Index of recent argumentation regarding the Real Presence as monophysitism

I'd be lying if I said I didn't expect to provoke a lot of anger and vexation over my recent post: Is transubstantiation a Monophysite doctrine? But it was so much fun to write! And it's been even more fun to watch:
1) how fired up certain interlocutors became
2) how bad their arguments generally were
3) how little they actually interacted with the fundamental point - that Jesus, as both God AND man, is not multilocational but is, rather, always in one place at one time
4) how it made bedfellows out of practitioners of otherwise fairly hostile systems, such as Scott Windsor, loyal son of Rome, and Edward Reiss, fairly conservative Lutheran.

This index post is to serve as a collective reference point to see all the conversation that has gone down over this point.
First came Steve Hays' Anti-Incarnational sacramentalism.
I'd had my post written for some time but was waiting for a good time to post it, and figured that I should go ahead and strike while the iron was hot. So then came my post, which has accumulated more than 120 comments.

Scott Windsor added Transubstantiation Question, and I interacted a lot there.
Later he posted Transubstantiation Question II, and I interacted some there as well. Read these if you want a lot of strawmen and a failure on Windsor's part to even understand what I was saying.

And then you can see Matthew Bellisario post barely-relevant quotations from Thomas Aquinas over at his post: For Those Confused About Transubstantiation..., in which combox I interacted some.
As one philosopher (apocryphally) said: if you speak nonsense in Latin, you can write many books; if you speak nonsense in Saxon, you are found out at once.

Perry Robinson aka Acolyte4236 interacted extensively with me in the combox of my post, starting here.

Edward Reiss jumped in with How Jesus' body--even before the resurrection, is not "Just like ours", then Calvin's framing of the question about the Incarnation--i.e. Jesus' body, is flawed, as if I appealed to Calvin or care particularly what he had to say about this issue if it's irrelevant. Find a great deal of interaction there between us.
Later, Jesus as a "Spiritual reality", since it really seems that the monophysitism proponents in this discussion have a hard time admitting that the spiritual is real. Strange for someone who confesses to be a Christian, but you know.
Later, If St. Peter can do it, Jesus' miracles don't tell us anything special about Jesus as a man..., in which he attempts to assert that Jesus' status as God-man makes Him more buoyant, more cooperative with the surface tension of water than my status as regular man makes me.

TurretinFan had One More Response to Edward Reiss.

Finally, Steve Hays had numerous helpful things to say in his posts:
The Styrofoam Jesus, in which he mocks the buoyancy argument.
A Lutheran's unresponsive response
Lutheran cartoons
The Heisenberg compensator
The Real Presence of the Big Mac, a specific response to some of the comments from Perry Robinson, Acolyte4236 in the combox of my post.
Why Lutherans deny the empty tomb, a reductio on the Lutheran view Edward Reiss has been defending (and by extension, the Roman view).

Overall, a very interesting and satisfying exchange. It's good to be Reformed. Sort of funny how I'll be teaching through Eric Svendsen's curriculum on the Lord's Table starting pretty soon in my Sunday School class.

Is transubstantiation a Monophysite doctrine?

CrimsonCatholic and Perry Robinson participated a few months ago in a fairly technical but somewhat interesting discussion at David Waltz's blog.
CrimsonCatholic made a very interesting statement:

The key feature of Chalcedonian theology is that Christ's nature is exactly the same as ours, so what happens to the human nature in Christ happens to everyone who is "in Christ Jesus" (to use St. Paul's term) by grace, including the sharing of the divine glory.

I'd like to ask a few questions, if we're going to take this consistently with the rest of our theology.
So Christ's nature is exactly the same as mine. My nature is human. Part of being human (as opposed to being divine) is to be limited to a particular physical location at any one time, is it not? My body cannot be in more than one place at any one time. That's obvious.

Now, Christ Himself, at the time of His Incarnation, took upon Himself a human nature and a physical body. At the time of His Resurrection, His body became glorified and immortal; He doesn't necessarily have blood anymore, but He retains flesh and physical tangibility, among other properties. He can perhaps walk through walls, or perhaps not; John 20 simply says, "when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, 'Peace be with you.'" Maybe He created a key and let Himself in; maybe He knocked and they let Him in; maybe He passed through the door via "teleportation"; the text does not tell us. Obviously He can perform miracles such as walking on water and perhaps passing through walls, disappearing right in front of two disciples at dinnertime on the road to Emmaus, etc, but we never see Christ in more than one place at any one time.

CCC 1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."

1379 The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood. . . ."

1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

On any given Sunday, or really most any day of the week, Mass is performed at thousands of churches across the globe. On any given Sunday morning, to be sure, the Eucharistic host is transubstantiated in multiple locations, at the same time. How well does this match with the conception of Christ's body's substance? It is supposed to be of human substance, yet here it displays a trait better assigned to divinity, that of omnipresence. Christ's human body, it turns out, is NOT "exactly the same as ours", as I don't think CrimsonCatholic has ever been at two or more places at once. I know I haven't, much as I'd like to be; I could get a lot more accomplished!

And the situation seems to be even worse than that. Take a look at this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

On the contrary, He continues His Eucharistic Presence even in the consecrated Hosts and particles that remain on the or in the ciborium after the distribution of Holy Communion.

Thus the red candle/light that one often sees perpetually lit on the altar of a Roman church - one or more transubstantiated hosts are still there. The real and substantial body of Jesus Christ is enclosed there. In many hundreds or thousands of churches across the world, simultaneously.

So, taking the doctrine that CrimsonCatholic has expressed and applying it consistently across the board, we run into a serious snag in the doctrine of the Eucharist. It would seem that, if transubstantiation is true, then the RC position leads to a denial of the true human nature of Christ, because the substantial, real human body of Christ is simultaneously in thousands of different places, thus applying a divine trait to Christ's human nature. Not Chalcedonian at all, then; more like Monophysite.

How Roman Dogma Affects a Defense of the Deity of Christ

One major thrust of any biblical defense of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is to point out the places in the New Testament in which He explicitly receives worship.
I found 4 passages in which such worship directed to Jesus appears in the NT and discovered that the English word "worship" each time expresses one Greek word - προσκυνέω, proskyneō aka proskuneo.

John 9:35 - Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
36He answered, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?"
37Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you."
38And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped (proskuneo) Him.

Revelation 5:11 - I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands,
12saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing."
13And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."
14And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen " And the elders fell down and worshiped (proskuneo).

Revelation 19:10 - Then I fell at his feet to worship (proskuneo) him. But he said to me, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship (proskuneo) God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

Revelation 22:8 - I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship (proskuneo) at the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9But he said to me, "Do not do that I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship (proskuneo) God."


How does this relate to Rome? Roman dogma specifically endorses and approves the bowing down in a religious context to non-deity entities such as the Blessed Virgin, saints, and angels. Roman apologists contend that the Bible contains examples of people bowing down to other people, and it seems to be perfectly OK. Tim Staples has said:

Is kissing or kneeling down before a statue the same as worshiping it? Not necessarily. Both Peter in Acts 10 and the angel in Revelation 19 rebuked Cornelius and John, respectively, specifically for worshiping them. The problem was not with the bowing; it was with the worshiping. Bowing does not necessarily entail worship. For example, Jacob bowed to the ground on his knees seven times to his elder brother Esau (Gen. 33:3), Bathsheba bowed to her husband David (1 Kgs. 1:16), and Solomon bowed to his mother Bathsheba (1 Kgs. 2:19).

Another prooftext Roman apologists use is 1 Chronicles 29:20 -

Then David said to all the assembly, "Now bless the LORD your God." And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and bowed low and did homage to the LORD and to the king.

For the record, all of those OT verses mentioned save 1 Kings 2:19 use a form of proskuneo in the LXX.
Protestants respond in numerous ways, one of which is to remind the Romanist that these occurrences are not in a religious context. To greet someone or to show honor to the king is clearly not worship. I've pointed this out myself at length. Romanists respond that this distinction is not as hard and fast as we make it sound.
"See?" they say, "It's permissible to proskuneo non-divine entities."

