Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

[Thekla]

How can it matter which it is discussing? If it is his belief that Christ is no long present in the flesh but only in the Spirit, he can not be said to believe in the Real Presence as it is taught by certain churches.

Because context matters in everything that is read. The opening passages (typical in the west, and especially so in formal writing where a point is to be made -- ex., the essay) define the parameters which will be dealt with in the body of the particular piece.

As for "in the flesh", it means that one is walking around so to speak. So if there is a statement "Joe is not at work today", another may respond "No, he is here, I saw him in the flesh".

I know what the EOC and the RCC now teaches regarding the Real Presnce. I disagree that it is correct. I think that Scripture makes this clear eanough. But, there are ECFs who confirmed it as well as other theologians who teach on the subject.

As in my scriptural examples, "eat flesh" means "attack/oppress" unless a literal meaning is meant. This was the purpose of my (slowly ongoing) research. As this is evidenced throughout the OT, it is a conceptual ground on which the statement of Christ was made. Those who were offended understood it as a literal statement. The other option is non-literal, "attack/oppress", or another non-literal use. By researching the scriptures entire, other non-literal uses may be found.

As for the ECFs, I have not read all of them, but misreading (per the previous discussion) is more than just a possibility. And I do think in the interest of completeness, both the non-literal uses of "eat flesh" throughout the scriptures and evidence in protestant theologians of understanding of the evolution of the understanding of symbol should be researched. Be thorough ... What is there to lose ?

To add: everyone who "saw" Christ did not visually have affirmation that who they were seeing was God - except at the Transfiguration.

The point is we possess Him now by "faith." That's all that is required of us.

What we think of the Eucharist, we possess by faith. We take Christ at His word.

 

[Thekla]

Brought forward, as this was what we were discussing (not Augustine, at least not me ):

"Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle." - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.",

-"The Instructor of the Children". [2,2,19,4] ante 202 A.D.,​

"The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. 'Eat My Flesh,' He says, 'and drink My Blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!",

-"The Instructor of the Children" [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D.. ,​

​

 

[Thekla]

Racer, see posts 210, 216, 229

if you need clarification, let me know ...

Again, the use of the term metaphor in the above passages is a descriptive conceit for the comparison of the like properties of two "unlike" things. Both the elements in the metaphoric descriptive are actually present in the symbol, or whole.

In symbol, there is an interpenetration of the two unlike things, where the "face" or what "appears" is not what "is"; what "is" is a new whole where the side by side elements of the metaphor have now interpenetrated.

 

[racer]

Because context matters in everything that is read. The opening passages (typical in the west, and especially so in formal writing where a point is to be made -- ex., the essay) define the parameters which will be dealt with in the body of the particular piece.

Context matters to an extent. But, certain beliefs and comments stand alone. He can't say that "eating flesh" is literal in one passage, then turn around and say that it is figurative in another. It either is or it isn't. He can't say that Jesus is not here "in the flesh" with the Church because He is in heaven with the father, that we only possess him "spiritually" by faith, then turn around and say He is here literally, physically, in the flesh (but disguised as communion bread and wine) in another.

So, this is how context works. He may say somewhere something that appears to mean he held a "literal, physical" understanding. But instead of taking that portion of what he taught--say, regarding the Euharist (or communion)--at face value in one section of his teachings, you first consider those portions in light of his explicit beliefs against the Real Presence. Then, you know that he is empolying metaphorical speech when it appears he's being literal.

As for "in the flesh", it means that one is walking around so to speak. So if there is a statement "Joe is not at work today", another may respond "No, he is here, I saw him in the flesh."

That doesn't make sense. It's an incomplete argument. Whoever makes the comment "I saw him in the flesh," will be asked for further details. They would say, you saw him in the flesh where? Because, everyone knows that "Joe" can't be at work and somewhere else at the same time.

