Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A critique of the evangelical doctrine of solo scriptura
The Highway ^ | Keith Mathison

Posted on 01/06/2003 8:09:14 AM PST by lockeliberty

In the 1980s and early 1990s, a controversy erupted among dispensationalists which came to be referred to as the Lordship Salvation controversy. On one side of the debate were men such as Zane Hodges1 and Charles Ryrie2 who taught a reductionistic doctrine of solafide which absolutized the word “alone” in the phrase “justification by faith alone” and removed it from its overall theological context. Faith was reduced to little more than assent to the truthfulness of certain biblical propositions. Repentance, sanctification, submission to Christ’s Lordship, love, and perseverance were all said to be unnecessary for salvation. Advocates of this position claimed that it was the classical Reformation position taught by Martin Luther and John Calvin. On the other side of the debate was John MacArthur who argued that these men were clearly abandoning the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone.3 In addition to the books written by the primary dispensationalist participants, numerous Reformed theologians wrote books and articles criticizing this alteration of the doctrine of solafide.4 A heated theological controversy began which continues in some circles even to this day.

Ironically, a similar drastic alteration of the classical Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura has occurred over the last 150 years, yet this has caused hardly a stir among the theological heirs of the Reformation, who have usually been quick to notice any threatening move against the Reformed doctrine of justification. So much time and effort has been spent guarding the doctrine of sola fide against any perversion or change that many do not seem to have noticed that the classical and foundational Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura has been so altered that is virtually unrecognizable. In its place Evangelicals have substituted an entirely different doctrine. Douglas Jones has coined the term solo scriptura to refer to this aberrant Evangelical version of sola scriptura.5

Modern Evangelicalism has done the same thing to sola scriptura that Hodges and Ryrie did to solafide. But unfortunately so little attention is paid to the doctrine of sola scriptura today that even among trained theologians there is confusion and ambiguity when the topic is raised. Contradictory and insufficient definitions of sola scriptura are commonplace not only among broadly Evangelical authors but among Reformed authors as well. In this chapter we shall examine this aberrant modern Evangelical concept of solo scriptura and explain why it is imperative that the Evangelical church recognize it to be as dangerous as the distorted concepts of solafide that are prevalent in the Church today.

EVANGELICAL INDIVIDUALISM

The modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is nothing more than a new version of Tradition 0. Instead of being defined as the sole infallible authority, the Bible is said to be the “sole basis of authority”6 Tradition is not allowed in any sense; the ecumenical creeds are virtually dismissed; and the Church is denied any real authority. On the surface it would seem that this modern Evangelical doctrine would have nothing in common with the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox doctrines of authority. But despite the very real differences, the modern Evangelical position shares one major flaw with both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox positions. Each results in autonomy. Each results in final authority being placed somewhere other than God and His Word. Unlike the Roman Catholic position and the Eastern Orthodox position, however, which invariably result in the autonomy of the Church, the modern Evangelical position inevitably results in the autonomy of the individual believer.

We have already seen that there is a major difference between the concept of Scripture and tradition taught by the classical Reformers and the concept taught by the Anabaptists and their heirs. The Anabaptist concept, here referred to as Tradition 0, attempted to deny the authority of tradition in any real sense. The Scriptures were considered not only the sole final and infallible authority, but the only authority whatsoever. The Enlightenment added the philosophical framework in which to comprehend this individualism. The individual reason was elevated to the position of final authority. Appeals to antiquity and tradition of any kind were ridiculed. In the early years of the United States, democratic populism swept the people along in its fervor.7 The result is a modern American Evangelicalism which has redefined sola scriptura in terms of secular Enlightenment rationalism and rugged democratic individualism.

Perhaps the best way to explain the fundamental problem with the modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura would be through the use of an illustration to which many believers may be able to relate. Almost every Christian who has wrestled with theological questions has encountered the problem of competing interpretations of Scripture. If one asks a dispensationalist pastor, for example, why he teaches premillennialism, the answer will be, “Because the Bible teaches premillennialism.” If one asks the conservative Presbyterian pastor across the street why he teaches amillennialism (or postmillennialism), the answer will likely be, “Because that is what the Bible teaches.” Each man will claim that the other is in error, but by what ultimate authority do they typically make such a judgment? Each man will claim that he bases his judgment on the authority of the Bible, but since each man’s interpretation is mutually exclusive of the other’s, both interpretations cannot be correct. How then do we discern which interpretation is correct?

