(moved) Can the Philosophical Approach of "Reformed" Protestantism lead out of Christianity?
- Thread starter rakovsky
- Start date
That's because Phillip Melancthon couldn't pull himself away from his Roman roots. It's really quite too bad that he had to fall back toward Rome.
Upvote
0
To say it was just letting the Bible speak for itself is an illusion as Calvin openly used standards of reasonableness and foolishness to debunk Luther's view that Christ might not be bodily restricted to heaven, even though Luther himself said that he was letting scripture speak for itself.
So which interpreter was really letting the Bible speak for itself, and which one was actually "letting the Bible speak" for the interpreter's own biases and abuse of Reason?
We have many Reformed who sincerely claim they are letting the Bible speak for itself on many issues from Zionism to Infant Baptism to Dispensationalism. Thus, in practice the Reformed approach that its expositors simply use the Bible and find the True meaning openly contradicts itself, but Reformed are usually incapable of recognizing such a simple reality. It's unfortunate.
Can one reasonably call oneself a staunch Calvinist and say that Calvin just let the Bible speak for itself, and then reject infant baptism, as Calvin explicitly considered rejection of infant baptism a capital offense as a doctrinal matter, and in practice played a role in Servetus' death wherein rejection of infant baptism was one of the key charges? Or is that kind of like a person strongly believing an ideology under which the person needs to be burned for his own beliefs?
In truth, Luther was correct in stating that Calvin was using Calvin's own Reason as Calvin's tool against what was common Christian doctrine. And this was a tool that might see its origin in Renaissance humanism, as ex-Calvinist Jim Nelson explained.
Upvote
0
And yet, the the Crypto-Calvinists of the late 16th cent. as well as their progeny, the non confessional/liberal synods are more "Philipist" than they are Lutheran.
Upvote
0
I don't go for Corinthian labeling. We read the Bible straightforward unless the context obviously calls for a non-literal interpretation. Let the Bible speak as God's word and give up categorizing which camp follows whom.
Upvote
0
Fred,
Please see my notes to Kepler where I explain how remembrance means Jesus was directly and actually there in the "memorial" meals:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...of-christianity.7929431/page-21#post-69291068
Once one ascertains that Jesus' body must actually be eaten and the body is actually in the bread, then the question becomes whether physical presence of the body is required. It's certain a capability of Jesus to be physically present, as even Einstein taught the possibility of bilocation.
In any case, the common Christian teaching is that the body is actually eaten and is actually in the bread, for the numerous reasons discussed in this thread.
To ask why you don't have access to it, well, you actually do have access to it. In fact, I think that theoretically anyone could "guess" or be "guided to" the true meaning of every scripture verse. But in real life practice that generally doesn't happen on its own. There are so many obstacles to correct understandings. One of them is simply linguistic. The word "remembrance" in 1st century Aramaic can have very different connotations, cultural and linguistic, than in modern English, such that remembrance is only an approximation.
Please see my notes to Kepler where I explain how remembrance means Jesus was directly and actually there in the "memorial" meals:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...of-christianity.7929431/page-21#post-69291068
Once one ascertains that Jesus' body must actually be eaten and the body is actually in the bread, then the question becomes whether physical presence of the body is required. It's certain a capability of Jesus to be physically present, as even Einstein taught the possibility of bilocation.
In any case, the common Christian teaching is that the body is actually eaten and is actually in the bread, for the numerous reasons discussed in this thread.
Please see the link above.
To ask why you don't have access to it, well, you actually do have access to it. In fact, I think that theoretically anyone could "guess" or be "guided to" the true meaning of every scripture verse. But in real life practice that generally doesn't happen on its own. There are so many obstacles to correct understandings. One of them is simply linguistic. The word "remembrance" in 1st century Aramaic can have very different connotations, cultural and linguistic, than in modern English, such that remembrance is only an approximation.
Upvote
0
So the nonCalvinist's question about this becomes: Are the Calvinists really "reading the Bible straightforward"?
If it's just following such a simple straightforward "True" infallible meaning, then why do Reformed find so many mutually exclusive meanings and break themselves into dozens or hundreds of sects, the very thing that, according to non-Reformed, 1 Cor 11 warned would happen by not discerning the body in the Eucharistic food?
I think Reformed do not have good answers that actually grasp the substance of this problem, and just repeat dicta of how their mutually exclusive interpretations are "reading the Bible straightforward". It basically proves that "reading the Bible straightforward" per modern Reason is a failed strategy.
It seems to be a discourse of:
Traditional: In order to understand Christianity's main text, you should care a lot about writings by Christians themselves on how they interpreted these verses for the last 2000 years, and not just go by "Reason" against the teachings.
Hundreds of Reformed sects: No! Bible, Bible, Bible, Bible.
Upvote
0
Look at the good side, Mennosota.