We know Jesus has abilities beyond that of an average man, and if God had meant it to be so, jesus could be in more than one place--literally, physically--at the same time. But, Scripture doens't give a reason to believe this is so regarding the eucharist, neither does Augustine. In fact, because Augustine made it a point to say that the Church had him literally and physicallyonly for a few days, and now possesses him "by faith only," we know he could not have held a literal understanding of the eucharist.

As in my scriptural examples, "eat flesh" means "attack/oppress" unless a literal meaning is meant.

You say this but where is your argument to prove that this is always the case? I have seen arguments against this assertion. If I clearly missed this point, forgive me. But, I don't know of any other instance besides John 6 where the Bible mentions eating flesh?

I've shown you the case presnted by Augustine, that he used to rule out a literal understanding of this text. "If it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, it is therefore a figure. He doesn't allow for conditions where the opposite is acceptable.

Those who were offended understood it as a literal statement. The other option is non-literal, "attack/oppress", or another non-literal use. By researching the scriptures entire, other non-literal uses may be found.

Where else is eating flesh discussed?

I am not arguing here that only one meaning is taught, but that some of the ECFs did not teach the literal understanding. I have not seen where Scripture speaks of attacking or oppressing by eating flesh, and of the fathers that I read, I've not seen them make this argument.

As for the ECFs, I have not read all of them, but misreading (per the previous discussion) is more than just a possibility.

For both of us. But, I do not argue that all fathers taught contradictory to the Real Presence, but that some of them--even if they are few, did.

I'm not asserting that Augustine speaks for the whole of the Church, or that any other ECF did or that and group of them did.

And I do think in the interest of completeness, both the non-literal uses of "eat flesh" throughout the scriptures and evidence in protestant theologians of understanding of the evolution of the understanding of symbol should be researched. Be thorough ... What is there to lose ?

You have views argued according to both understanding, but how do we know that which is true and who is right? Ultimately, we must refer to Scripture and derive the truth from in.

What we think of the Eucharist, we possess by faith. We take Christ at His word.

Yes, but you beieve His word to say the opposite of what I believe?

In fact, Christ never said that we must believe that we are lliterally eating His flesh and blood. He gave us a commandment to partake of the eucharist in memory of Him. I don't think what we believe about the "literal" identity of what we eat is as important as simply obeying His command to partake to keep the memory of what He did for us alive.

 

[racer]

Racer, see posts 210, 216, 229

if you need clarification, let me know ...{/quote]
Okay.

 

[Thekla]

Hope its ok, rather than slogging through your post (as I'm pressed for time),

"eat flesh" is used in:
Psalm 26 " when the wicked draw nigh against me to eat my flesh"

Psalm 14 "they eat up my people as they eat bread"

There are several other passages, though they are not at hand.

The passages from my research so far are in a previous post, all use possibly non-literal meanings for eat flesh.

To add other possiblities: Deuteronomy 2:28, 7:16

(Remember, I am including any potential non-literal use.)

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Again, symbolon means: the part makes present the whole, where there is an interpenetration of the two elements that make up the symbol.



[/color][/b][/size][/size]Here, Word (capitalized) refers to the pre-eternal Logos (Christ) and is described as being in "union" with the drink (wine).



The "divine mixture" is the created penetrated by the spiritual -- thus the mixture - which sanctifies those who partake (consume it) in faith.

So, the spiritual penetrates the physical, the physical contains the spiritual but appears the same -- both retain their "character" and by the will of the Father one is "mystically united to the Spirit and the Word (Logos/Christ).

The term for this interpenetrated thing is "symbol".

I thought that wasn't introduced as to meaning that until Gregory the 1st in about 600 AD

That's hardly 'church fathers' teachings. It was introduced much later.

 

[Thekla]

I thought that wasn't introduced as to meaning that until Gregory the 1st in about 600 AD

That's hardly 'church fathers' teachings. It was introduced much later.

