- Aug 17, 2005
- 12,411
- 3,707
- 70
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I just stole this tag from another user here (AV1611VET) "The Bible says it, that settles it." The general idea is that Scripture should generally be taken literally as written.
The rubric that literalists generally claim to follow is: "“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” That sounds very reasonable, but is based one glaring fallacy - that there is no generally agreed upon authority for what can be considered "common sense", and what are to be considered "axiomatic and fundamental truths".
What we find is that what is treated common sense and/or as fundamental truths depends entirely one one's doctrinal viewpoint or sectarian presuppositions. For example, in recent discussions in these forums, posters have been at odds over two different unrelated ideas, one, that God created the universe in literal six 24 hour solar days, and that the other, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the literal Body and Blood of our Lord.
Both groups take their positions on fact that they're based on the "plain sense of Scripture". Scripture does in fact say that the universe was created in six days. Our Lord did in fact say "take, eat, this is My Body". Taken simply as written, they carry roughly equal weight. But doctrinally, the acceptance or rejection of the of the literal words those passages are make-or-break matters, and holding the "correct" meaning of them is of vital imprtance.
To all Catholics (Roman, Orthodox, Anglo, etc), as well as most of the "traditionalist" denominations the Real Presence of the Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist is extremely important, while to more modern groups it's just part of a remembrance ceremony. To the more modern Protestant groups the believing the literal 6 Days of Creation is a matter of declaring one's rejection of secularism and dedication to the authority of God's Word, while to the Traditionalists it's simply a symbolic account of God's creation of the universe.
The bottom line is, who decides what is to be taken literally and what isn't, given that we have no solid basis upon which to decide that one thing is a fundamental truth and another is not? We have the Creeds (thanks be to God!) to summarize what we all believe, and the old reliable "what that really means..." when the Word threatens to damage our most dearly held doctrines. But it looks like for the most part it's every man for himself.
Comments?
The rubric that literalists generally claim to follow is: "“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” That sounds very reasonable, but is based one glaring fallacy - that there is no generally agreed upon authority for what can be considered "common sense", and what are to be considered "axiomatic and fundamental truths".
What we find is that what is treated common sense and/or as fundamental truths depends entirely one one's doctrinal viewpoint or sectarian presuppositions. For example, in recent discussions in these forums, posters have been at odds over two different unrelated ideas, one, that God created the universe in literal six 24 hour solar days, and that the other, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the literal Body and Blood of our Lord.
Both groups take their positions on fact that they're based on the "plain sense of Scripture". Scripture does in fact say that the universe was created in six days. Our Lord did in fact say "take, eat, this is My Body". Taken simply as written, they carry roughly equal weight. But doctrinally, the acceptance or rejection of the of the literal words those passages are make-or-break matters, and holding the "correct" meaning of them is of vital imprtance.
To all Catholics (Roman, Orthodox, Anglo, etc), as well as most of the "traditionalist" denominations the Real Presence of the Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist is extremely important, while to more modern groups it's just part of a remembrance ceremony. To the more modern Protestant groups the believing the literal 6 Days of Creation is a matter of declaring one's rejection of secularism and dedication to the authority of God's Word, while to the Traditionalists it's simply a symbolic account of God's creation of the universe.
The bottom line is, who decides what is to be taken literally and what isn't, given that we have no solid basis upon which to decide that one thing is a fundamental truth and another is not? We have the Creeds (thanks be to God!) to summarize what we all believe, and the old reliable "what that really means..." when the Word threatens to damage our most dearly held doctrines. But it looks like for the most part it's every man for himself.
Comments?
Last edited:
