One of the arguments used against Eucharistic real presence is that the right hand of God is in some local place in heaven (away from us) and Christ's humanity is now there so He can't possibly be with us in His body and blood in the Eucharist.
Let me address here the issue of the right hand of God. Those who make these assertions do indeed affirm the omnipresence of God. They affirm Christ being God is omnipresent in His divine nature.
So what is the problem?
The problem lies in saying the right hand of God is at some local place. Why? Assuming right hand of God is "a part of God" we have the problem now of saying the right hand isn't omnipresent. And if we go by that then not all of God is omnipresent. And if God isn't fully omnipresent, then how can Christ according to His divine nature be as such?
So such arguments, though aim to undercut the presence of Christ's humanity with us in means of grace, actually undercut the presence of Christ's divinity with us as well.
And ultimately, it undercuts the divinity of God overall. The major attribute of God is His omnipresence.
That includes His "right hand."
The reformed doctrine is in reality reasserted platonism everywhere. Eg The famous non capax: ie the finite cannot contain in capacity the infinite is like all philosophical, not theological, presuppositions self defeating. For to assert that limit, the non capax, thus limits God by the very limiting assertion itself. It also confounds "infinite" with "eternal" in its implication.
ReplyDeleteUltimately they preach, teach and confess another god that has more in common with Hellenistic deities than the trinitarian self giving God. Eventual Rank false gods dont just pop up out of thin air but start with variants of the true god in which speculation about leads increasiningly over time to a god or gods increasingly unrecognizable to the trinity. It starts with a false understanding about mans relationship with God before the fall as being fundamentally "law" and then an error on what the fall was.
This is why Calvin always circles back around to the Law, as that is his root grasp of who God is. Luther on the other hand understands Who God is as the self giving God where the Eternal trinitarian relationship (the Father not begotten, the Son begotten, and the Spirit proceeding) is most clearly expressed in time at the cross, and thus the most fundamental ontological nature of man the creature is receiver from the Creator and thus God is fundamentaly not law but pure grace.