Adult-only baptizers escaped to Russia after dealing with real-life Protestant rule. I think Orthodox aren't all bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Mennonite#Migration_to_Russia
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
God, it would seem based on my reading of scripture has no issue categorizing things in a very pragmatic fashion; I think the human need to do so may be a vestige of the image of God in which we are made. Adam named everything. The Animals were categorized for Noah. Sheep and goats are too.
Maybe not a failed strategy, but maybe sometimes misapplied. Luther and the early Lutherans searched Scripture and found errors in practice. I believe that Calvin had already judged the Catholic Church as being in error in almost everything and went looking for Scripture to prove it. Kind of a presumed guilt approach. Luther, a Catholic, presumed innocence. For Calvin, he was the judge based on his justifying the guilt he presumed. For Luther, Scripture was the judge. For confessional Lutherans this still remains the case.
All tradition is right and good if it does not conflict with, and is not forbidden by Scripture. Even the ECF's and the Ecumenical Counsels must pass the normative test of God's Holy Word. For me, confessional Lutheranism seems to pass this standard consistently.
Upvote
0
Kepler,
The Evangelical Mark Noll seems to think there is some strong relationship between the Enlightenment and Evangelicalism or Calvinism.
He writes that Evangelicals
"used the same Enlightenment categories to express their theology. This evangelical embrace of the Enlightenment at the turn of the eighteenth century still remains extraordinarily important nearly two centuries later..."
(FROM: "The Scandal of he Evangelical Mind")
But here he is not talking about deistic Enlightenment, but rather a general didactic one that he says Jefferson was also subject to.
In his book A Secular Age, Charles Taylor writes:
Upvote
0
Hello, Hedrick!
Additionally, Calvinism was a stronger precursor to the Enlightenment than Lutheranism, because Luther and the Reformed directly debated over the role of "Reason" in defining Christ's body in general and the Eucharist in particular, a debate so strong that Luther rejected fellowship with Reformed in the Formula of Concord.
Per Luther, Calvin was using Reason to judge against what the rest of Christianity considered Biblical Christian doctrine. And in the Enlightenment, Reason was again used as a main tool to judge against common religious teachings, thus making Calvinism a much more direct precursor.
I will be glad to discuss with you outside this thread, if you believe that those Study Bibles are correct. Rabbi Daniel Boyarin is a modern, orthodox rabbinical Talmudic scholar and came to the opposite conclusion from the modern Protestant study Bibles, and concluded that Isaiah 53 is about Messiah.
I have researched Isaiah 53 in depth, going in with the guess that the rabbis and modern Protestant Study Bibles were right about this.
Since as a plain matter of literary analysis they go against the actual OT understanding and do so in opposition to the traditional Christian understanding for the last 1970 years or so, I disagree with their decision.
I note also:
Of course, I think it is interesting and nice to consider different views, including Jesus Seminar's.
Methodists until the 20th century were considered Reformed as Arminianism came from Calvininist Dutch society. Quakers emerged in Puritan England and followed beliefs that using relics is a mistake because they are nonmiraculous and "carnal" and that sacraments were outward signs to their logical conclusion- that we shouldn't use sacraments because we don't want to use "carnal"-like, nonmiraculous outward signs. In practice, marriage is the only sacrament that they ritually observe.
Unitarians arose in the mid 16th century directly out of the Reformed Church in Poland:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unitarianism
The problem is that Reason is not really good enough to trump Tradition when the text is arguable (IMO in this case it supports Tradition), because when we are talking about the Supernatural and ancient beliefs, modern Reason might be a good way to guess if they are realistic, but not if they are authentic and original.
If the early Hadiths say that Muhammed miraculously split the Moon and Surah 53 in the Quran describes this in a straightforward way, are we to say that the Quran intends this only as a metaphor because in modern secular Reason we don't believe that a Muslim could have split the moon?
I don't believe that Mohammed actually split the Moon, but when it comes to text analysis of Islam's holy books, my own Reasoning about nature is a secondary question to what Islam's own interpretation is.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc7.ii.vii.xi.html
Personally, I find that critical scholarship has value, like when some Orthodox think that Mt Hermon could be the site of the Transfiguration based on text analysis. However, the basis for this proposition is not that bodies don't transfigure - it's not a denial of the Supernatural in the NT per Tradition based on modern scientific notions.
It's really the latter that I have the biggest personal problem with - judging supernatural concepts in a 2000 year old religious story based on modern scientific mores. It's like judging that the Torah does not intend for readers to imagine that Noah's global flood or the earth being immobile (geocentrism) or Moses' burning bush or Moses seeing God on Mt Sinai were real events, because such things are too supernatural, "childish", "superstitious", etc.
It's really one thing to think as a modern intellectual that such ancient stories did not in fact occur and a different one to propose that they were never intended by their narrators as factual because they sound to us 2000+ years later in the post-Renaissance era as unrealistic. Do you understand what I mean?
Thus my criticism of Calvinism on the Eucharistic bread is a bit like my criticism of Ehrman on Jesus' divinity being unknown to the "original" story of Jesus. Ehrman, I expect, finds such an idea as Jesus' divinity too fanciful to think that it was part of the original story about Jesus and he concludes that it must be some later invention. But this I think underestimates ancient peoples' own ability to see or imagine the divine.
Germany I believe was not as a nation primarily Reformed.
However, as I understand it, German Protestants are well divided between Lutherans and Reformed. However I wasn't get to show statistics on it.
One would also wish to find how many times German Reformed vs. Lutheran scholars used "critical scholarship" to conclude that the Resurrection and other main miracles didn't happen, which is the issue that we are focusing on here about critical scholarship (as opposed to secondary, non-supernatural issues like whether the Transfiguration was on Mt. Hermon or Tabor).
Yes.
Additionally, Calvinism was a stronger precursor to the Enlightenment than Lutheranism, because Luther and the Reformed directly debated over the role of "Reason" in defining Christ's body in general and the Eucharist in particular, a debate so strong that Luther rejected fellowship with Reformed in the Formula of Concord.
Per Luther, Calvin was using Reason to judge against what the rest of Christianity considered Biblical Christian doctrine. And in the Enlightenment, Reason was again used as a main tool to judge against common religious teachings, thus making Calvinism a much more direct precursor.
It is not weird to focus on Reformed, because the Reformed approach was much clearer, foundational and basic in this approach to religion, as Luther said. Besides, you felt yourself that Calvinism was a major precursor.
I was discussing Isaiah 53 in particular, not just "understanding the OT in an OT context".
I will be glad to discuss with you outside this thread, if you believe that those Study Bibles are correct. Rabbi Daniel Boyarin is a modern, orthodox rabbinical Talmudic scholar and came to the opposite conclusion from the modern Protestant study Bibles, and concluded that Isaiah 53 is about Messiah.
I have researched Isaiah 53 in depth, going in with the guess that the rabbis and modern Protestant Study Bibles were right about this.
Since as a plain matter of literary analysis they go against the actual OT understanding and do so in opposition to the traditional Christian understanding for the last 1970 years or so, I disagree with their decision.
Sorry, I know this is hearsay, but I believe my relative. I am not going to give more info out on the chaplain because I expect it will be taken with hostility.
Borg was recommended to me by main church elder at a town's main PCUSA church. Also I am not going to give out personal info for same reason as above.
I note also:
http://www.layman.org/news7605
Of course, I think it is interesting and nice to consider different views, including Jesus Seminar's.
Methodists, Quakers, Unitarians all came out the Reformed movement.
Methodists until the 20th century were considered Reformed as Arminianism came from Calvininist Dutch society. Quakers emerged in Puritan England and followed beliefs that using relics is a mistake because they are nonmiraculous and "carnal" and that sacraments were outward signs to their logical conclusion- that we shouldn't use sacraments because we don't want to use "carnal"-like, nonmiraculous outward signs. In practice, marriage is the only sacrament that they ritually observe.
Unitarians arose in the mid 16th century directly out of the Reformed Church in Poland:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unitarianism
I find it difficult to assert that the kind of modern critical scholarship I have in mind is "ecumenical". I am not aware of Eastern Orthodoxy producing something like the Jesus Seminar or the multiple Study Bibles saying that Isaiah 53 is not about Messiah. If we are just talking about Protestant, non-Christian, and a smaller number of Catholic scholars (Dominic Crossan is ex-Catholic) producing studies whose conclusions oppose basic Christian Biblical miracles, it is hard to consider this really "ecumenical Christian" from the Orthodox POV.
Main personal objection I have is when early, longstanding, widespread Christian beliefs are being judged "authentic" or not based on Reason, especially when they o therwise appear consistent with Biblical writings.
The problem is that Reason is not really good enough to trump Tradition when the text is arguable (IMO in this case it supports Tradition), because when we are talking about the Supernatural and ancient beliefs, modern Reason might be a good way to guess if they are realistic, but not if they are authentic and original.
If the early Hadiths say that Muhammed miraculously split the Moon and Surah 53 in the Quran describes this in a straightforward way, are we to say that the Quran intends this only as a metaphor because in modern secular Reason we don't believe that a Muslim could have split the moon?
I don't believe that Mohammed actually split the Moon, but when it comes to text analysis of Islam's holy books, my own Reasoning about nature is a secondary question to what Islam's own interpretation is.
Why do you think that he made that kind of attack?
[The Lutheran theologian Rev. Vajta] does offer this clear statement on Luther's relationship to the rationalism of his day, "Luther rejected [transubstantiation], not as too irrational, but as too rational. Reason is bound to misinterpret the real presence."
http://anglobaptist.org/blog/posts/-fr-richard-rohr-is-lutheran/
<<Luther denounces transubstantiation as a "subtle sophistry (subtilitas sophistica),">>http://anglobaptist.org/blog/posts/-fr-richard-rohr-is-lutheran/
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc7.ii.vii.xi.html
Personally, I find that critical scholarship has value, like when some Orthodox think that Mt Hermon could be the site of the Transfiguration based on text analysis. However, the basis for this proposition is not that bodies don't transfigure - it's not a denial of the Supernatural in the NT per Tradition based on modern scientific notions.