The cited ECF was writing in the 3rd century; the meaning of symbol as interpenetration was the common understanding at the time the scriptures were written (as is still maintained in some cultures, but not -at least typically - in the post enlightenment west).

 

[Thekla]

Context matters to an extent. But, certain beliefs and comments stand alone. He can't say that "eating flesh" is literal in one passage, then turn around and say that it is figurative in another. It either is or it isn't.

It can be both - it depends on the context and whether the elements (metaphoric comparison), the effect, or the actual Eucharist is being discussed. It can "work" on many levels of meaning.

He can't say that Jesus is not here "in the flesh" with the Church because He is in heaven with the father, that we only possess him "spiritually" by faith, then turn around and say He is here literally, physically, in the flesh (but disguised as communion bread and wine) in another.

Christ is not here walking around in His glorified body. Does this mean He is not with us ? We know He is with us not because we physically see Him walking around, but because we don't need to see Him walking around to know He is "here" - faith.
The Eucharist is not a disguise, it is a mystery.

So, this is how context works. He may say somewhere something that appears to mean he held a "literal, physical" understanding. But instead of taking that portion of what he taught--say, regarding the Euharist (or communion)--at face value in one section of his teachings, you first consider those portions in light of his explicit beliefs against the Real Presence. Then, you know that he is empolying metaphorical speech when it appears he's being literal.

This is part, but not wholly how it is done. If he is discussing whether Christ actually exists in body - a person is seen, recognised, known, by their body and specifically their features - then we can only viscerally know He has a body by faith because we do not see it, touch it.

That doesn't make sense. It's an incomplete argument. Whoever makes the comment "I saw him in the flesh," will be asked for further details. They would say, you saw him in the flesh where? Because, everyone knows that "Joe" can't be at work and somewhere else at the same time.

In the flesh still means what it means: in the body walking around.

We know Jesus has abilities beyond that of an average man, and if God had meant it to be so, jesus could be in more than one place--literally, physically--at the same time. But, Scripture doens't give a reason to believe this is so regarding the eucharist, neither does Augustine. In fact, because Augustine made it a point to say that the Church had him literally and physicallyonly for a few days, and now possesses him "by faith only," we know he could not have held a literal understanding of the eucharist.

The Incarnation was a Divine descent, not translocation. He was in "both places". If He were seen in multiple locations while here, who would believe He was actually a man ?

OTOH, Christ was here incarnated and still united with the Trinity at the same time. Further, the Creator of all is not circumscribed by human understanding of what is "reasonable" or "logical".

You say this but where is your argument to prove that this is always the case? I have seen arguments against this assertion. If I clearly missed this point, forgive me. But, I don't know of any other instance besides John 6 where the Bible mentions eating flesh?

Again, in the old thread and several times in here.

I've shown you the case presnted by Augustine, that he used to rule out a literal understanding of this text. "If it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, it is therefore a figure. He doesn't allow for conditions where the opposite is acceptable.

A figure, like typos, is a "shadow", what is cast from the actual. It does not negate the actual, it is a dimmed 'seeing' of the actual.

Where else is eating flesh discussed?

I've given several passages.

I am not arguing here that only one meaning is taught, but that some of the ECFs did not teach the literal understanding. I have not seen where Scripture speaks of attacking or oppressing by eating flesh, and of the fathers that I read, I've not seen them make this argument.

Well, I am researching it.

For both of us. But, I do not argue that all fathers taught contradictory to the Real Presence, but that some of them--even if they are few, did.

They can teach both without excluding the other, which is what I think you're seeing. Remember, there are many levels of meaning - the ECFs tended to discuss all the levels at some time or another.

I'm not asserting that Augustine speaks for the whole of the Church, or that any other ECF did or that and group of them did.

He's not an EO ECF, per se.

And I do think in the interest of completeness, both the non-literal uses of "eat flesh" throughout the scriptures and evidence in protestant theologians of understanding of the evolution of the understanding of symbol should be researched. Be thorough ... What is there to lose ?

