Thank God for your input also.
....And they seem to be far less concerned over the vast multitudes of liberal RCs whom Rome treats as members in life and in death, than those who convert to become conservative evangelicals.
As regards other aspects of the article, the author’s attack on SS, argues that “this doctrine says essentially that Scripture is plain enough for anyone to easily understand, yet when it clearly teaches something that is not to the liking of some readers, rather forced attempts to bend the plain meaning are introduced.”
Yet in reality, SS does not teach that all Scripture is plain enough for anyone to easily understand it, but as Westminster states, “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all,” but that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means [in which the church is a part, which Scripture provides for and Westminster affirms], may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
And besides barely interacting with the arguments against the Catholic interpretation, rather than having to “bend the plain meaning” to understand Jn. 6 as referring to the words men are to live by, comparing Scripture with Scripture reveals the meaning cannot be that of literally eating the Lord’s physical body and blood, but that “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.” (John 6:57) And Jesus “lived” by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4), quoting Scripture to the devil as being just that, with His “meat” being to do the Father’s will. (Jn. 4:34)
And such metaphorical use is plenteous in Scripture, and doctrinally this is what is esp. consistent in John’s writing, not only in his gospel but also in his epistles and the rest of the NT, in which eternal life is not received by eating something physical, but by believing the Words of Christ, they being spirit and life, which is how souls were made alive and by which they were to live by, rather than having to wait until the Lord supper to have”life” in them by receiving the Holy Spirit.
The Jews who walked away were like Catholics in understanding Jesus was referring to eating His corporeal flesh, like as the Jews thought Jesus was referring to the physical temple in Jn. 2 (destroy this temple), and Nicodemus thought Jesus was referring to physical birth in Jn. 3 (born again), and the Samaritan women thought Jesus was referring to physical water in Jn. 4, (give me this water, that I thirst not), and in other examples, but in each case the Lord was using such to bring them to the analogical spiritual plane, and likewise in Jn. 6.
As the apostles were Jews they would have no problem understanding “this is my body” as the elements referring to representing Christ, like as water represented blood, and the word of God was eaten, and the Canannites were “bread” for Israel, etc., in the OT. rather than that of literally consuming human flesh and blood. And contrary to lesser things, not question novel and radical act, in which Jesus Himself would be also be consuming Himself. And which would be unlike any other physical miracle, for in these there was an actual detectable change.
Nor is there a separate class of clergy in the NT church entitled “priests” (versus bishops/elders) thru whom the elements are changed, but as shown in 1Cor. 11, they work to bring the church to better manifesting the risen Lord, loving in conformity to His sacrificial death. In which we (I) yet come too short.
There's an important difference though. After the teachings you reference, Jesus didn't turn to his apostles and ask if they would leave too. And Peter wasn't prompted to make a profession of faith.
As the apostles were Jews they would have no problem understanding “this is my body” as the elements referring to representing Christ,
In 1 Cor 5:7, Paul tells us that Jesus is the Paschal Lamb. Jews understood that the Passover lamb was killed, had its blood sprinkled, and then was eaten. Apart from addressing the crowd with the teaching of John 6, Jesus also privately and in the context of the passover seder ate his Last Supper with the apostles, instructing them to "Take, eat; this is my body." (Mt 26:26)
I think your observation about the apostles being Jews is a good one. An important one. And one that underscores that at the Last Supper, they well understood Jesus was instituting something new and that it transcended symbolism.
And which would be unlike any other physical miracle, for in these there was an actual detectable change.
Jesus told us, as I noted in a post above, that the only sign would be the sign of Jonah, i.e. his resurrection. After he arose, he said those who believed without seeing were blessed. Why does faith alone not suffice for taking Jesus at his word at his last meal with his apostles? Peace be with you.