The typical modern Evangelical solution to this problem is to tell the inquirer to examine the arguments on both sides and decide which of them is closest to the teaching of Scripture. He is told that this is what sola scriptura means — to individually evaluate all doctrines according to the only authority, the Scripture. Yet in reality, all that occurs is that one Christian measures the scriptural interpretations of other Christians against the standard of his own scriptural interpretation. Rather than placing the final authority in Scripture as it intends to do, this concept of Scripture places the final authority in the reason and judgment of each individual believer. The result is the relativism, subjectivism, and theological chaos that we see in modern Evangelicalism today.

A fundamental and self-evident truth that seems to be unconsciously overlooked by proponents of the modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is that no one is infallible in his interpretation of Scripture. Each of us comes to the Scripture with different presuppositions, blind spots, ignorance of important facts, and, most importantly, sinfulness. Because of this we each read things into Scripture that are not there and miss things in Scripture that are there. Unfortunately, a large number of modern Evangelicals have followed in the footsteps of Alexander Campbell (1788-1866), founder of the Disciples of Christ, who naively believed he could come to Scripture with absolutely no preconceived notions or biases. We have already mentioned Campbell’s naive statement, “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them today, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.”8

The same ideas were expressed by Lewis Sperry Chafer, the extremely influential founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary. Chafer believed that his lack of any theological training gave him the ability to approach scriptural interpretation without bias. He said, “the very fact that I did not study a prescribed course in theology made it possible for me to approach the subject with an unprejudiced mind and to be concerned only with what the Bible actually teaches.”9 This, however, is simply impossible. Unless one can escape the effects of sin, ignorance, and all previous learning, one cannot read the Scriptures without some bias and blind spots. This is a given of the post-Fall human condition.

This naive belief in the ability to escape one’s own noetic and spiritual limitations led Campbell and his modern Evangelical heirs to discount any use of secondary authorities. The Church, the creeds, and the teachings of the early fathers were all considered quaint at best. The discarding of the creeds is a common feature of the modern Evangelical notion of solo scriptura. It is so pervasive that one may find it even in the writings of prominent Reformed theologians. For example, in a recently published and well-received Reformed systematic theology text, Robert Reymond laments the fact that most Reformed Christians adhere to the Trinitarian orthodoxy expressed in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.10 He openly calls for an abandonment of the Nicene Trinitarian concept in favor of a different Trinitarian concept. One cannot help but wonder how this is any different than the Unitarians rejection of creedal orthodoxy. They call for the rejection of one aspect of Nicene Trinitarianism while Reymond calls for the rejection of another. Why is one considered heretical and the other published by a major Evangelical publishing house?

An important point that must be kept in mind is observed by the great nineteenth-century Princeton theologian Samuel Miller. He noted that the most zealous opponents of creeds “have been those who held corrupt opinions?”11 This is still the case today. The one common feature found in many published defenses of heretical doctrines aimed at Evangelical readers is the staunch advocacy of the modern Evangelical notion of solo scriptura with its concomitant rejection of the subordinate authority of the ecumenical creeds. The first goal of these authors is to convince the reader that sola scriptura means solo scriptura. In other words, their first goal is to convince readers that there are no binding doctrinal boundaries within Christianity.

In his defense of annihilationism, for example, Edward Fudge states that Scripture “is the only unquestionable or binding source of doctrine on this or any subject?”12 He adds that the individual should weigh the scriptural interpretations of other uninspired and fallible Christians against Scripture.’13 He does not explain how the Christian is to escape his own uninspired fallibility. The doctrinal boundaries of Christian orthodoxy are cast aside as being historically conditioned and relative.14 Of course, Fudge fails to note that his interpretation is as historically conditioned and relative as any that he criticizes.15

Another heresy that has been widely promoted with the assistance of the modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is hyper-preterism or pantelism.16 While there are numerous internal squabbles over details, in general advocates of this doctrine insist that Jesus Christ returned in AD. 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem and that at that time sin and death were destroyed, the Adamic curse was lifted, Satan was cast into the lake of fire, the rapture and general resurrection occurred, the final judgment occurred, mourning and crying and pain were done away with, and the eternal state began. The proponents of pantelism are even more vocal in their rejection of orthodox Christian doctrinal boundaries than Fudge. Ed Stevens, for example, writes,