Now, it occurred to me the other day that The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the Jehovah's Witnesses, often experience the same allergy to throwing proskuneo around that we as Protestants do. But of course, it's a bit of a different animal for them, since JW dogma is henotheistic in nature. But if Jesus Christ were to receive worship as divine, then would that not weigh in favor of our contention that Christ is Himself Jehovah?
Consider James White's debate with on-again, off-again, now in good standing, now in poor standing JW apologist Greg Stafford. White mentioned the passages I printed above from Revelation 4 and 5, where the Lamb and the One seated on the throne are recipients of proskuneo from the beings surrounding the throne.
Dr. White plays a clip from his debate with Stafford starting at minute 23:15 of this video. You can hear Stafford insist that the proskuneo of the aforementioned passage does not apply necessarily to the Lamb, that is, Christ, in this scenario. Perhaps it is only the One seated on the throne, the Father (or Jehovah on Stafford's view), Who is receiving the proskuneo of the creatures and elders, etc, in this scene. Obviously, if Christ were to be on the receiving end of a proskuneo act and accept it as proper, the JW view would be seriously damaged, as such worshipful actions are due and properly rendered to Jehovah alone.
Read the passage through from Revelation 4 to the end of 5 and it becomes clear that there is no disjunction between the worship given to the Father and that given to the Lamb - Christ. Thus - zing! - the worship Christ receives is identical to that which the Father (Jehovah Himself on the JW view) receives. And the Father never objects, never corrects those who are worshiping, and neither does Christ. Thus John 5:22-23 is pictured as fully realised in the heavenly scene:

²²"For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, ²³so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Thus, a useful weapon in the Christian's arsenal of arguments against Watchtower dogma is hamstrung on Roman Catholicism, as RC apologists try to justify their actions towards statues of dead people and angels by attempting to show that it's OK to proskuneo non-divine entities.
Catholic Answers seems not to see this:

The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT said that Jesus was to be worshipped (Heb. 1:6), but the WTS changed the NWT so that later editions would support its doctrines. The translators now decided to render the Greek word for "worship" (proskuneo) as "do obeisance" every time it is applied to Jesus, but as "worship" when modifying Jehovah. If the translators were consistent, then Jesus would be given the worship due to God in Matthew. 14:33, 28:9, 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, and Hebrews 1:6.

This is not to say that the RC has no useful or valid arguments against the Watchtower. I'm just pointing out that RC dogma and apologetic practice prevents them from using this argument.

Some dealings with Islam

A recent thread has gotten off track and so I'd like to set this post in place to continue the discussions started there.
Many thanks to Shahiroz for the contributions and discussion thus far.

Just so you can have an idea of what we're talking about, I'll post my latest comment here. It is responding to this and this comments.



Hi Shahiroz,

Thanks again for your thoughts.

How is Islam false if Christ is divine?

B/c the Quran states explicitly that Isa is not divine.
Surah 5:116-120 (YusufAli) -
And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.
"Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.
"If Thou dost punish them, they are Thy servant: If Thou dost forgive them, Thou art the Exalted in power, the Wise."
Allah will say: "This is a day on which the truthful will profit from their truth: theirs are gardens, with rivers flowing beneath,- their eternal Home: Allah well-pleased with them, and they with Allah: That is the great salvation, (the fulfilment of all desires).
To Allah doth belong the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, and it is He Who hath power over all things.


There is only one God in both Christianity and Islam…please tell me you agree with me.

The question is not monotheism (as we are both monotheists) but Unitarianism. Specifically, whether Christ is God.

Accepting a claimant by what he says is insufficient proof.

You are not an atheist. You are a Muslim, are you not? Then you must believe that Isa was at the least a prophet of Allah. Would a prophet of Allah make false blasphemous claims like "I am God"?

I do believe Christ is Divine.

May I say that you are a strange Muslim?
Forget "divine". Is Christ God?

I didn’t say Isa might have been making a false claim

Well, you said "there have been many claimants". I don't see why you said that.
But OK, when He claimed to be God, accepted worship in place of God, claimed divine attributes, what does that mean?


Muhammad affirming His own authority makes Him worthy of the same acceptance

Muhammad never claimed to be God. We evaluate what he DID claim. We must do the same with Isa to be fair-minded.


Simply put “There is one God, Muhammad and Jesus are two of his Divine Messengers.

But Isa did not allow the option to treat Him like a simple messenger of God. He claimed to be God.