You have views argued according to both understanding, but how do we know that which is true and who is right? Ultimately, we must refer to Scripture and derive the truth from in.

I am using scripture -- to define any other non-literal meanings of eat flesh in addition to the typical "attack/oppress".

Again, the shift in meaning is attested (Art, Anthropology, Literature, etc.) -- I only ask that you check your sources to see if they discuss this.

Yes, but you beieve His word to say the opposite of what I believe?

In fact, Christ never said that we must believe that we are lliterally eating His flesh and blood.

He gave a command to eat (gnaw) His flesh and drink His blood.

He gave us a commandment to partake of the eucharist in memory of Him. I don't think what we believe about the "literal" identity of what we eat is as important as simply obeying His command to partake to keep the memory of what He did for us alive.

Memory is not exactly said (mnimi) but anamnisis - which is different. (ana - upwards mnisis- memory). And the understanding of that is different, too. It denotes an active participatory making real, thus experience, not just recall.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Council of Trent
"do this in remembrance of me," Christ conferred upon them a sacerdotal power. The practice of withholding the cup from the laity was confirmed (twenty-first session) as one which the Church Fathers had commanded for good and sufficient reasons; yet in certain cases the Pope was made the supreme arbiter as to whether the rule should be strictly maintained.
　
Sacerdotalism is the idea that a propitiatory sacrifice for sin must be offered by the intervention of an order of men separated to the priesthood. This system of the priesthood is taught in the Old Testament.

I guess I just prefer the new wine of the NT.

 

[chestertonrules]

I thought that wasn't introduced as to meaning that until Gregory the 1st in about 600 AD

That's hardly 'church fathers' teachings. It was introduced much later.

The teaching wasn't new, it was just a an attempt to more clearly describe what is undeniably a mystery beyond human understanding.



"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*

....I guess I just prefer the new wine of the NT.

Me too

Luke 5:37 "And no one is casting young wine into OLD/palaiouV <3820> vessels, if yet no surely shall be ruined the wine, the young of the vessels, and it shall be being poured-out and its vessel shall be perishing/apolountai <622> .
38 but young/neon <3501> wine into NEW/kainouV <2537> vessels is to be cast and both are preserved together.
39 and no one driking old immediately is willing young, for he is saying, 'for the the old kind/gracious is'".

 

[Anglian]

Dear racer,

I thought it might help us all to remind us of what LLOJ asked in the OP:

The term "Solo Scriptura" was brought up on another thread in conjunction with "Sola Scriptura".
My own definition and view of "Solo" implies Scripture only and not going outside of what is Written while "Sola" means subscribing to both what has been Written and the Oral "traditions" of the ECFs and others that claim they were orally taught by the Apostles themselves.
So I would like to here from other Christians of all denominations on how they view the difference and I would like to quote a verse from Paul:

1 Corinthians 4:6 These-things, yet brethren, I after-figure into myself and Apollos thru/because-of ye, that in us ye may be learning the no above that which hath been Written/gegraptai <1125> (5769), that no one over the one ye may be puffed up against the other.[/

You will see from the bolded text that when you write:

Why this continual misrepresentation of what people who look to Scripture as the authority upone which their faith is based actually believe?

Scripture is "sufficient" in revealing what is necessary for salvation. The OP "asks" if Solo Scriptura is biblical. His particular view here is new to me and it would be the first time that anyone has asserted that Solo Scriptura is biblical if anyone here says that it is.

I am not misrepresenting anything but responding to the OP. It may well be the first time that anyone has asserted that Solo Scriptura is biblical, but this is what LLOJ was saying and what I was responding to; there is not the slightest misrepresentation.

Now, to turn to some of your points:

[/color][/size][/size]
What? The church is not synonymous with the Gospel.

That was not what I wrote. The Church existed before the NT canon was formed, indeed before a word that is in the NT canon was written.

Why was it ever written to start with?