Even if the creeds were to clearly and definitively stand against the preterist view (which they don’t), it would not be an over-whelming problem since they have no real authority anyway. They are no more authoritative than our best opinions today, but they are valued because of their antiquity.17

This is a hallmark of the doctrine of solo scriptura, and it is a position that the classical Reformers adamantly rejected. Stevens continues elsewhere,

We must not take the creeds any more seriously than we do the writings and opinions of men like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, the Westminster Assembly, Campbell, Rushdoony, or C.S. Lewis.18

Here we see the clear rejection of scripturally based structures of authority. The authority of those who rule in the Church is rejected by placing the decisions of an ecumenical council of ministers on the same level as the words of any individual. This is certainly the democratic way of doing things, and it is as American as apple pie, but it is not Christian. If what Mr. Stevens writes is true, then Christians should not take the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity any more seriously than we take some idiosyncratic doctrine of Alexander Campbell or C.S. Lewis. If this doctrine of solo scriptura and all that it entails is true, then the Church has no more right or authority to declare Arianism a heresy than Cornelius Van Til would have to authoritatively declare classical apologetics a heresy. Orthodoxy and heresy would necessarily be an individualistic and subjective determination.

Another pantelist, John Noe, claims that this rejection of the authority of the ecumenical creeds “is what the doctrine of sola scriptura is all about.”19 As we have demonstrated, this is manifestly untrue of the classical Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura. The doctrine of Scripture being espoused by these men is a doctrine of Scripture that is based upon anabaptistic individualism, Enlightenment rationalism, and democratic populism. It is a doctrine of Scripture divorced from its Christian context. It is no different than the doctrine of Scripture and tradition advocated by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in numerous publications such as Should You Believe in the Trinity? in which individuals are urged to reject the ecumenical Christian creeds in favor of a new hermeneutical context.20 Yet the false idea that this doctrine is the Reformation doctrine pervades the thinking of the modern American Evangelical church. Unfortunately the widespread ignorance of the true Reformation doctrine makes it that much easier for purveyors of false doctrine to sway those who have been either unable or unwilling to check the historical facts.

(Please go to the link for the rest of the Authors arguements.)

SUMMARY

Proponents of solo scriptura have deceived themselves into thinking that they honor the unique authority of Scripture. But unfortunately, by divorcing the Spirit-inspired Word of God from the Spirit-indwelt people of God, they have made it into a plaything and the source of endless speculation. If a proponent of solo scriptura is honest, he recognizes that it is not the infallible Scripture to which he ultimately appeals. His appeal is always to his on fallible interpretation of that Scripture. With solo scriptura it cannot be any other way, and this necessary relativistic autonomy is the fatal flaw of solo scriptura that proves it to be an unChristian tradition of men.

(Excerpt) Read more at the-highway.com ...


TOPICS: History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-314 next last
Comment #261 Removed by Moderator

To: Aquinasfan
I thought I should answer your post because it points out the errors I see in your perspective.

You quote: "For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures,"

And then ask: "Who chooses the most important points and by what authority?"

The Apostles choose the most important points and by the authority of being the Apostles of Jesus Christ. As I have stated previously the Apostles taught directly the early Church fathers. The reason this is important is because they established the rule of Faith. The rule of Faith was developed for 2 reasons. First, it allowed those who may have been illiterate to understand and accept the Christian Faith. Second, and more importantly for our discussion, it gave the framework for interpreting the Bible. It allowed the early Church Fathers to be able to harmonize the OT and NT to the overriding message of God and redemption.

These early Church Fathers did not rely strictly on the oral tradition. As I had shown in a earlier post these Fathers quoted from what was still the uncanonized NT.

Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.

Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.

Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.

So the rule of Faith was the framework, the lens, the grid by which these early Church Father used to interpret the yet uncanonized NT.

Then you quote: "we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."

You bold "we" and "approve". Then you ask: "Who is "we" and by what authority do they approve the "intention of those writings"?"

I certainly do not disagree that God gives certain men gifts of interpretation and leadership. The authority to "harmonize with the intention of those writings" is given by God shown through those gifts that adhere to the rule of Faith.