I have no problem saying God in flesh, we all have God in our flesh

I repeat, and I mean no offense, but I've never met a Muslim with stranger beliefs than yours.
You said you're Shia...I am just a little confused. Oh well.
A few questions based on this:
1) Do we all have God in our flesh in the same way that Jesus did? If so, could you briefly describe how you know that?
2) Jesus accepted worship from humans along with the appellation "My Lord and my God!". Does that mean that, since I have God in my flesh, I can also legitimately accept worship from others? Will God be perfectly OK with that?
3) Is it OK for me to say "Before Abraham was, I am"?


A few things since TurretinFan is putting some time in answering David Waltz. Of course he can comment on what he wants, but here's what I'd like to know:

We only have Christ’s words through the NT as represented by the Apostles-Not his words.

But they are quoting Christ.
On what basis can you determine whether they were accurately quoting Christ or not? You clearly believe some of what the NT says about Christ. How can you tell which parts are wrong?

PLEASE TELL ME WHY MUHAMMAD IS NOT ATLEAST A CANDIDATE?

Here are 3 reasons:
1) B/c the Qur'an says in Surah 5:116-120 that Christ is NOT God.
2) B/c the Qur'an says in Surah 4 that Christ was not even crucified.
3) Re: What fruit does the ministry of the prophet bring? Does it lead God's people to holiness and purity? Matthew 7:15,20; 1 Corinthians 14:3,4 Muhammad's teachings have led people into a false idea of how they might be saved. He has taught them that their works can play a part in bringing about their salvation, while the revelation of the NT is that we are saved by unmerited grace only, through faith only.


The Quran teaches the punishment of the wicked is endless too.

This contradicts your earlier statement: just and merciful God saves everyone

Which is it? Are some wicked people punished endlessly or is everyone saved?

The Lord Jesus himself never said to worship him.

He accepted worship.

He denied the idea of tritheism of any kind

Oh! You've been doing so well! Please don't fall back into the careless and dishonorable caricatures that so many other Muslims do, calling Christianity tritheistic. Let's stay on topic!

For this concept of the “Trinity” is an esoteric concept. Nothing literal about it

What is your argument for that?
And is there a reason why you did not respond to T-Fan's Quranic citations?

Only Christ can justly judge my love for Him

True, but He has already clearly revealed the verdict and its bases:
John 8:24 - He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins."
John 3:18 - Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

We judge your BELIEFS as beliefs that do not save, based on God's revelation.
We don't need to judge your sins; the New Testament judges you a sinner already. Everyone is a sinner. We need grace from God to be saved, and that grace is given through faith in the true Jesus Christ.


Let me reiterate that I appreciate very much your hanging around and answering questions and interacting. That is hard to find on the Internet! Thanks again.

Peace,

Jesus can't justify Himself

CrimsonCatholic has responded, and while I find his response quite foreign-sounding (which is probably my own fault), he said sthg that concerns me a GREAT deal. How ironic that I started out questioning the legitimacy of the link between Christology and justification, and now I'm following that trail! Oh well...

-Even a perfect human can't justify himself, not even Jesus, so the notion that Jesus saved us through His perfect obedience is likewise Pelagian.

I actually once heard a charismatic pastor trying to defend the idea that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is evidenced by speaking in tongues - "Jesus was born saved!" Strange to hear the same repeated by a Roman Catholic!

So, a few questions to flesh out the most important thing CC said here:
1) Why would a perfect human need to be justified? Do you mean b/c of the original sin?
2) If #1 is b/c of original sin, how could a perfect human exist at all?
3) If #1 is b/c of original sin, that human wouldn't be perfect, right? He'd have sin, wouldn't he? And therefore not be perfect?
4) Did Jesus have original sin?
5) Why would Jesus need to be justified?
6) If Jesus did not save us thru His perfect obedience, then why does the Scripture say this?
Heb 5:7-8 -

7In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. 8Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. 9And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation...

And especially,
Rom 5:18-20 -

18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more...

7) Was it not, then, Jesus' actions that provided salvation for fallen humanity? If not, what?
8) Related to #7, are not Christ's passion, crucifixion, and resurrection actions that were performed in obedience to the eternal plan of God?

'Course, anyone is welcome to chime in. If you're RC or EOx, I'd also like very much to know your estimation of what CrimsonCatholic has said.