contrary to ordinary nature with regard to His human nature. What is true of His walking on water could be claimed, were one to assert it, of Ephesians 4:10.

What, precisely, does it mean that He "ascended above all the heavens, that He might fill all things?" Sure sounds like ubiquitarianism to me! But the Confessions, following Luther's example, stop short of insisting on that. Could we? Well, if one confesses the sola Scriptura and in principle rejects human philosophy as a source of doctrine, it's hard to miss the point that Ephesians 4:10 is a stronger scriptural argument for ubiquitarianism than can be adduced against it!

But we Lutherans, contrary to the conclusion to which Calvinists usually jump, just aren't interested in telling Jesus where He has to keep His human nature. And that's the point: He's God. He can do with His human nature whatever He wants. We, on the other hand, don't get to dictate to Him on this matter.

I believe it was Beza who sought the unity of the human and the divine natures of Jesus in their common name. Luther saw it in the Person of Jesus. If it's to be found elsewhere... well, if you're ever burned at the stake, it won't be for Eutychianism! In fact, if it is to be found elsewhere, there never was an actual Incarnation, and we are yet in our sins.

Key in his pocket, created key, walking through the door or the wall... macht nichts. The risen Christ is simply not limited by the puny presumption of human philosophy.

Which is rather the point at which dialog between Lutherans and Calvinists has always generally tended to break down. Calvinism, after all, is heavily indebted to Platonism, just as Catholicism is to Aristotelian scholasticism; a key part of Luther's theology, though, was the rejection of any human philosophical system as a means to arrive at authoritative knowledge of a Being Whose ways are not our ways, whose thoughts are not our thoughts, and Who is simply not obligated to respect our philosophical restrictions upon Him. In fact, we understand the supplimentation of Scripture by philosophical deduction to be, ipso facto, a denial of the sola Scriptura and a descent into crass rationalism. That's why we take umbrage at imposing an alien philosophical explanation upon the words, "This is my body," and "This is my blood." After all, Jesus is God. He can do anything with His human nature He wants.

But Calvinists and Catholics alike nevertheless insist on imposing an alien philosophical framework on Luther's thought. Ubiquitarianism arose less as a proposal of dogma than as a challenge to certain unsustainable assertions of Reformed dogma! If it is true that Christ's session at the right hand of God, for example, is to be understood literally and geographically, so as to preclude His bodily presence on the altar (as if God could not, after all, do whatever He wants with His own human nature), one is left with the task of explaining how one goes about getting to the geographical right of an omnipresent Being. And of course, the entire notion that heaven is a geographical location- a place itself is an assertion without much in either Scripture or logic to recommend it.

So why can't God keep His human nature anywhere He wants? Rather than "ubquitarianism," the Lutheran position is more accurately described as "multivolipresence." Christ's human nature is whereever He jolly well wants it to be. He's God. He gets to do whatever He wants to with His human nature. Or yours. Or mine. Or any other part of His creation. That's a point this Lutheran has always been amazed that Calvinists, of all people, have so much trouble with!

Parenthetically, though you haven't touched on this point, Lutherans don't teach "consubstantiation," either. We note that Christ says "this is My body," and that there is no objection to the literal understanding of those words which does not do violence to Scripture. We also note that in 1 Corinthians 11:27, Paul refers to the consecrated bread as bread. But we reject the notion that bread and body on one hand, and wine and blood on the other, are somehow combined to form a third thing. Rather, we suggest that the relationship between the earthly and the heavenly elements exist in the precisely the same relationship as exists between the human and the divine natures of Christ.

What christology results when the same analogy is drawn between the person of Christ and the Calvinistic understanding of the Sacrament, BTW?

But we're just not interested in defending philosophical positions. As much fun as it can be, philosophy simply can't trump the plain words of Scripture, or supplement it as a source of authority. And as the christological and sacramental trouble which Calvinistic Platonism lands the Reformed tradition demonstrates all too well, it can even put you in the awkward position of trying to invent contrived ways to shoehorn philosophically derived positions which contradict the plain sense of Scripture into a theology which means to affirm both the unique authority of Scripture and christological orthodoxy.