I wonder if you would consider if you had bolded the "alone" in that sentence how that would have changed the meaning of the sentence.

"we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that ~alone~ which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."

With the emphasis on "alone" the statement becomes a sola scriptura statement emphasizing the the necessity to interpret the Bible by the rule of Faith.

Then you posit the following:

Implicit in these commendations of Scripture are the following assumptions:

•The Church created, preserved, and canonized Scripture.
•The Church is the definitive authority regarding the interpretation of Scripture.
•The Church upholds Scripture and thereby upholds the idea that the Spirit would guide the Church into all truth, that the Deposit of Faith included Scripture and Tradition and that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth."

Well, that's quite a stretch to say that the two small quotations I provided implied all that you said above. Certainly implicit is that the leaders in the Church at the time of these two Fathers seemed to agree with the quotations rendered. It is only your perception because of your Roman Catholic background that the statements you rendered were implicit in those short quotations but any non-partial reading certainly would not arrive at the conclusions you stated.

This brings me to my final point which involves our different understanding of what the term "Church" means. I understand it to be the body of believers and that leadership within the Church is based upon the gifts God endows to cerain individuals. You believe that Church is the institutionalized organization through a linear apostolic procession.

Your view of apostolic procession must include a formal lineage of ordination in which the episcopate takes the role of apostleship. I think if you read carefully this idea of apostleship was foriegn to the early Church. It is not until the third century that we find (in the writings of Hippolytus and Cyprian) an identification of the episcopate with the apostolate. Prior to this, the bishops (and other ministers) were thought of as being in succession ~from~ the apostles rather than being ~actual~ successors to the apostles. If we then understand that this succession does not confer apostleship to the episcopate we realize that the succession is of those individuals who remain true to the Apostolic Tradition and the rule of Faith. It simply implies that the leader who adheres to these principles and by applying these rules he will remain faithful to the Tradition. The role of Apostle necessarly ended with the original Apostles because they were the eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ and the only individuals worthy of producing divine scripture.







262 posted on 01/09/2003 3:20:45 AM PST by lockeliberty (Have you priced the cost of pontific robes lately?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: smevin
Let me try this again in a different way. Since you apparently believe that the oral tradition and written Scriptures are different (I believe they are on in the same). What is different and what does this oral tradition contain?
263 posted on 01/09/2003 4:01:18 AM PST by Iowegian (Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Joshua
<> All that stuff happened 20 years ago<>
264 posted on 01/09/2003 5:21:06 AM PST by Catholicguy (Do you feet bleed from standing on the cutting edge of societal news?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church
<> I notice no "my mistake" or "oops" is forthcoming....<>
265 posted on 01/09/2003 5:23:23 AM PST by Catholicguy (I never expected it would, did you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Joshua
<> About historical reality? No<>
266 posted on 01/09/2003 5:25:04 AM PST by Catholicguy (I wonder if some think King James wrote the Bible in the original English Jesus spoke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: gdebrae
<> They were APOSTLES<>
267 posted on 01/09/2003 5:34:12 AM PST by Catholicguy (Sheesh....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: lockeliberty
The Apostles choose the most important points and by the authority of being the Apostles of Jesus Christ. As I have stated previously the Apostles taught directly the early Church fathers.

This begs the question of who definitively interprets the teachings of the early Church Fathers?

It is not until the third century that we find (in the writings of Hippolytus and Cyprian) an identification of the episcopate with the apostolate. Prior to this, the bishops (and other ministers) were thought of as being in succession ~from~ the apostles rather than being ~actual~ successors to the apostles.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Certainly the early history of the Church is murky in this regard. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

The historical origin of the episcopate is much controverted: very diverse hypotheses have been proposed to explain the texts of the inspired writings and of the Apostolic Fathers relating to the primitive ecclesiastical hierarchy.

Again, this points out the need for an authoritative interpretation of the writings of the early Church Fathers.