There are, as you know, various explanations, and the different parts of the NT were written for different reasons; one problem with writing about the 'Bible' is that people sometimes walk away with the impression it is one book written for one purpose at one time; some even suppose it to have been dictated by angels. A full answer to this question might make an interesting thread, but would take us further off course than we have gone thus far.

Honestly? Prtotestants have said to you that their private interpretaion is infallible? In those exact words?

When I am told that 'x' is what it is and ask how someone knows it and they tell by the Holy Spirit revealed it to them, I call that claiming private infallibility; what do you call it?

BTW, you are following your own private interpretation. It's just that your interpretation happens to co-incide with the faith to which you belong.

Yes, I have seen you emplying this line, and there may be some confusion in it between egg and chicken. as there is in what follows here:

It does not by default cease to be your understanding and interpretation of Scripture. If you did not believe that what your faith teaches was in line with Scripture, then you would not belong to that faith. You have exercised personal discernment to conclude this.

You appear to assume that we all reached an understanding and then looked for a Church; this may be so in some cases, not in all. It also ignores the complex interaction between Church and Scripture once one is a member of a Church. Of course one would not remain in a Church with which one disagreed - but to imagine one joins or leaves because of Scripture alone begs as many questions as you seem to think it answers.

How do you figure? How does something that is an authority prove that it is an authority?

Good question - do you have an answer that does not include: 'it is the Church Christ founded?'

Anyhow, regarding the sufficiency of Scripture,

which, as I noted above, is NOT what LLOJ was asking.

I am puzzled how proponents of Catholic theology, people who cointinually claim that ECFs were unquestionable "Catholic," ignore teachings of ECFs such as this:

As others have said, there are other readings available, and no one, as far as I know, is claiming St. Cyril was wrong in your quotations, or that he or other ECFs were infallible.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The teaching wasn't new, it was just a an attempt to more clearly describe what is undeniably a mystery beyond human understanding.



"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

I don't know if this helps to clearly describe the 'other' view from Protestants. I can't find the link

Protestants have criticized Eucharistic adoration, some considering it a form of idolatry. Adoration may be seen as the abrogation of the command to adore God alone, as commanded in Leviticus. They see the adoration of any other objects, including the sacred instruments of His Grace, such as the Body and Blood as idolatry. Catholics contend that it is not idolatry, simply because Christ, whole and entire, is present in the Eucharist.

Critics draw a distinction between the irreducible risen physical Jesus, and the reducible elements of his body. They point as an example to the third day after the Crucifixion. Although Jesus's blood still drenched the cross and the tomb clothes[13], the angel states: "He is not here, for He has risen..." Gospel of Matthew 28:6. Similarly the Eucharistic Blood and Body are elements proceeding from Christ, not the irreducible Person Himself. Catholics draw much the same distinction between the irreducible personhood of a man, and the parts of his body. Destruction of a body part (e.g., amputation) is not destruction of the person himself. Similarly, blood used in a blood transfusion derives from its donor, but is not the donor himself. The Catholic Church, however, asserts that the Eucharist contains the fullness of Christ's body, and blood, soul and divinity, not just the proceeding elements from Christ.[14]

Perhaps the most common criticism of the practice of Eucharistic adoration is that it isolates the Eucharist from its fundamental use namely, communion. The Eucharist is removed from its context as the communion of the Church with Christ and places Him at a distance, objectifying the Eucharist in a manner not consistent with the rites during which it is consecrated. This is also contested by Catholics.

As reported by Catholic priest Father Al Kimel in his blog Pontifications, historian and writer Michael McGuckian discusses this problem in his book The Eucharist in the West. "During the first millennium of the Church, East and West shared a common understanding of Eucharistic devotion. 'During this period,' McGuckian notes, 'the Eucharist was understood dynamically and, in common with all the other sacraments, the focus was on its effect in the sanctification of the people.'" But in the eleventh century the attitude of the Western Church changed. Devotion began to focus on the Eucharistic gifts as the objective presence of the risen Christ. The Host began to be elevated during the liturgy for the purpose of adoration. In the thirteenth century the Feast of Corpus Christi was instituted. From this point devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, both within and outside the Mass, became central in the piety of Latin Christians; however, it does have basis in the Bible and in the patristic writings.

To quote from both 'sides of the fence'

 

[Thekla]

(If I can add -- there is not "Eucharistic adoration" in the EO; per our view the purpose of the Eucharist is to be consumed.)

 

[chestertonrules]

I don't know if this helps to clearly describe the 'other' view from Protestants. I can't find the link

Protestants have criticized Eucharistic adoration, some considering it a form of idolatry. Adoration may be seen as the abrogation of the command to adore God alone, as commanded in Leviticus. They see the adoration of any other objects, including the sacred instruments of His Grace, such as the Body and Blood as idolatry. Catholics contend that it is not idolatry, simply because Christ, whole and entire, is present in the Eucharist.

Critics draw a distinction between the irreducible risen physical Jesus, and the reducible elements of his body. They point as an example to the third day after the Crucifixion. Although Jesus's blood still drenched the cross and the tomb clothes[13], the angel states: "He is not here, for He has risen..." Gospel of Matthew 28:6. Similarly the Eucharistic Blood and Body are elements proceeding from Christ, not the irreducible Person Himself. Catholics draw much the same distinction between the irreducible personhood of a man, and the parts of his body. Destruction of a body part (e.g., amputation) is not destruction of the person himself. Similarly, blood used in a blood transfusion derives from its donor, but is not the donor himself. The Catholic Church, however, asserts that the Eucharist contains the fullness of Christ's body, and blood, soul and divinity, not just the proceeding elements from Christ.[14]

Perhaps the most common criticism of the practice of Eucharistic adoration is that it isolates the Eucharist from its fundamental use namely, communion. The Eucharist is removed from its context as the communion of the Church with Christ and places Him at a distance, objectifying the Eucharist in a manner not consistent with the rites during which it is consecrated. This is also contested by Catholics.

As reported by Catholic priest Father Al Kimel in his blog Pontifications, historian and writer Michael McGuckian discusses this problem in his book The Eucharist in the West. "During the first millennium of the Church, East and West shared a common understanding of Eucharistic devotion. 'During this period,' McGuckian notes, 'the Eucharist was understood dynamically and, in common with all the other sacraments, the focus was on its effect in the sanctification of the people.'" But in the eleventh century the attitude of the Western Church changed. Devotion began to focus on the Eucharistic gifts as the objective presence of the risen Christ. The Host began to be elevated during the liturgy for the purpose of adoration. In the thirteenth century the Feast of Corpus Christi was instituted. From this point devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, both within and outside the Mass, became central in the piety of Latin Christians; however, it does have basis in the Bible and in the patristic writings.

To quote from both 'sides of the fence'

Good post.

One further point of interest is that during the time when many Christians lived nomadic lives, the host was often consecrated for long journeys.

This consecrated host was treated with adoration as the body and blood of Christ.

 

[racer]

Racer, see posts 210, 216, 229

if you need clarification, let me know ...

Okay, I went back and printed out those posts and read them for the life of me I don't see what you are getting at.

Here is the first post:

"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man

Note again the ancient understanding of "metaphor" and "symbol".
​

I fail to see where the "understand of 'metaphor and symbol'" are addressed in the quote to which you are referring. I can read the quote youprovided and come up with a very convincing argument for a "figurative/metaphorical" understanding of the eucharist.

Here is your second post:

"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.",

note again the ancient understanding of "metaphor" and "symbol".
​

thought this got lost --

But note again the concept of interpenetration highlighted in blue; this is symbolon in the ancient sense.[/quote]
​

I don't see the understanding of "symbol and metaphor" addressed in your quotes.
I'm sorry but I truly do not get your point. How does this post address the meaning of "metaphor and symbol?"