I disagree with Pr. McCain in that I think it unjust to accuse Calvinists of crass Nestorianism. Like Calvinists who accuse Lutherans of Eutychianism, Lutherans who take their criticism that far are overplaying their hands. I accept that Calvinists intend in good faith to conform to the historical definitons of christological orthodoxy. But while you guys may not be full-blown Nestorians, that doesn't mean that your christology passes Chalcedonian muster:

We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord,
only-begotten -- in two natures; and we do this without confusing
the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other,
without dividing them into two separate categories, without con-
trasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness
of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the
"properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur
in one "person" and in one reality (hypostasis). They are not
divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and
only and only-begotten Word (Logos) of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus
Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers (the Nicene
Creed) has handed down to us.

You shouldn't be fishing for red herrings like ubiquitarianism. You should be trying to explain why- as intent upon christological orthodoxy as you are- you should have to go so far as to propose the separation of the human and the divine natures of Christ in order to defend the untenable philosophical conclusion that the verba of the Lord's Supper cannot be taken in their plain and natural sense, because a Man Who is Almighty God is philosophically precluded from doing with His own human nature what those words, taken in their natural and obvious sense, plainly propose.

Sure, he could have created a key- though there is no reason why He would have had to. He could have played "peek-a-boo." He could have done all sorts of things. And He could have been illocally present throughout the universe.

The troublesome question is why one would prefer some other explanation- any other explanation- to that last one. After all, He's God. He can do whatever He wants with His human nature.

So where is Christ's human nature? The same place that 300 pound gorilla sleeps.

Anywhere He wants

http://watersblogged.blogspot.com/

***END-QUOTE***

This is actually a great improvement over Bob's prior comments, and a great improvement over anything that Paul McCain has had to say.

It’s a serious reply that merits a serious response.

I agree with Waters that Jn 20 implies a miracle of some sort.

As to whether God can do anything he wants with his human nature, that depends on what you mean. God has the power to change or remake human nature at will. But, of course, it would then cease to be human. So, yes, God could do it, but in so doing, you’ve radically redefined a key ingredient of the Incarnation.

“Is it possible for His body and blood to be present in he Supper, but not physically? No- not because He can't do what He wants with His human nature, but because a non-physical presence of a body is an oxymoron. ‘Physical’ is merely a synonym for ‘bodily,’ an adjectival equivalent of the very noun Jesus uses.”

I don’t disagree with anything Waters says here. However, when Gene says that Christ is “present” to the faith of believers,” I assume he means “present” in the figurative sense in which we speak of an idea as “present” before the mind of a thinker. It’s not literally present, in the sense of occupying a certain volume of space. But we use spatial metaphors to denote nonspatial relations.

“Would it cease to be fully human if He willed it to be omnipresent? Only if one is limited by the terms of a single completely human and far from universally accepted philosophical system that is in no sense endorsed by Scripture.”

No, I disagree. We have a common sense notion of what a human body is, and when we read the Bible, the Bible talks about bodies in a way that corresponds with our common sense notion of what a body is. This is not a philosophical concept, but a prereflective concept which receives confirmation from Scripture itself.

“Would it the human and the divine thereby be conflated into a single nature? Not at all. Omnipresence could remain a proper attribute of the divine nature, while being communicated to His human nature not as its own proper attribute, but by means of the personal union. On the same basis, if He chose that I should be present simultaneously, though non-locally, throughout the universe, it would be so- and I would be no less human for it. Nor would it make the human nature of Jesus less than human if the person of Jesus, through the hypostatic union, were to access the perogatives of divinity with relation to a condition contrary to ordinary nature with regard to His human nature. What is true of His walking on water could be claimed, were one to assert it, of Ephesians 4:10.”

i)” present simultaneously, though non-locally, throughout the universe.”

Sounds pretty philosophical to me. Also sounds pretty incoherent.

ii) For me, matter is extended in space, while spirit is nonspatial. These occupy different domains. God is spirit. That’s the divine nature.

As I said before in reply to McCain, the true relation is analogous to the mind/body relation.

iii) A communication of attributes at what level? If you’re talking about a transfer of divine attributes to the human nature, then that’s pantheistic. If you’re saying that the person of Christ has access to and exercises attributes proper to both the divine and human natures, yes.

iv) As far as Eph 4:10 is concerned, I agree with the interpretation offered by the standard commentators, viz. Bruce, Hoehner, Lincoln, O’Brien.

v) Walking on water is a nature miracle which tells us something about the omnipotence of Christ, but nothing about the composition of his body or the composition of H2O.