It's really the latter that I have the biggest personal problem with - judging supernatural concepts in a 2000 year old religious story based on modern scientific mores. It's like judging that the Torah does not intend for readers to imagine that Noah's global flood or the earth being immobile (geocentrism) or Moses' burning bush or Moses seeing God on Mt Sinai were real events, because such things are too supernatural, "childish", "superstitious", etc.
It's really one thing to think as a modern intellectual that such ancient stories did not in fact occur and a different one to propose that they were never intended by their narrators as factual because they sound to us 2000+ years later in the post-Renaissance era as unrealistic. Do you understand what I mean?
Thus my criticism of Calvinism on the Eucharistic bread is a bit like my criticism of Ehrman on Jesus' divinity being unknown to the "original" story of Jesus. Ehrman, I expect, finds such an idea as Jesus' divinity too fanciful to think that it was part of the original story about Jesus and he concludes that it must be some later invention. But this I think underestimates ancient peoples' own ability to see or imagine the divine.
What would you say, 2/3 of US Protestantism has been strongly influenced by the Reformed Tradition?
Germany I believe was not as a nation primarily Reformed.
However, as I understand it, German Protestants are well divided between Lutherans and Reformed. However I wasn't get to show statistics on it.
One would also wish to find how many times German Reformed vs. Lutheran scholars used "critical scholarship" to conclude that the Resurrection and other main miracles didn't happen, which is the issue that we are focusing on here about critical scholarship (as opposed to secondary, non-supernatural issues like whether the Transfiguration was on Mt. Hermon or Tabor).
Upvote
0
Hello, Hedrick!
Yes, notice the reference to the Wisdom of God. According to Justin Martyr c. 150 (early Church father, writing maybe 50 years after John's Gospel):
Further, the reference to a rock satiating souls in Philo can also be a reference to Christ being the spiritual rock, in 1 Cor 11.
However, if "rabbinical interpretation include a rock that moved with Israel,", and we accepted that the given rock was both a literal one and that 1 Cor 10 has this in mind as Fitzmyer says, then it means to me that Jesus was some kind of physical entity following the Israelites from which they literally drank, and maybe he even looked like a rock. This would go along with the Catholic view of the post-transformation bread that looks like bread but actually is body.
I prefer the Lutheran/Orthodox view over Fitzmyer's though because Paul says "spiritual rock", not just "rock".
Yes, notice the reference to the Wisdom of God. According to Justin Martyr c. 150 (early Church father, writing maybe 50 years after John's Gospel):
"I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos".
Further, the reference to a rock satiating souls in Philo can also be a reference to Christ being the spiritual rock, in 1 Cor 11.
Sure.
However, if "rabbinical interpretation include a rock that moved with Israel,", and we accepted that the given rock was both a literal one and that 1 Cor 10 has this in mind as Fitzmyer says, then it means to me that Jesus was some kind of physical entity following the Israelites from which they literally drank, and maybe he even looked like a rock. This would go along with the Catholic view of the post-transformation bread that looks like bread but actually is body.
I prefer the Lutheran/Orthodox view over Fitzmyer's though because Paul says "spiritual rock", not just "rock".
Upvote
0
If you classify all of Protestant theology, and much of current Catholic scholarship, as Reformed, then I agree with we’re talking about Reformed theology. It’s true that Calvin has been widely influential. But so has Luther, and many others. It is the nature of mainline Christianity to be ecumenical. (Yes, I realize that the Orthodox tradition has not participated.) While the influence of individuals is certainly important, it’s no more reasonable to attribute the modern critical approach to Calvin than to imagine that if Luther had just been more patient with the Catholic Church the Reformation wouldn’t have happened.
Early critical scholarship is often identified with F C Baur and Tubingen. As far as I can determine, both were Lutheran in background, although even at that time the movement was ecumenical. Schliermacher seems to have been Reformed in background, though he seems to have been strongly influenced by Moravians and Pietism.
You’re using the term rationalistic equivocally. Your primary de facto definition is using reasoning to reject traditional views. Catholics certainly viewed Luther that way. Transubstantiation is rationalistic in a different sense. I consider Luther’s more detailed explanations rationalistic in the same sense.
Early critical scholarship is often identified with F C Baur and Tubingen. As far as I can determine, both were Lutheran in background, although even at that time the movement was ecumenical. Schliermacher seems to have been Reformed in background, though he seems to have been strongly influenced by Moravians and Pietism.
You’re using the term rationalistic equivocally. Your primary de facto definition is using reasoning to reject traditional views. Catholics certainly viewed Luther that way. Transubstantiation is rationalistic in a different sense. I consider Luther’s more detailed explanations rationalistic in the same sense.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Overall, I think the most accurate view is that the Renaissance and Reformation were both signs of a general tendency in European thought to reexamine its foundations, and a willingness to make changes. This is rationalism in rakovsky's sense, although it's not the way I'd normally use the word. I'd use rationalism for overly abstract understandings, with transubstantiation being probably the most extreme example.
Luther and Calvin should best be placed within that context, and not seen as being responsible individually for modern approaches to religion. Luther and Calvin both rejected many traditional views, with similar types of reasoning. The heirs of both were involved in both early and modern liberal Christianity. It’s generally acknowledged that Calvin was a bit more radical. But the Enlightenment was part of the overall movement of European thought, and wasn’t dependent upon Calvin in any specific way.
Luther and Calvin should best be placed within that context, and not seen as being responsible individually for modern approaches to religion. Luther and Calvin both rejected many traditional views, with similar types of reasoning. The heirs of both were involved in both early and modern liberal Christianity. It’s generally acknowledged that Calvin was a bit more radical. But the Enlightenment was part of the overall movement of European thought, and wasn’t dependent upon Calvin in any specific way.
Upvote
0
Dear Hedrick!
“They drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.”
“They drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and th[at] rock was Christ.”
He says that "rock was Christ" refers to the just-named "spiritual rock", and not to the "material" rock from which the people physically drank.
I tend to agree with Luther, because the second time there is no specification as to which rock, the spiritual one or the material one, and the one just named was the spiritual one.
Lopukhin gives the same answer that the rock in the verse was not the material one.
Also, regarding the issue of communion and the "spiritual rock", he makes a linguistic point.
In Luther's idea, this part of the verse does not expressly mean "the material rock signified Christ". He feels that the verse is directly talking about the "spiritual rock" (a metaphorical name) who was Christ, not about the material rock.
So for Luther there are two concepts:
1. The material rock that signified/typified Christ.
2. The "spiritual rock"(metaphorical name) who was Christ.
When we say "Christ is a spiritual and metaphorical rock, a spiritual and metaphorical lamb, etc.", there is no specific physical, material rock in the common sense of the term that we are talking about. Such a phrase is the second (#2) alternative above.
Luther's linguistic point is that when we say "the spiritual rock followed them, and that rock (not the material one) was Christ", we don't read the word "was" to mean "signified". Luther concludes then that we should not read the word "is" as "signifies" in "This is my body".
For Luther, words about Jesus like lamb, vine, rock, are read as spiritual lamb, etc., while the words "is" and "was" are read as such, and not as "signified".
eg. the "spiritual lamb is Jesus", even though "the ancient Temple lamb signified Jesus."
"Spiritual rock" as a term is a metaphor for Christ, and Christ directly fits that metaphor.
The term "spiritual rock" signifies Christ, and so "the spiritual rock is Christ", not "the spiritual rock signifies Christ". It's a linguistic issue. Luther uses linguistics to prove the Lutheran view of the Eucharist, whereby "This [specific physical bread] is Christ".
I agree.
Luther's reasoning is to paraphrase the verse as follows:
“They drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.”
“They drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and th[at] rock was Christ.”
He says that "rock was Christ" refers to the just-named "spiritual rock", and not to the "material" rock from which the people physically drank.
I tend to agree with Luther, because the second time there is no specification as to which rock, the spiritual one or the material one, and the one just named was the spiritual one.
Lopukhin gives the same answer that the rock in the verse was not the material one.
I suppose that Luther finds, like Eusebius and like what you said earlier, that "type" is not inconsistent with something being actual.
Also, regarding the issue of communion and the "spiritual rock", he makes a linguistic point.
In Luther's idea, this part of the verse does not expressly mean "the material rock signified Christ". He feels that the verse is directly talking about the "spiritual rock" (a metaphorical name) who was Christ, not about the material rock.
So for Luther there are two concepts:
1. The material rock that signified/typified Christ.
2. The "spiritual rock"(metaphorical name) who was Christ.
When we say "Christ is a spiritual and metaphorical rock, a spiritual and metaphorical lamb, etc.", there is no specific physical, material rock in the common sense of the term that we are talking about. Such a phrase is the second (#2) alternative above.
Luther's linguistic point is that when we say "the spiritual rock followed them, and that rock (not the material one) was Christ", we don't read the word "was" to mean "signified". Luther concludes then that we should not read the word "is" as "signifies" in "This is my body".
For Luther, words about Jesus like lamb, vine, rock, are read as spiritual lamb, etc., while the words "is" and "was" are read as such, and not as "signified".
eg. the "spiritual lamb is Jesus", even though "the ancient Temple lamb signified Jesus."
He is attacking something that no one should say, but according to Luther, in his time there were Reformed-style exegetes who were saying that. Ie. They read "the rock" to mean the "material rock", and then read "was" as "signified", and then they applied that misreading of language to the meaning of Jesus' words on the Eucharistic bread.
Christ is "spiritual bread" in a general metaphorical sense, but per Luther's reading in the gospel Jesus is saying "this [the specific material bread in his hand] is Jesus' body."
No, using his linguistic argument, "this", the physical bread, "is" Christ's "body" because of use of the word "is" and the fact that this time Jesus was referring to a specific physical bread, unlike in 1 Cor 10:4 when no specific material bread was pointed to.
He is using a linguistic approach that sees material rock as being a type, and the word "is" as meaning "is" when the subject is clearly defined.
"Spiritual rock" as a term is a metaphor for Christ, and Christ directly fits that metaphor.
The term "spiritual rock" signifies Christ, and so "the spiritual rock is Christ", not "the spiritual rock signifies Christ". It's a linguistic issue. Luther uses linguistics to prove the Lutheran view of the Eucharist, whereby "This [specific physical bread] is Christ".
Upvote
0
Dear Hedrick,
Calvin should have had medieval rabbis' traditions available, but offhand I don't remember mention by him. I think they would have been treated as verboten. His concept from Renaissance Humanism was to see the meaning considered inherent in the text itself.
This downgrading approach to worthwhile old traditions also came up in his exegesis on Psalm 22, and is interesting, so I'll discuss it in my next message.
I think so based on Philo and based on Trinity and on "God" being explicitly in the cloud etc.
So just a symbolic reading producing an idea of prefiguring the sacrament is not the full intent.
Considering Tradition as respectable here and not "foolish" gives a better result, as Tradition was correct. This is a good example of Calvinism's pitfalls.
Did Paul not think that God, including the Logos, was there in the desert as Philo implies? We know from Justin Martyr that the Christians believed this in 150 AD. I am aware of your perception that Christians outside the Bible had a "Greco-Roman" version of Christian teachings, but in this case Justin Martyr's idea that Jesus was actually in the desert with Moses in a bush lines up with Paul's about a spiritual rock.
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 41. Referring to the prophecy (Isaiah 6:1, I saw Jehovah, said the prophet, sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple), the evangelist says, Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him. The allusion is to Isaiah's vision of God in the temple and his commission to be his messenger to Israel (Is. 6:1-13). The evangelist implies that what Isaiah saw in the temple was in fact 'Jesus' glory', i.e. the glory of the pre-existent Christ. There are other NT and early Christian writings which imply the pre-incarnate Christ appeared in OT times. Paul speaks of the rock in the wilderness from which the water gushed as Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Justin Martyr says, when Moses 'was tending the flocks of his maternal uncle in the land of Arabia, our Christ conversed with him under the appearance of fire from a bush' (I Apology lxii. 3-4; cf. Dialogue with Trypho 128).
It is apparent that there were several listed views on this, and that Luther shared the same view.
For Luther, the rock in the desert referred to did not just "signify" Christ, it was Christ. If the Reformed view that this was just a matter of "typological symbolism" prefiguring the Eucharist was Luther's, Luther would not have objected so strongly to seeing "was" as "signified" that he considered it "malice". As for Luther Paul was not just making a symbol of Christ with this expression, he also enters on metaphysical perceptions. Do you think Philo, Justin Martyr, and Tyndale New Testament Commentaries are using what you see as Orthodox "metaphysical speculation"?
Based on Calvin's approach, it wouldn't matter. Calvin already acknowledged that Christians were teaching the rock was either a real rock (eg. the moving one in Jewish tradition) or the ekklesia's spiritual foundation, and he debunked these teachings by saying that rocks don't follow people. Calvin called these ideas "childish", etc. Would Calvin, who rejected Church tradition on the basis of "reasonableness", and considered rabbis "impious" (and probably worse things), accept 2nd century nonChristian pharisaic tradition about a supernaturally moving rock?
Calvin should have had medieval rabbis' traditions available, but offhand I don't remember mention by him. I think they would have been treated as verboten. His concept from Renaissance Humanism was to see the meaning considered inherent in the text itself.
It's right in that everyone agrees that in part Paul was talking about prefigurements of the sacrament. For Calvin however, what was discussed were just physical objects that prefigured the sacraments (eg. the stream), and there was not a discussion of Jesus the "spiritual rock" actually following them. Thus in Calvin's reading of the passage Jesus was not actually following the Israelites (the stream was following them), where for non-Reformed, He was.
The "rock" that was mentioned for Luther did not just typify Christ, the metaphorical rock was Christ such that if the metaphorical rock was following them, then Christ was following them. Material rocks don't (ordinarily) follow people, but a metaphorical/spiritual "rock" might easily do so.
In this case, I think Calvin was probably aware that there was a tradition about a moving rock, because he mentions that exegetes were talking about it. He may have not known or cared in pharisees in the early Middle Ages had such a tradition. Major respect for such ancient Christian or Jewish traditions was not part of his methodology when he found them "childish" or "foolish".
This downgrading approach to worthwhile old traditions also came up in his exegesis on Psalm 22, and is interesting, so I'll discuss it in my next message.
Did Paul think that preincarnate Logos was directly following the Israelites?
I think so based on Philo and based on Trinity and on "God" being explicitly in the cloud etc.
So just a symbolic reading producing an idea of prefiguring the sacrament is not the full intent.
Considering Tradition as respectable here and not "foolish" gives a better result, as Tradition was correct. This is a good example of Calvinism's pitfalls.
How could he have something more "literal" than Paul did, when Luther in fact says that Jesus is not a physical rock?
Did Paul not think that God, including the Logos, was there in the desert as Philo implies? We know from Justin Martyr that the Christians believed this in 150 AD. I am aware of your perception that Christians outside the Bible had a "Greco-Roman" version of Christian teachings, but in this case Justin Martyr's idea that Jesus was actually in the desert with Moses in a bush lines up with Paul's about a spiritual rock.
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 41. Referring to the prophecy (Isaiah 6:1, I saw Jehovah, said the prophet, sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple), the evangelist says, Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him. The allusion is to Isaiah's vision of God in the temple and his commission to be his messenger to Israel (Is. 6:1-13). The evangelist implies that what Isaiah saw in the temple was in fact 'Jesus' glory', i.e. the glory of the pre-existent Christ. There are other NT and early Christian writings which imply the pre-incarnate Christ appeared in OT times. Paul speaks of the rock in the wilderness from which the water gushed as Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Justin Martyr says, when Moses 'was tending the flocks of his maternal uncle in the land of Arabia, our Christ conversed with him under the appearance of fire from a bush' (I Apology lxii. 3-4; cf. Dialogue with Trypho 128).
Luther and Lopukhin explicitly teach the same thing that Jesus was not a material rock but a spiritual rock in the desert, and that this was also pre-figured the Sacrament.
It is apparent that there were several listed views on this, and that Luther shared the same view.
For Luther, the rock in the desert referred to did not just "signify" Christ, it was Christ. If the Reformed view that this was just a matter of "typological symbolism" prefiguring the Eucharist was Luther's, Luther would not have objected so strongly to seeing "was" as "signified" that he considered it "malice". As for Luther Paul was not just making a symbol of Christ with this expression, he also enters on metaphysical perceptions. Do you think Philo, Justin Martyr, and Tyndale New Testament Commentaries are using what you see as Orthodox "metaphysical speculation"?
Upvote
0
Here is another example of what I see as a flaw in Calvin's methodology in interpreting OT metaphors.
Jesus tells us that he is the morning star in the gospels, and He tells us to search the scripture for prophecies of Him. One of the main Messianic Christian prophecies is considered to be Psalm 22.
Psalm 22 begins: (("To the chief musician. On the "morning star" / "strength of the morning" / "doe of the morning". A psalm of David."))
Where else in the ancient Jewish traditions is the morning star so clearly associated with the Messiah? I think it's not a coincidence that Jesus uttered this Psalm 22 on the cross and that he considered himself the morning star.
Exegetes often propose that the phrase "on the" means that the passage was probably played either with a tune or instrument by this name. Indeed in the Song of Solomon, a deer is looking through the lattice for a buck who is coming to save her. Being in the lattice (v. 2:9), the doe is apparently confined. And here in the Song of Solomon, it talks about the morning! ("17 Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, turn, my beloved, ") Considering Solomon's own relationship to David, Solomon's Song about the doe escaping in the morning, it seems to me, could be the melody referred to in Psalm 22, which is about God saving and freeing the King from enemies.
Calvin however said that the interpreters were "needlessly perplexing" attempts to make such sense of the Morning Star of Doe of the Morning:
It's unfortunate that he basically dismisses the title's deeper potential meanings about Christ and Christ's own salvation by God. Comparing Christ to the morning star and the freeing of the doe before dawnbreak could refer to the Resurrection on Sunday morning before dawn!
And yet Calvin essentially clears from the minds these possible deeper meanings as if its just "needless perplexing". Millions of Christians have followed in Calvin's stead over centuries, and generations of Calvinists read this commentary to understand the verse.
I myself, seeking to know the deeper meanings of the prophecies came to Calvin's commentaries, trying to see if the Tanakh actually predicted the Messiah, or if as those Study Guides suggested, Christians just took passages like Isaiah 53 and gave them a different meaning than the actual one. This passage by Calvin stuck out at me at the time, because I had not heard of an interpretation that the doe could have a meaning of sacrifice or some other Christian meaning.
And yet I am stuck, Hedrick, because I couldn't find more about this interpretation about the "doe". Calvin puts it out there, but then instead of educating readers like myself on this interpretation, he simply erases further explanations. And thus I am left wanting to know what that interpretation was, still curious to this day. What I said about the Song of Solomon and the doe was my own educated guess- I don't know anything more about what the interpreters had in mind, unfortunately.
For me, it's interesting to see in the ancient passages references to Christ, like in Ps. 22, even if this involves considering Tradition an authority (if not infallible) and even if it involves some "perplexing". And I think Jesus encouraged this when he said to "Search the Scriptures", even though the apostles have said that they did not understand so lucidly the scriptures before Jesus appeared (Luke 24).
Jesus tells us that he is the morning star in the gospels, and He tells us to search the scripture for prophecies of Him. One of the main Messianic Christian prophecies is considered to be Psalm 22.
Psalm 22 begins: (("To the chief musician. On the "morning star" / "strength of the morning" / "doe of the morning". A psalm of David."))
Where else in the ancient Jewish traditions is the morning star so clearly associated with the Messiah? I think it's not a coincidence that Jesus uttered this Psalm 22 on the cross and that he considered himself the morning star.
Exegetes often propose that the phrase "on the" means that the passage was probably played either with a tune or instrument by this name. Indeed in the Song of Solomon, a deer is looking through the lattice for a buck who is coming to save her. Being in the lattice (v. 2:9), the doe is apparently confined. And here in the Song of Solomon, it talks about the morning! ("17 Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, turn, my beloved, ") Considering Solomon's own relationship to David, Solomon's Song about the doe escaping in the morning, it seems to me, could be the melody referred to in Psalm 22, which is about God saving and freeing the King from enemies.
Calvin however said that the interpreters were "needlessly perplexing" attempts to make such sense of the Morning Star of Doe of the Morning:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc08/cc08027.htm
It's unfortunate that he basically dismisses the title's deeper potential meanings about Christ and Christ's own salvation by God. Comparing Christ to the morning star and the freeing of the doe before dawnbreak could refer to the Resurrection on Sunday morning before dawn!
And yet Calvin essentially clears from the minds these possible deeper meanings as if its just "needless perplexing". Millions of Christians have followed in Calvin's stead over centuries, and generations of Calvinists read this commentary to understand the verse.
I myself, seeking to know the deeper meanings of the prophecies came to Calvin's commentaries, trying to see if the Tanakh actually predicted the Messiah, or if as those Study Guides suggested, Christians just took passages like Isaiah 53 and gave them a different meaning than the actual one. This passage by Calvin stuck out at me at the time, because I had not heard of an interpretation that the doe could have a meaning of sacrifice or some other Christian meaning.
And yet I am stuck, Hedrick, because I couldn't find more about this interpretation about the "doe". Calvin puts it out there, but then instead of educating readers like myself on this interpretation, he simply erases further explanations. And thus I am left wanting to know what that interpretation was, still curious to this day. What I said about the Song of Solomon and the doe was my own educated guess- I don't know anything more about what the interpreters had in mind, unfortunately.
For me, it's interesting to see in the ancient passages references to Christ, like in Ps. 22, even if this involves considering Tradition an authority (if not infallible) and even if it involves some "perplexing". And I think Jesus encouraged this when he said to "Search the Scriptures", even though the apostles have said that they did not understand so lucidly the scriptures before Jesus appeared (Luke 24).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Fred,
I agree when you say:
I disagree with your next logical conclusion though:
Likewise, He is a metaphorical "rock", but in the Lutheran and Orthodox reading of Paul, Christ actually and directly followed the Israelites in the desert. Do you see what I mean?
Isn't that kind of like saying that God couldn't become a human being (incarnate) because God is not a human and because a human baby 100% absolutely needs a human father's sperm to be born in order to get a Y Chromosome?
Isn't that like saying Jesus' body couldn't be in a wall and go into the apostles' house?
In all these cases, the objection seems to be that Jesus' body can't do these things because it breaks nature's rules. Do you see why Skeptics who grew up in Reformed societies think Jesus' miracles are impossible happen?
I agree when you say:
I disagree with your next logical conclusion though:
Christ is a metaphorical/spiritual "sacrificial lamb" and a metaphorical/spiritual "rock". However, in Biblical thinking, Christ the "lamb" did not just go through a metaphorical sacrifice and metaphorically took away guilt - He went through an actual (albeit nonritual) sacrifice/martyrdom and actually took away guilt. Do you see the difference (metaphorical noun vs. real, direct actual verb)?
Likewise, He is a metaphorical "rock", but in the Lutheran and Orthodox reading of Paul, Christ actually and directly followed the Israelites in the desert. Do you see what I mean?
If God can make the world and do anything, including breaking laws of nature, and Jesus' supernatural miracle body can break nature's laws and go through walls, why couldn't Jesus' supernatural miracle body be omnipresent?
Isn't that kind of like saying that God couldn't become a human being (incarnate) because God is not a human and because a human baby 100% absolutely needs a human father's sperm to be born in order to get a Y Chromosome?
Isn't that like saying Jesus' body couldn't be in a wall and go into the apostles' house?
In all these cases, the objection seems to be that Jesus' body can't do these things because it breaks nature's rules. Do you see why Skeptics who grew up in Reformed societies think Jesus' miracles are impossible happen?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Poll