The Church has always taught that the bishops are successors to the Apostles but not that they are equivalent to the Apostles. In fact, Apostolic succession is recorded in Acts 1 when Peter, definitively interpreting Scripture, determines that a successor must be named for Judas:

Acts 1

15In those days Peter stood up among the believers[3] (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus-- 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry." 18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,

   " 'May his place be deserted;        let there be no one to dwell in it,'[4] and,    " 'May another take his place of leadership.'[5]

21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection." 23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains the relationship between the Apostalate and Episcopate in this way:

VI. APOSTOLATE AND EPISCOPATE

Since the authority with which the Lord endowed the Apostles was given them for the entire Church, it is natural that this authority should endure after their death, in other words, pass to successors established by the Apostles. In the oldest Christian documents concerning the primitive Churches we find ministers established, some of them, at least, by the usual rite of the imposition of hands. They bear various names: priests (presbyteroi, Acts, xi, 30; xiv, 22; xv, 2, 4, 6, 22, 23; xvi, 4; xx, 17; xxi, 18; I Tim., v, 17, 19; Titus, i, 5); bishops (episkopoi, Acts, xx, 28; Phil., i, 1; I Tim., iii, 2; Titus, i, 7); presidents (proistamenoi, I Thes., v, 12; Rom., xii, etc.); heads (hegoumenoi, Hebrews, xiii, 7, 17, 24, etc.); shepherds (poimenes, Eph., iv, 11); teachers (didaskaloi, Acts, xiii, 1; I Cor., xii, 28 sq. etc.); prophets (prophetai, Acts, xiii, 1; xv, 32; I Cor., xii, 28, 29, etc.), and some others. Besides them, there are Apostolic delegates, such as Timothy and Titus. The most frequent terms are priests and bishops; they were destined to become the technical names for the "authorities" of the Christian community. All other names are less important; the deacons are out of the question, being of an inferior order. It seems clear that amid so great a variety of terms for ecclesiastical authorities in Apostolic times several must have expressed only transitory functions. From the beginning of the second century in Asia Minor, and somewhat later elsewhere, we find only three titles: bishops, priests, and deacons; the last changed with inferior duties. The authority of the bishop is different from the authority of priests, as is evident on every page of the letters of the martyr Ignatius of Antioch. The bishop--and there is but one in each town--governs his church, appoints priests who have a subordinate rank to him, and are, as it were, his counsellors, presides over the Eucharistic assemblies, teaches his people, etc. He has, therefore, a general power of governing and teaching, quite the same as the modern Catholic bishop; this power is substantially identical with the general authority of the Apostles, without, however, the personal prerogatives ascribed to the latter. St. Ignatius of Antioch declares that this ministry holds legitimately its authority from God through Christ (Letter to the Philadelphians, i). Clement of Rome, in his Letter; to the Church of Corinth (about 96), defends with energy the legitimacy of the ministry of bishops and, priests, and proclaims that the Apostles established successors to govern the churches (xlii-xliv). We may conclude with confidence that, about the end of the second century, the ministers of the churches were everywhere regarded as legitimate successors of the Apostles; this common persuasion is of primary importance.

Another and more difficult question arises as to the Acts and in the Epistles, the various above mentioned names, chiefly the presbyteroi and the episkopoi (priests and bishops).

* Some authors (and this is the traditional view) contend that the episkopoi of Apostolic times have the same dignity as the bishops of later times, and that the episkopoi of the apostolic writings are the same as the priests of the second century. This opinion, however, must give way before the evident identity of bishop and priest in Acts, xx, 17 and 28, Titus, i, 5-7, Clement of Rome to the Church of Corinth, xliv.

* Another view recognizing this synonymous character estimates that these officers whom we shall call bishops--priests had never the supreme direction of the churches in Apostolic times; this power, it is maintained, was exercised by the Apostles, the Prophets who travelled from one church to another, and by certain Apostolic delegates like Timothy. These alone were the real predecessors of the bishops of the second century; the bishop priests were the same as our modern priests, and had not the plenitude of the priesthood. This opinion is fully discussed and proposed with much learning by A. Michiels (L'origine de l'épiscopat, Louvain, 1900).

