Christ's Ubiquity and Matthew 18:20

[Confessor]

Often, arguments against transubstantiation and consubstantiation include the fact that Christ is now residing at the right hand of God in heaven. Yet Luther posited that Christ was in/through/around the bread and wine and therefore posited the doctrine of Christ's ubiquity.

If ubiquity is denied in Reformed circles (primarily because it makes no sense to speak of a human body that is omnipresent), then how does Matthew 18:20 make sense?

"For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Would it be Nestorian to say that Christ is with us divinely but not humanly?

 

[Prufrock]

The ubiquitrian controversy, as you noted, respects Christ's human nature; if we take Brenz as a representative ubiquitarian, he held that Christ's body was present everywhere, not locally, but "fillingly," as in Isaiah 6. (See Vermigli's Discourse on the Two Natures of Christ for a good Reformed understanding of this.)

It is not Nestorian, for to say that Christ is never separate from his human nature is not the same as to say that Christ's human nature is present everywhere the divine nature is found; even as a head is always with a body, and a body is not a body if there by no head, yet the head is not coextensive with the body.

Even as we can say "Christ died" without intending that the divine nature somehow perished; so we can also speak of Christ being present, without understanding his human nature to be omnipresent.

 

[Confessor]

The ubiquitrian controversy, as you noted, respects Christ's human nature; if we take Brenz as a representative ubiquitarian, he held that Christ's body was present everywhere, not locally, but "fillingly," as in Isaiah 6. (See Vermigli's Discourse on the Two Natures of Christ for a good Reformed understanding of this.)

It is not Nestorian, for to say that Christ is never separate from his human nature is not the same as to say that Christ's human nature is present everywhere the divine nature is found; even as a head is always with a body, and a body is not a body if there by no head, yet the head is not coextensive with the body.

Even as we can say "Christ died" without intending that the divine nature somehow perished; so we can also speak of Christ being present, without understanding his human nature to be omnipresent.

So it's the fact that Lutherans and Catholics believe that Christ's human nature is present in the elements that makes it illogical?

 

[Scott1]

The two natures of Christ (human and divine) is difficult because we cannot really understand such a thing with our limited capacities as created beings. So, to some extent, we have to "reach out in faith," to come to terms with this.

The Council of Chalcedon (451) set out the boundaries of this essential doctrine of Christianity:

Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D)

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

Nothing I have seen summarizes this more clearly than our Confession:

Chapter VIII
Of Christ the Mediator

I. It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man,[1] the Prophet,[2] Priest,[3] and King,[4] the Head and Savior of His Church,[5] the Heir of all things,[6] and Judge of the world:[7] unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed,[8] and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.[9]

II. The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature,[10] with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;[11] being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance.[12] So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.[13] Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.[14]

III. The Lord Jesus, in His human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure,[15] having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge;[16] in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell;[17] to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth,[18] He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety.[19] Which office He took not unto Himself, but was thereunto called by His Father,[20] who put all power and judgment into His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same.[21]
...

Basically, my understanding of this (not formally theologically trained) is that Christ's human nature is subsumed in His divine nature, and that He voluntarily took on the limits of the human nature.

So, reformed theology understands Christ is indeed present during the Lord's Supper- spiritually (but not physically). He is spiritually there, real grace (God's unmerited favor) is dispensed, strength for the believer.

That's why the Lord's Supper is one of the "ordinary means of grace" for a believer, and so very important. Christ is spiritual present, and grace is really dispensed.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

If ubiquity is denied in Reformed circles (primarily because it makes no sense to speak of a human body that is omnipresent), then how does Matthew 18:20 make sense?

"For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Would it be Nestorian to say that Christ is with us divinely but not humanly?

Also remember that what is said about one of Christ's natures is attributed to the whole person. So it is perfectly right to say that Christ is present where 2 or 3 gather together, because the person of Christ is there in his divine nature (and through His Holy Spirit) in a special way to those who believe, even though his human body is in heaven.

It is not Nestorian because we believe in one person with two distinct natures, not two persons.

 

[Whitefield]

If ubiquity is denied in Reformed circles (primarily because it makes no sense to speak of a human body that is omnipresent), then how does Matthew 18:20 make sense?

"For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Two words: Holy Spirit.

 

[Confessor]

If ubiquity is denied in Reformed circles (primarily because it makes no sense to speak of a human body that is omnipresent), then how does Matthew 18:20 make sense?

"For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Two words: Holy Spirit.

Please elaborate.

Does this have to do with the Spirit lifting our spirits up to heaven or something along those lines? I remember Rev. Buchanan (Contra Mundum I believe) spoke of the Supper like that in some respect.

 

[Prufrock]

The ubiquitrian controversy, as you noted, respects Christ's human nature; if we take Brenz as a representative ubiquitarian, he held that Christ's body was present everywhere, not locally, but "fillingly," as in Isaiah 6. (See Vermigli's Discourse on the Two Natures of Christ for a good Reformed understanding of this.)

It is not Nestorian, for to say that Christ is never separate from his human nature is not the same as to say that Christ's human nature is present everywhere the divine nature is found; even as a head is always with a body, and a body is not a body if there by no head, yet the head is not coextensive with the body.

Even as we can say "Christ died" without intending that the divine nature somehow perished; so we can also speak of Christ being present, without understanding his human nature to be omnipresent.

So it's the fact that Lutherans and Catholics believe that Christ's human nature is present in the elements that makes it illogical?

Ben, Sorry for my tardiness in response; I've been out of town for several days. In my above post, I was actually not speaking of Christ's presence in the elements, but rather his presence period. It should be noted that there were (are?) differences among Lutherans regarding ubiquity: Melanchthon at one extreme, Brenz at another (with Chemnitz somewhere in between). Brenz held that anywhere Christ's divine nature was present, so must also be his human nature. This was a doctrine subservient to consubstantiation -- not one standing prior thereunto as the cause. It served as a way of explaining their eucharistic teaching. This is illogical -- for a body ceases to be a body.