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 ...
I agree.
Lockeliberty, a good post that resulted in interesting discussions and a relative minimum of bigotry and Catholic bashing. Passionate argument over serious issues is what makes FR worthwhile.
Joshua, you contributed nothing worthwhile to the discussion. Your bile about priests and children did not pass unnoticed. Like other Catholic Bashers on this thread--such as the malevolent Naughty Nurse who always pops up at these gigs like a rash--your hatred of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is all too apparent. As a proclaimed man of the Bible, you should know that Saint Paul said if you lack love then you're just a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. Well that's you, pal. Clanging away noisily. How sad.
LOL
I guess I can understand why you think so but stay tuned as we await Aquinisfans response. Thanks for your kind words anyways.
"Your bile about priests and children did not pass unnoticed."
Bile? I only stated what has been published in every major newspaper in this country.
"Like other Catholic Bashers on this thread--such as the malevolent Naughty Nurse who always pops up at these gigs like a rash"
Your labeling of anyone who corners or demands biblical proof from the papists Catholic-bashers/bigots is really getting old. Come up with something new
"your hatred of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is all too apparent"
Good. Let me go one step further. I loathe catholicism. I consider it satan greatest accomplishment.
"As a proclaimed man of the Bible, you should know that Saint Paul said if you lack love then you're just a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal"
Since you quote Paul let's look at a few more quotes from him. I'll paraphrase as you did.
Paul said he was taught by no man. He received the Gospel by revelation through Jesus Christ. Paul preached this Gospel and people accepted it. Note that Paul never said that you can't understand this on your own or that you need the One holy Apostolic Rome to interpret this. Granted that Peter said some things would be hard to understand but it would be the ignorant and unstable who would need help.
Paul praised those who checked his words against Scripture.
The NT is the OT revealed. The Gospel of Jesus Christ can be found in every book of the OT. This being true all they needed was the OT (Sola Scriptura) to verify his preaching. No line of priests, popes, or rituals. A simple Gospel to a simple people with scripture as the guide.
Paul goes on to say if anyone teaches you different than what I taught, and you accepted, let him be eternally condemned.(love?)
Jesus called these same people dogs and pigs and told us not to share with them because they will turn it on you. He told us to treat them like we treat the most despised. (Love?)
Unless you can produce some inspired writings by Paul, hidden by Rome, that show there is more to the Gospel than what Paul preached and wrote, I would have to put you in that group, pal.
No one is claiming that. Jesus' glorified body is present at the Eucharist.
•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.
What is the passage to which you believe these words are referring, and what is your interpretation? I'll assume that you believe that these words are "explaining" Jesus' earlier statement that "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
First of all, this supposed "explanation" doesn't occur until after the Jews have already left. If your interpretation were true, then Jesus would be effectively lying by failing to clear up a grave misunderstanding. He would have let the Jews leave with the understanding that He was speaking of what they would have understood as cannibalism.
Secondly, a "figurative" explanation would not really be an explanation, it would be a contradiction. Under your interpretation, either the statement "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you" is true or the statement "the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" is true. The latter statement wouldn't be a clarification of a figure, it would simply be a negation or contradiction of the former statement, meaning either that Jesus erred or lied.
Let's examine the passage in context:
John 660On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" 61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?
Obviously the disciples are still interpreting Jesus literally. Next follows the "explanation":
62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[5] and they are life.The "explanation" has now been provided, so now the remaining disciples and Apostles should understand that Jesus was speaking figuratively. But in fact, the disciples leave:
64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." 66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Now note what Jesus asks his Apostles and ask yourself if the question would make sense if Jesus had just explained that he was speaking figuratively:
67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
We should expect the disciples to say, "Of course not. Unlike the disciples and Jews, we know that you were speaking figuratively." But the passage indicates no response from the Apostles except for Peter who doesn't answer, "Unlike the disciples and Jews, we know that you were speaking figuratively", but instead answers simply, paraphrasing, "we don't understand but where else can we go? We know you're the Holy One of God and we're going to have to trust you on this one":
68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."How then should we understand the following passage?
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[5] and they are life.Jesus was saying that only those to whom the the Spirit had been given could understand this "hard saying" because this saying could only be accepted in faith (as Peter accepted the teaching.)
A literal interpretation also conforms with other passages, the most notable of which is the following:
1 Corinthians 11No exegesis is necessary.23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31
The reason this statement is worth serious consideration was quite evident on a thread that was pulled yesterday.
On this thread, I pointed out that a division of the RC church had purchased a religious artifact of great monetary and spiritual value, which disappeared from Russia ( and the Russian Orthodox church) during the communist regime.
The artifact/icon was given to the pope, who has had it for several years now. It is estimated to be worth about 3 million dollars.