Your telling me things that it appears you believe to be established argument, but you are not providing me with background, explanation as to what you are stating, or why your argument should be given credence. I have no idea what you are saying.

Below is your next post:

So, the spiritual penetrates the physical, the physical contains the spiritual but appears the same -- both retain their "character" and by the will of the Father one is "mystically united to the Spirit and the Word (Logos/Christ).
The term for this interpenetrated thing is "symbol".

​

How do you come to this conclusion? Why would I accept your word for it?

I understand that you may have done some extensive research, but if that's the case you are attempting to reduce so much that any credence your argument may have is not present in your statements.

Again, the use of the term metaphor in the above passages is a descriptive conceit for the comparison of the like properties of two "unlike" things. Both the elements in the metaphoric descriptive are actually present in the symbol, or whole.

What is your basis for this argument? What is your argument? Do you have a source? Any sources?

Here, Word (capitalized) refers to the pre-eternal Logos (Christ) and is described as being in "union" with the drink (wine).

A credible argument for a "real spiritual presence."

Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.",

The "divine mixture" is the created penetrated by the spiritual -- thus the mixture - which sanctifies those who partake (consume it) in faith.

I don't see how you get this from that quote.

I think I may have mixed up this post in trying to reply to three different points in one response. If I have only confused you. I'll try it again tomorrow.

 

[racer]

For the record, I do not consider the belief in the Real Presence to be idolatry.

Regardless of whether or not Christ is literally present in the host and wine, God is still the focus of worship. It's not another God besides Christ. It is believed that it is Christ, so for those who believe in the Real Presence, it is still the Trinity that is being worshipped.

I'm sure I muddled that statement, but I think the gist of it is clear.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Dear racer,

I thought it might help us all to remind us of what LLOJ asked in the OP:

You will see from the bolded text that when you write:
I am not misrepresenting anything but responding to the OP. It may well be the first time that anyone has asserted that Solo Scriptura is biblical, but this is what LLOJ was saying and what I was responding to; there is not the slightest misrepresentation.

Now, to turn to some of your points:

That was not what I wrote. The Church existed before the NT canon was formed, indeed before a word that is in the NT canon was written.[/size][/font]


There are, as you know, various explanations, and the different parts of the NT were written for different reasons; one problem with writing about the 'Bible' is that people sometimes walk away with the impression it is one book written for one purpose at one time; some even suppose it to have been dictated by angels. A full answer to this question might make an interesting thread, but would take us further off course than we have gone thus far.


When I am told that 'x' is what it is and ask how someone knows it and they tell by the Holy Spirit revealed it to them, I call that claiming private infallibility; what do you call it?



Yes, I have seen you emplying this line, and there may be some confusion in it between egg and chicken. as there is in what follows here:

You appear to assume that we all reached an understanding and then looked for a Church; this may be so in some cases, not in all. It also ignores the complex interaction between Church and Scripture once one is a member of a Church. Of course one would not remain in a Church with which one disagreed - but to imagine one joins or leaves because of Scripture alone begs as many questions as you seem to think it answers.

Good question - do you have an answer that does not include: 'it is the Church Christ founded?'




which, as I noted above, is NOT what LLOJ was asking.


As others have said, there are other readings available, and no one, as far as I know, is claiming St. Cyril was wrong in your quotations, or that he or other ECFs were infallible.

peace,

Anglian

Thank you for the excellent post and your effort to get the thread back to the OP. The thread has now, indeed, wandered far from it and I would like to see a completion to the question.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thank you for the excellent post and your effort to get the thread back to the OP. The thread has now, indeed, wandered far from it and I would like to see a completion to the question.

Remember, this thread is on SOLO Scriptura, not SOLA Scriptura

http://www.christianforums.com/t7429494-23/#post53864785

I don't care what the words of men say what does the bible alone say!!