* Mgr. Batiffol (Rev. bibl., 1895, and Etudes d'hist. et de théol. positive, I, Paris, 1903) expresses the following opinion: In the primitive churches there were (1) some preparatory functions, as the dignity of Apostles and Prophets; (2) some presbyteroi had no liturgical function, but only an honourable title; (3) the episkopoi, several in each community, had a liturgical function with the office to preach; (4) when the Apostles disappeared, the bishopric was divided: one of the bishops became sovereign bishop, while the others were subordinated to him: these were the later priests. This secondary priesthood is a diminished participation of the one and sole primitive priesthood; there is, therefore, no strict difference of order between the bishop and the priest. Whatever may be the solution of this difficut question (see BISHOP, PRIEST), it remains certain that in the second century the general Apostolic authority belonged, by a succession universally acknowledged as legitimate, to the bishops of the Christian churches. (See APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.) The bishops have, therefore, a general power of order, jurisdiction, and magisterium, but not the personal prerogatives of the Apostles.


268 posted on 01/09/2003 6:22:13 AM PST by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan; lockeliberty
Have you ever called anyone "teacher" or "father"? This is hyperbole. If this was meant to be taken literally, then we would literally be prevented from using these words to call teachers "teacher" and fathers "father." The point of Jesus' use of hyperbole here is to emphasize that God is the supreme father and teacher.

How about apply this kind of logic to Matthew 26:26,26 - "this is my body" - "this is my blood"?

Or again applying it to John 6:48-59 where Jesus calls himself the bread that has come down out of heaven. Jesus is clearly equating "eating" with "believing".

This of course can't be literally true that at the last supper before the cross the disciples were ingesting and digesting the human flesh of Jesus. You may wish to argue that after the resurrection his human flesh (Luke 24:39) is everywhere present, which is impossible, but that certainly was not true before.

The omnipresence of a particular human body is based on an erroneous concept of bodily resurrection. If Christ was raised a spirit with no human body, then he is still dead. ( I Cor 15:13).

Phil 3:21 makes clear that our human bodies will be made like Christ's body. If his humanity is everywhere present, then our's will be also. He has the same human nature that we have.

To worship a piece of bread as if it were God himself is idolatry. Deut 4.

What part of his body is turned into bread? And why after all these centuries of eating his literal body, does he have any body left.

I know the Calvinist concept of the Lord's supper is ridiculed as devoid of the real presence of Christ. This of course is absolutely untrue. Christ does not need to turn his body into bread in order to be really present in the lives of believers. Christ is present not by the action of jaws and teeth but by FAITH.

Gal 2:20 I HAVE BEEN CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST; AND IT IS NO LONGER I THAT LIVE, BUT CHRIST LIVETH IN ME: AND THAT LIFE WHICH I NOW LIVE IN THE FLESH I LIVE IN FAITH, THE FAITH WHICH IS IN THE SON OF GOD, WHO LOVED ME, AND GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR ME."

269 posted on 01/09/2003 7:21:07 AM PST by gdebrae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: gdebrae
How about apply this kind of logic to Matthew 26:26,26 - "this is my body" - "this is my blood"?

You're proposing that Jesus was speaking figuratively. My example was one of hyperbole. Regardless, the context makes quite clear that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6.

•The Jews leave in disgust. Jesus makes no effort to explain that he's speaking figuratively.

•The disciples say, "this is a hard saying. Who can accept it?" The question does not correspond to a figurative interpretation of the passage.

•The disciples leave in disgust. Jesus makes no effort to explain that he's speaking figuratively.

•Jesus asks the Apostles, "will you leave me also?" They do not answer. Peter speaks for the twelve saying, "Lord you have the words of eternal life." He answers with a statement of faith. He doesn't indicate that Jesus is speaking figuratively.

•A figurative interpretation contradicts other Scriptures:

The impossibility of a figurative interpretation is brought home more forcibly by an analysis of the following text: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:54-56). It is true that even among the Semites, and in Scripture itself, the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh", has a figurative meaning, namely, "to persecute, to bitterly hate some one". If, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him. The other phrase, "to drink some one's blood", in Scripture, especially, has no other figurative meaning than that of dire chastisement (cf. Isaias 49:26; Apocalypse 16:6); but, in the present text, this interpretation is just as impossible here as in the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh". Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.

