I feel your pain. :) CS Lewis used an example of a chair. Anyone who thinks describing the reality of being a chair is easy, hasn't, as you say, thought about it. That does not however, prevent us from immediately recognizing it's 'chairness' and using it properly. For most humans, even a recklessly casual exposure to the object will produce the same result. If we see a chair, we may well sit it in, and rely upon it, though we are dumb as rocks as to what it really, actually 'is," and why it is holding us up.
Which is why I am grateful that God is the one communicating these truths through His word and His Spirit, and not through the wisdom of men. Though it should be obvious, He hides the truth from the wise and reveals it unto babes.
As for his word "making it so," we certainly agree in principle. He spoke, and the universe sprang into being from nothing. But it was an identifiable, discernable change. He turned the water into wine. But there is no record of him saying of the water, while it still looked and behaved like water, "this is wine." There was a discernable transition that occurred in real time.
In fact, I am not aware of any contradiction to this implied principle, that whenever he changed any material object or physical condition by His word, the result was always discernable to ordinary, even unspiritual human observers.
Yet Aquinas et al run against that pattern and would have us believe a transformative miracle has occurred upon a physical object, for which there is no discernable physical evidence, and for which, in language under ordinary rules of construction, there is no command given to effect such a transformation.
This is asking for more faith than Abraham had. Or perhaps less. A definite and promise was given, and Sarah did give birth, after all, to a physical son. Faith is the evidence of things not seen, true, but it can hardly be evidence that a command never given resulted in a change never detected. Abraham believed something would happen, and it did happen, and everyone knew it happened.
So in the view of Abrahamic faith, there is no need to make excuses for undetectable miracles issuing from undetected commands. God is perfectly capable both of expressing to us when he has commanded change, and of bringing it to pass in a way that unmistakeably manifests His glory and power. Under the ordinary rules of language, we know when he tells the lame man to pick up his bed and walk, or when he commands the sea to be calm. Like the Roman captain says, just say the word, and I know it will happen. And it did, in an open and discernable way.
And he is also perfectly capable of using the ordinary language of simple description, when he tells us that a farm field represents the world, the wheats represent believers, and the tares represent unbelievers. He created all these objects, and the language to describe them. That does not mean that at the moment of speaking about them he changed them. He is only speaking descriptively of things He already created in time past.
So, as I said, I am happy to agree with you on his power to create any reality he chooses. But if he chooses to use an expression which, per Occam's razor, is best understood, under the ordinary rules of language, not as a pop quiz on speculative metaphysics, or a cryptic signal of crypto-creation, but as a simple, garden variety descriptive analogy, then what can justify our venturing unbidden into deeper waters, and worse, to pronounce anathema's on those who are unwilling to join in the speculation, as Trent certainly did re transubstantiation?
So, as I said, I am happy to agree with you on his power to create any reality he chooses. But if he chooses to use an expression which, per Occam's razor, is best understood, under the ordinary rules of language, not as a pop quiz on speculative metaphysics, or a cryptic signal of crypto-creation, but as a simple, garden variety descriptive analogy, then what can justify our venturing unbidden into deeper waters, and worse, to pronounce anathema's on those who are unwilling to join in the speculation, as Trent certainly did re transubstantiation?
So true... However that does lead us back to the idea of authority...Our authority is what God says in the scriptures...Their authority is their ongoing 'tradition'...They have lured countless numbers of people into believing that their religion's authority is higher that God's written words...
I don’t think the changing of “substance “ is so wonderful or rare. An ornament becomes a wedding ring, with no measurable change. And old radiator becomes a mooring anchor, and a plastic lid a frisbee. Heck, I have some computers that are now doorstops. (Okay, I’m kidding there.)
It’s the substance it becomes that is the miracle, to me.