The pope continually offers to return it but only if he can meet with the Russian Patriarch in Moscow to do so. This is not surprising as recently the pope also came up with a religious item of great value which belonged to the Romanian Orthodox church. The Romanian Patriarch did visit Rome in order to retrieve the item. Upon which there were a slew of news articles released with prominent pictures of the two of them together and much talk about unity of the churches. Only on the Orthodox news site was it released that the Romanian Patriarch had only spent one day with the pope and had gone to get the item back, then had spent the rest of his time with Orthodox in Rome.
Yesterday on the thread I posted a link showing that the item which belongs to the Russian Orthodox church was purchased with plans to return it only when Russia converted and became Roman Catholic. And if you have any doubts about the fact that the RC church views Russia as a potential acquisition, you need only read this story in which the pope has apparently commented to a reporter that "Russia is a big part of the story".
At least one (RC) poster on the thread agreed with the initial RC link that this was a noble thing to do, because, apparently, coming under "the church" is the most important thing. Not one RC poster decried the lack of integrity in making a demand of someone in order to return something that you freely admit belongs to them.
Now if you follow this kind of thinking what you may see is that most of us probably would not allow our children to keep something which does not belong to them. Much less would we encourage our children to blackmail someone in order to return it.
And if I am correct, then it seems to me that what I am hearing is that God's law has become subservient to the unity of the church under the pope. At least in the minds of some people. And I think after this slippery slope, you have the idea of it's ok to steal to bring people under the church, so why not kill or torture them to bring them under the church? And, of course, history has shown us that this is a prominent feature of the RC past.
Which makes your statement extremely valid, imo.
No one is claiming that. Jesus' glorified body is present at the Eucharist. (aquinasfan)
Let me rephrase the question. How is the glorified body of the Risen Christ present in the bread of the Eucharist so that the bread actually becomes the very body of Christ? How can his human body be in heaven and on earth at the same time? How can a human body be in two different places at the same time? And what part of his body is present?
"Like Marxism or evolution, the principles of Roman supremacy are essentially unfalsifiable. This is why rational argument and normal standards of proof will not sway the adherents of Rome."
i agree that the system is a tautology. It also follows that if the system is true, than it can be proven from outside the tautology. It is agreed that the scriptures are testimony, Primarily to Christ, and secondarily to an Apostolic Tradition. It is what this tradition does or does not entail that i am attempting to discern from the testimony of the scriptures.
If Rome is convinced of her Evangel, let her prove it from outside that Evangel. After all, Paul took up the same challenge on Mars Hill! We shall see.
That's exactly what I was trying to formulate but unable to articulate.
Thanks.
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.What is the passage to which you believe these words are referring, and what is your interpretation? I'll assume that you believe that these words are "explaining" Jesus' earlier statement that "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
First of all, this supposed "explanation" doesn't occur until after the Jews have already left. If your interpretation were true, then Jesus would be effectively lying by failing to clear up a grave misunderstanding. He would have let the Jews leave with the understanding that He was speaking of what they would have understood as cannibalism.
I interpret this statement of JESUS' to be referring to His previous statement about 'eating His flesh and drinking His blood'. It is th only other place in chapter 6 episode where He speaks of any flesh.
So, here JESUS is explaining to His disciples that, in His earlier statements, he was speaking of a spiritual "eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood". This is a parallel situation to His explanation to Nicodemus in John 3 that He is not speaking of a physical rebirth, but rather, a spiritual one.
Also, this is consistent with JESUS' other spiritual desciptions of Himself in the book of John as ...
The Bread of LifeThe Door to the sheepfold
The Vine
The Light of the World
The Good Shepherd
etc.
As far as JESUS providing explanations of His statements to His apostles where He hasn't provided such to the multitudes, JESUS does this often ... most often in His use of parables.
Matthew 13:10-17Secondly, a "figurative" explanation would not really be an explanation, it would be a contradiction. Under your interpretation, either the statement "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you" is true or the statement "the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" is true. The latter statement wouldn't be a clarification of a figure, it would simply be a negation or contradiction of the former statement, meaning either that Jesus erred or lied.10 And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why speakest Thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
On the contrary, this is a perfect example of JESUS speaking figuratively, as He also does here ...
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
2:22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
As for the rest of the John 6 passage, neither the disciples grasp the reality of JESUS' statements about His flesh and blood in this setting (as they didn't understand about many things that JESUS taught about until after His death and resorrection), BUT, they had did understand that JESUS was the One who was prophesied to come, and, if anyone had the words of LIFE, He did.
Therefore, they 'hung in there' with Him (in faith), and, in time, the understanding of His teachings were revealed to them.
As far as the 1 Corinthians 11 passage is concerned, ... here Paul outlines, for the rowdy Corinthians, the correct performance of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, even as JESUS had done for the apostles.
Your own recitation of this passage shows that JESUS commanded that this be done in remembrance of Him. At no point in the scripture is there anything that, undisputably, supports the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation.
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.