•All related Scriptures indicate a literal meaning:

It is but natural and justifiable to expect that, when four different narrators in different countries and at different times relate the words of Institution to different circles of readers, the occurrence of an unusual figure of speech, as, for instance, that bread is a sign of Christ's Body, would, somewhere or other, betray itself, either in the difference of word-setting, or in the unequivocal expression of the meaning really intended, or at least in the addition of some such mark as: "He spoke, however, of the sign of His Body." But nowhere do we discover the slightest ground for a figurative interpretation. If, then, natural, literal interpretation were false, the Scriptural record alone would have to be considered as the cause of a pernicious error in faith and of the grievous crime of rendering Divine homage to bread (artolatria) — a supposition little in harmony with the character of the four Sacred Writers or with the inspiration of the Sacred Text. Moreover, we must not omit the important circumstance, that one of the four narrators has interpreted his own account literally. This is St. Paul (I Cor. 11:27 sq.), who, in the most vigorous language, brands the unworthy recipient as "guilty of body and of the blood of the Lord". There can be no question of a grievous offense against Christ Himself unless we suppose that the true Body and the true Blood of Christ are really present in the Eucharist. Further, if we attend only to the words themselves their natural sense is so forceful and clear that Luther wrote to the Christians of Strasburg in 1524: "I am caught, I cannot escape, the text is too forcible" (De Wette, II, 577).

•A figurative interpretation is illogical:

For figures enhance the clearness of speech only when the figurative meaning is obvious, either from the nature of the case (e.g. from a reference to a statue of Lincoln, by saying: "This is Lincoln") or from the usages of common parlance (e.g. in the case of this synecdoche: "This glass is wine"), Now, neither from the nature of the case nor in common parlance is bread an apt or possible symbol of the human body. Were one to say of a piece of bread: "This is Napoleon", he would not be using a figure, but uttering nonsense. There is but one means of rendering a symbol improperly so called clear and intelligible, namely, by, conventionally settling beforehand what it is to signify, as, for instance, if one were to say: "Let us imagine these two pieces of bread before us to be Socrates and Plato". Christ, however, instead of informing His Apostles that he intended to use such a figure, told them rather the contrary in the discourse containing the promise: "the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world" (John 6:52), Such language, of course, could be used only by a God-man; so that belief in the Real Presence necessarily presupposes belief in the true Divinity of Christ. The foregoing rules would of themselves establish the natural meaning with certainty, even if the words of Institution, "This is my body — this is my blood", stood alone, But in the original text corpus (body) and sanguis (blood) are followed by significant appositional additions, the Body being designated as "given for you" and the Blood as "shed for you [many]"; hence the Body given to the Apostles was the self same Body that was crucified on Good Friday, and the Chalice drunk by them, the self same Blood that was shed on the Cross for our sins, Therefore the above-mentioned appositional phrases directly exclude every possibility of a figurative interpretation.

•A figurative interpretation would result in an inferior type. By definition, Old Testament types are inferior to what they foreshadow in the New Testament:

Cardinal Bellarmine (De Euchar., I, 3), moreover, calls attention to the fact, and rightly so, that if in Christ's mind the manna was a figure of the Eucharist, the latter must have been something more than merely blessed bread, as otherwise the prototype would not substantially excel the type.

The Real Presence
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1909
270 posted on 01/09/2003 7:57:45 AM PST by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan; lockeliberty
" " 'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,'[4] and, " 'May another take his place of leadership.'[5]"

If I may interject with a comment on this text, I find that "place of leadership" is a poor translation for the Greek original which is "episcope", from which we derive the word bishop.

This is where the KJV renders it much more accurately in English as:

"Let his bishopric another take."

which makes the connection between the Apostles and episcopate quite obvious.



271 posted on 01/09/2003 8:33:59 AM PST by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan; lockeliberty
Regardless, the context makes quite clear that Jesus was speaking literally in John 6.

It is quite clear in John 6 that Jesus is speaking literally of faith and is using the analogy of eating food to indicate how completely and thoroughly the blessings and benefits of his sacrifice become ours. The believer does fully and completely participate in all the spiritual blessings Christ has for us (Eph 1). But these are ours by faith, not by the mouth.

You have not answered how the human body of Christ can be everywhere present. That is a very strange concept of the human body. It destroys the physicality of the new immortal, incorruptible spiritually enable body of the resurrection at the last day when our bodies will be made just like Christ's body. Furthermore, acc. to Romans 8 the physical stuff of all creation will participate in our adoption, the redemption of our bodies at the last day. If our bodies are not localized but everywhere present then all creation could also be everywhere present.