“But we Lutherans, contrary to the conclusion to which Calvinists usually jump, just aren't interested in telling Jesus where He has to keep His human nature. And that's the point: He's God. He can do with His human nature whatever He wants. We, on the other hand, don't get to dictate to Him on this matter.”

That may be your point. It doesn’t seem to be McCain’s point.

“Which is rather the point at which dialog between Lutherans and Calvinists has always generally tended to break down. Calvinism, after all, is heavily indebted to Platonism, just as Catholicism is to Aristotelian scholasticism; a key part of Luther's theology, though, was the rejection of any human philosophical system as a means to arrive at authoritative knowledge of a Being Whose ways are not our ways, whose thoughts are not our thoughts, and Who is simply not obligated to respect our philosophical restrictions upon Him. In fact, we understand the supplimentation of Scripture by philosophical deduction to be, ipso facto, a denial of the sola Scriptura and a descent into crass rationalism. That's why we take umbrage at imposing an alien philosophical explanation upon the words, "This is my body," and "This is my blood." After all, Jesus is God. He can do anything with His human nature He wants.”

Spare us the canned etiology. That hasn’t figured in the arguments of Gene or Evan or myself.

“If it is true that Christ's session at the right hand of God, for example, is to be understood literally and geographically, so as to preclude His bodily presence on the altar (as if God could not, after all, do whatever He wants with His own human nature), one is left with the task of explaining how one goes about getting to the geographical right of an omnipresent Being. And of course, the entire notion that heaven is a geographical location- a place itself is an assertion without much in either Scripture or logic to recommend it.”

You’re covering too much ground in too little time.

i) If Christ rose bodily from the grave, and ascended body to into heaven (to be sure, he was taken up by the Shekinah, so it’s not like a rocket to the moon), then heaven is a place.

ii) This doesn’t mean that Christ is literally seated at the right hand of God the Father. The session of Christ is a metaphor for his royal dominion over the church and the world.

“So why can't God keep His human nature anywhere He wants? Rather than ‘ubquitarianism, the Lutheran position is more accurately described as ‘multivolipresence.’”

“Multivolipresence”? Sounds pretty philosophical to me, without being very coherent.

“Christ's human nature is whereever He jolly well wants it to be. He's God. He gets to do whatever He wants to with His human nature. Or yours. Or mine. Or any other part of His creation. That's a point this Lutheran has always been amazed that Calvinists, of all people, have so much trouble with!”

No, this is not an issue of what may or may not be abstractly possible. This, rather, is a question of exegetical theology rather than philosophical theology.

“But we're just not interested in defending philosophical positions. As much fun as it can be, philosophy simply can't trump the plain words of Scripture, or supplement it as a source of authority. And as the christological and sacramental trouble which Calvinistic Platonism lands the Reformed tradition demonstrates all too well, it can even put you in the awkward position of trying to invent contrived ways to shoehorn philosophically derived positions which contradict the plain sense of Scripture into a theology which means to affirm both the unique authority of Scripture and christological orthodoxy.”

This is a tendentious description of the opposing position.

“You shouldn't be fishing for red herrings like ubiquitarianism. You should be trying to explain why- as intent upon christological orthodoxy as you are- you should have to go so far as to propose the separation of the human and the divine natures of Christ in order to defend the untenable philosophical conclusion that the verba of the Lord's Supper cannot be taken in their plain and natural sense, because a Man Who is Almighty God is philosophically precluded from doing with His own human nature what those words, taken in their natural and obvious sense, plainly propose.”

i) To say that we “separate” the two natures of Christ operates with a tacitly materialistic notion of the hypostatic union, as if the divine and human natures must be in direct physical contact, like two pieces of paper stuck together. The Lutheran is getting carried way picture language—where two bodies share a common surface or something like that.

ii) Pardon me if I’m unable to see that “multivolipresence” or “present simultaneously, though non-locally” quite captures the “plain and natural sense” of 1 Cor 11:24-25. Run that one past me again.

However, I do want to thank Bob Waters for elevating the level of discourse. At least we’re now having a grown-up discussion.