•A figurative interpretation contradicts other Scriptures:---Assumed - not proven.

•All related Scriptures indicate a literal meaning:----Assumed - not proven.

•A figurative interpretation is illogical:----Human conjecture - assumed and not proven.

It is clear that we have very different concepts of created reality which includes our bodies.

272 posted on 01/09/2003 8:46:43 AM PST by gdebrae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
•The Jews leave in disgust. Jesus makes no effort to explain that he's speaking figuratively.

•The disciples say, "this is a hard saying. Who can accept it?" The question does not correspond to a figurative interpretation of the passage.

•The disciples leave in disgust. Jesus makes no effort to explain that he's speaking figuratively.

•Jesus asks the Apostles, "will you leave me also?" They do not answer. Peter speaks for the twelve saying, "Lord you have the words of eternal life." He answers with a statement of faith. He doesn't indicate that Jesus is speaking figuratively.

This representation of the passage in question conveniently leaves out (and even denies) the fact that JESUS did provide an explanation for His words in verse 63 ...

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

It is to this explanatory statement by JESUS that Peter refers to when he later says, when the apostles are asked if they will leave also ...

John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.


273 posted on 01/09/2003 8:52:48 AM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan; gdebrae
First, let me apologize for the tag line. I used that in a post to MarMema and did not realize it would carry over to the next post. Please accept my apologies.

Please help me understand the logic of the RCC and its claims to sole right to biblical interpretation. I thought the whole arguement was based on apostolic succession?

You quote: "The Church has always taught that the bishops are successors to the Apostles but not that they are equivalent to the Apostles."

When you say that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth is that not equivalent to apostleship? I thought the whole idea of the apostolic succession had to do with confering to the Pope the right to make divine proclamations? If the Pope can make divine proclamations does this not make them equivalent to the Apostles as conduits for God's divine inspiration? Isn't then these proclamations equivalent to scripture in authority? How then can the RCC say that the canon is closed?

I appreciate your answers in advance.
274 posted on 01/09/2003 9:25:44 AM PST by lockeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
Uh, you need to either apologize for or put up evidence to support post 159.

Until that time I consider anything you post to be irrelevant.
275 posted on 01/09/2003 10:08:01 AM PST by lockeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: gdebrae
"You have not answered how the human body of Christ can be everywhere present."

The mystery of faith is beyond enormous and we can't fathom it as our weak human minds are incapable...can any of us comprehend fully the miracle at Cana or any of the other astounding miracles? These astonishing events didn't stop after the Ascension. All Christians have heard of blatant miracles but there are countless ones that are subtle events of tremendous Grace in which we only glimpse the supernatural reality of Christ. It might be in the unexpected generosity of the unnoticed derelict to someone with an immediate need or the assistance given to an accident victim that saves a life when later no one can verify the helper being present. These events, pure gifts, are signs of Christ and His Love for us and His Presence among us. The Body of Christ is still here in those working to bring about His Kingdom. If you could touch such a moment again and again and again, knowing that you are drawing closer to the Body of Christ wouldn't you do it? Even if it meant living through a harrowing moment over and over prior to that point of Grace you would because your Faith in Christ would push you to do so. The Catholic sees the Sacraments as signs of Christ given to us by Christ.
276 posted on 01/09/2003 10:16:06 AM PST by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church; lockeliberty
The Body of Christ is still here in those working to bring about His Kingdom.

I would counter that it is not the risen glorified human nature of Christ that is residing in the person of believers but it is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Risen Christ, as Jesus himself promised in John 16. It is the Holy Spirit through whom we receive all the benefits of Christ.

You still have not explained how the resurrected flesh and bone body of Christ can be everywhere present. You are simply assuming it to be so.

277 posted on 01/09/2003 10:52:53 AM PST by gdebrae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: lockeliberty
"you need to either apologize for"

Apologise for what? This?:

"In actuality, the LDS use the exact same method to prove their interpretations are correct as the Roman Catholic Church."
278 posted on 01/09/2003 10:59:25 AM PST by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: gdebrae
If you have Christ you have the Holy Spirit and you have the entire Blessed Trinity...One God.
279 posted on 01/09/2003 10:59:48 AM PST by Domestic Church
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
yup
280 posted on 01/09/2003 11:40:09 AM PST by lockeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-314 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson