Sola Scriptura - what does it mean?

[ViaCrucis]

The rally-cry of Luther and co. was Ad Fontes, Latin for "Back to the Source". It was about making Christ and the Gospel paramount in everything, and that to do that we should hear and abide in what was written for our benefit in Scripture. If we, as Christians, are preaching, teaching, or doing things which obscure, contradict, or hide the Gospel away so that we aren't hearing and believing it then that's a problem. If we are acting against Scripture or acting against the spirit of Scripture, then there's a problem. It must always be Jesus First, the Gospel must always be front and center of everything we say and do as Christians. So we allow the rule of Scripture to govern our tradition, our practices; if what we say and do gets in the way of Scripture, gets in the way of the preaching of Jesus Christ, then we need to change what we say and do so that we are once again speaking with clarity and our practices are Christ-centered and Christ-focused.

That is something that makes the Lutheran way of doing things not only very different to how many modern Protestants do things, but it was also different to how the Reformed in the 16th century did things.

An analogy I have often heard is this: For the Reformed, such as Calvin and Zwingli, they sought to reform the Church by opening up the cabinet and dumping everything out, and then only putting back in what they saw as useful. But for Luther and the other Evangelical Reformers, they opened up the cabinet and rather than dumping anything, carefully examined what they saw, and only disposed of those things they saw as harmful and abusive.

Lutherans cleaned out the drawer by inspecting the contents and selectively removing only what was worthless.
The Reformed cleaned out the drawer by dumping all the contents and only selecting a few things which they saw as of value.

That's why the Lutherans still have the Mass, almost completely in tact as it was known in Luther's time (a traditional Lutheran Divine Service is nearly identical to the pre-Tridentine Roman Mass); whereas the Reformed don't even claim to celebrate the Mass at all; and by consequence most modern Protestants utterly reject the word "Mass" entirely to refer to a Christian service. It's why Lutherans still have icons and crucifixes, and the Reformed chose to do away with them for the most part. It's why Lutherans retained all the elements of the liturgy including the vestments worn by clergy, whereas the Reformed chose to replace traditional vestments with an academic's robe (and, in modern times, this has been replaced by the suit and tie).

Lutherans didn't want to do away with the cabinet or any of its drawers, only seeking to address those things which were seen as an actual problem. Which is why Lutherans are still the "funny people" of "Protestantism".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Darren Court]

The rally-cry of Luther and co. was Ad Fontes, Latin for "Back to the Source". It was about making Christ and the Gospel paramount in everything, and that to do that we should hear and abide in what was written for our benefit in Scripture. If we, as Christians, are preaching, teaching, or doing things which obscure, contradict, or hide the Gospel away so that we aren't hearing and believing it then that's a problem. If we are acting against Scripture or acting against the spirit of Scripture, then there's a problem. It must always be Jesus First, the Gospel must always be front and center of everything we say and do as Christians. So we allow the rule of Scripture to govern our tradition, our practices; if what we say and do gets in the way of Scripture, gets in the way of the preaching of Jesus Christ, then we need to change what we say and do so that we are once again speaking with clarity and our practices are Christ-centered and Christ-focused.

That is something that makes the Lutheran way of doing things not only very different to how many modern Protestants do things, but it was also different to how the Reformed in the 16th century did things.

An analogy I have often heard is this: For the Reformed, such as Calvin and Zwingli, they sought to reform the Church by opening up the cabinet and dumping everything out, and then only putting back in what they saw as useful. But for Luther and the other Evangelical Reformers, they opened up the cabinet and rather than dumping anything, carefully examined what they saw, and only disposed of those things they saw as harmful and abusive.

Lutherans cleaned out the drawer by inspecting the contents and selectively removing only what was worthless.
The Reformed cleaned out the drawer by dumping all the contents and only selecting a few things which they saw as of value.

That's why the Lutherans still have the Mass, almost completely in tact as it was known in Luther's time (a traditional Lutheran Divine Service is nearly identical to the pre-Tridentine Roman Mass); whereas the Reformed don't even claim to celebrate the Mass at all; and by consequence most modern Protestants utterly reject the word "Mass" entirely to refer to a Christian service. It's why Lutherans still have icons and crucifixes, and the Reformed chose to do away with them for the most part. It's why Lutherans retained all the elements of the liturgy including the vestments worn by clergy, whereas the Reformed chose to replace traditional vestments with an academic's robe (and, in modern times, this has been replaced by the suit and tie).

Lutherans didn't want to do away with the cabinet or any of its drawers, only seeking to address those things which were seen as an actual problem. Which is why Lutherans are still the "funny people" of "Protestantism".

-CryptoLutheran

Whilst I sense we maybe able to agree on much, I frankly have no interest in comparing the process that Calvin and Luther followed in deciding the components in the medicine cabinet. I don't believe it's helpful to compare approaches not least because it distracts from should it actually be a cabinet we hold doctrine in at all!

I will chose to do what Luther actually said we should do and return to the source and there I see no support for many of the Catholic doctrines that Luther either didn't spot in the cabinet or failed to hold them to the standard he set out to.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Whilst I sense we maybe able to agree on much, I frankly have no interest in comparing the process that Calvin and Luther followed in deciding the components in the medicine cabinet. I don't believe it's helpful to compare approaches not least because it distracts from should it actually be a cabinet we hold doctrine in at all!

I will chose to do what Luther actually said we should do and return to the source and there I see no support for many of the Catholic doctrines that Luther either didn't spot in the cabinet or failed to hold them to the standard he set out to.

When you begin with the assumption that "Catholics are bad" and try and invent a Christianity around that foundation then you aren't going back to the source at all.

Luther assumed the truth of the Catholic Church, because it's the Christian Church which Jesus founded. It is from that starting place that a biblically oriented reform can take place; outside of that it's just DIY religion. And that's not Sola Scriptura at all; at least not as the Evangelical Reformers understood it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Darren Court]

When you begin with the assumption that "Catholics are bad" and try and invent a Christianity around that foundation then you aren't going back to the source at all.

Luther assumed the truth of the Catholic Church, because it's the Christian Church which Jesus founded. It is from that starting place that a biblically oriented reform can take place; outside of that it's just DIY religion. And that's not Sola Scriptura at all; at least not as the Evangelical Reformers understood it.

-CryptoLutheran

When you put words in the mouths of others, then criticise those words, it's called a strawman argument... and it's pointless.

I didn't say Catholics are bad and it's not my assumption. Frankly, I don't waste my time judging people in such a simplistic way, not least because when I do judge, I judge as I would wish to be judged.

Luther assumed the truth of the Catholic Church.... The problem here is that there is a widely held assumption that if we want all truth we can find it whenever we want. It's nonsense and completely unbiblical. God reveals truth where He wants His truth to be revealed, not to men because they want it. No man can even called Jesus Lord unless it is revealed to him by the Holy Spirit.

Thus if God wants me to see the truth on a particular doctrine, and I play my part in desiring it, He will reveal it. If He has set me to work on other truths and actions but I decide to seek truth in other areas, I am wasting my time... merely exercising my logic and efforts when God isn't going to reveal His truth in my endeavours. Thus the fact Luther accepted "the truth of the Catholic Church" is meaningless to him and me.

because it's the Christian Church which Jesus founded. Alas this is a common and seriously flawed statement and brings into sharp focus the problem of truth not least because so many believe it. The church Jesus started was called "ecclesia". It does not mean an organisation, a building or even a denomination. It means a gathering of all who are Christ's followers. ALL OF THEM! This truth is even reflected in the Catholic catechism.

The ONLY example of church provided to us in the pages of scripture were different churches in different cities with different problems, different beliefs and different people. There was no central organisation, authority, teaching or discipline. Yet they are collectively and unquestionably the ONE TRUE CHURCH of CHRIST.

Now there is nothing theoretically wrong with centralising but there is if you then claim central authority, and even more so when that central authority is evil and corrupt. (Do you know the Trinity doctrine in Council of Constantinople was presiding over by a pagan?) The very concept of some special part, given authority and status by itself to be infallible laughs in the face of scripture!

I also find the comment that Jesus started the Catholic Church surprising from a Lutheran because that church deems your beliefs heresy and you not part of the church of Christ. It's like you're trying to be part of the Catholic Church that rejects you!

 

[ViaCrucis]

When you put words in the mouths of others, then criticise those words, it's called a strawman argument... and it's pointless.

I could have phrased it better, but yes, you are presuming that the historic Church--the Catholic Church--is false. "Catholics bad" was a poor way for me to phrase it, but even still you are presuming this as demonstrated by the rest of your post below.

I didn't say Catholics are bad and it's not my assumption. Frankly, I don't waste my time judging people in such a simplistic way, not least because when I do judge, I judge as I would wish to be judged.

Luther assumed the truth of the Catholic Church.... The problem here is that there is a widely held assumption that if we want all truth we can find it whenever we want. It's nonsense and completely unbiblical. God reveals truth where He wants His truth to be revealed, not to men because they want it. No man can even called Jesus Lord unless it is revealed to him by the Holy Spirit.

Did Jesus found a Church? Is that not revealed to us?

Thus if God wants me to see the truth on a particular doctrine, and I play my part in desiring it, He will reveal it. If He has set me to work on other truths and actions but I decide to seek truth in other areas, I am wasting my time... merely exercising my logic and efforts when God isn't going to reveal His truth in my endeavours. Thus the fact Luther accepted "the truth of the Catholic Church" is meaningless to him and me.

Here you have moved from the principle of Sola Scriptura to "God will reveal to me". You are now operating from an entirely different principle of revelation, that of individual and direct revelation from God. That isn't Sola Scriptura.

because it's the Christian Church which Jesus founded. Alas this is a common and seriously flawed statement and brings into sharp focus the problem of truth not least because so many believe it. The church Jesus started was called "ecclesia". It does not mean an organisation, a building or even a denomination. It means a gathering of all who are Christ's followers. ALL OF THEM! This truth is even reflected in the Catholic catechism.

You are, here, providing two fallacious views:

1) A misunderstanding of what the Church Catholic is and means historically and
2) A rejection of historic Ecclesiastical organization on the basis of your own personal beliefs

I will address the first issue in my comments later in this post. But the second issue is sufficiently addressed by what I have stated already: Sola Scriptura as a principle of reform for the Evangelical Reformers assumed that the biblical and historical truth that Jesus did, indeed, found an organized community of followers, His Church. And, therefore, rather than approaching the Bible detached from the historical realities of that Church as it was organized and structured in the earliest centuries of existence and operating from there, you are taking your personal views and modern sensibilities and shoehorning them in.

Because Jesus absolutely did institute an organizational body. The churches were not doing things on their own without any organizational structure connecting them, there were the Apostles. There was a unity of faith that connected and linked every sister-church to the other. And that, as I will explain later, is what is meant by "the Catholic Church".

The ONLY example of church provided to us in the pages of scripture were different churches in different cities with different problems, different beliefs and different people. There was no central organisation, authority, teaching or discipline. Yet they are collectively and unquestionably the ONE TRUE CHURCH of CHRIST.

And yet, when the issue of Gentiles converting showed up we see that the Apostles met together in Jerusalem and held a council to decide--for the whole Church--what to do about the issue of Gentile converts to Christianity. Acts ch. 15 destroys your argument against a centralizing organizational structure within the Christian Church.

Now there is nothing theoretically wrong with centralising but there is if you then claim central authority, and even more so when that central authority is evil and corrupt. (Do you know the Trinity doctrine in Council of Constantinople was presiding over by a pagan?) The very concept of some special part, given authority and status by itself to be infallible laughs in the face of scripture!

The Council of Constantinople, held in 381 was presided over by Emperor Theodosius I, a Christian. And the reason for the meeting was to formally reject the Macedonian heresy, which denied the Deity of the Holy Spirit and to re-affirm what the Council of Nicea (325) had said concerning the Deity and Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. Which is why Christians to this day continue to believe and confess the Creed drawn up at the Council of Constantinople, adapted from the Creed drafted at Nicea. The Nicene (technically the Nicene-Constantinoplian) Creed.

Perhaps you could expand on your comments here, because you seem to be suggesting details about the council that aren't true, are misrepresenting the history of the formal doctrine of the Trinity, and denying the biblical reality of the Church operating through council (look, again, to the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, which established that precedent).

I also find the comment that Jesus started the Catholic Church surprising from a Lutheran because that church deems your beliefs heresy and you not part of the church of Christ. It's like you're trying to be part of the Catholic Church that rejects you!

And here I want to address misunderstanding of the concept of the Catholic Church. I'm talking about the universal Church of Jesus Christ which He founded and instituted to be His own Body. The particular ecclesiastical politics and issues of Rome-in-schism are not what I'm talking about. Rome, under the illicit institution of the papacy, charged Luther and the Evangelical Reformers who agreed with him as heretics.

I'm talking about the Catholic Church, not Rome. That is precisely why I said Luther assumed the truth of the Catholic Church in order to address abuses and seek a biblical oriented reform. To understand the Reformation, to understand what happened in the 16th century, requires a much more nuanced understanding of Church History than the shallow and simple narratives often presented allow.

Given your post here, I encourage you to do some real research into not only the history of the Church on the whole, but some research into the Reformation specifically.

In the mean time, here's a funny song by a Lutheran pastor.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Darren Court]

I could have phrased it better, but yes, you are presuming that the historic Church--the Catholic Church--is false. "Catholics bad" was a poor way for me to phrase it, but even still you are presuming this as demonstrated by the rest of your post below.

No and you're once gain putting words in my mouth having accepting you did that and shouldn't!!!

I never demonstrated or inferred or stated the Catholic Church is bad. I did say it isn't the church Christ started and that it has made many errors... if that slips into the simplistic category of "bad" to you then it's your deal not mine!

Did Jesus found a Church? Is that not revealed to us?

Jesus did not found a church! He founded an "ecclesia" which by all recognized definitions is gathering of believers. It's not a building. It's not an organisation and it's certainly not a denomination.

Here you have moved from the principle of Sola Scriptura to "God will reveal to me". You are now operating from an entirely different principle of revelation, that of individual and direct revelation from God. That isn't Sola Scriptura.

No I haven't done anything of the sort. The principle of Sola Scriptura is that scripture is the ultimate authority. The principle I advocated is that scripture itself tells us we cannot find truth on our own. They are not mutually exclusive!

You are, here, providing two fallacious views:

1) A misunderstanding of what the Church Catholic is and means historically and
2) A rejection of historic Ecclesiastical organization on the basis of your own personal beliefs

I will address the first issue in my comments later in this post. But the second issue is sufficiently addressed by what I have stated already: Sola Scriptura as a principle of reform for the Evangelical Reformers assumed that the biblical and historical truth that Jesus did, indeed, found an organized community of followers, His Church. And, therefore, rather than approaching the Bible detached from the historical realities of that Church as it was organized and structured in the earliest centuries of existence and operating from there, you are taking your personal views and modern sensibilities and shoehorning them in.

Because Jesus absolutely did institute an organizational body. The churches were not doing things on their own without any organizational structure connecting them, there were the Apostles. There was a unity of faith that connected and linked every sister-church to the other. And that, as I will explain later, is what is meant by "the Catholic Church".

Fascinating how you can ignore scripture yet believe you are following scripture!!!

as a principle of reform for the Evangelical Reformers assumed that the biblical and historical truth that Jesus did, indeed, found an organized community of followers, His Church.

Firstly, I don't care what the reformers did or did not assume because they are not the authority upon which anything should be based.

Secondly, there is no question that Jesus did not form an organization not least because there is no organization within the scriptures! The FACT is you conveniently choose to ignore there were many churches with many different problems, different beliefs and different people. There was absolutely no organisational structure nor dialogue recorded between any of them and yet they are THE CHURCH. You can argue as much as you like but there's evidence the apostles even visited all the churches in the NT never mind provided some kind of consistency of belief and your claim there was a unity of faith is counter by the biblical realities reflected in the different problems stemming from different beliefs that Paul documented. Seriously, do you not read your bible?

Thirdly, if you study the seven churches (NOTE THE PLURAL) in Revelation... which symbolizes the end times, there is STILL no organisation nor dialogue between them and they each have very different problems.

Fourthly the ONLY historical reality to which you refer shows power struggles and doctrine arguments as the different churches are brought under the same banner and it's HUNDREDS of years after the original church that Christ set up.!

Lastly, you do not need to go to the lengths to describe how the Catholic Church defines itself to include everything that is of Christ's even if has nothing to do with the visible Catholic Church. I am not minded to try the mental gymnastics that's required to fool myself into believing something that so patently is nothing more than man's imagination to reconcile the truth with fiction.

 

[Valletta]

No and you're once gain putting words in my mouth having accepting you did that and shouldn't!!!

I never demonstrated or inferred or stated the Catholic Church is bad. I did say it isn't the church Christ started and that it has made many errors... if that slips into the simplistic category of "bad" to you then it's your deal not mine!

Jesus did not found a church! He founded an "ecclesia" which by all recognized definitions is gathering of believers. It's not a building. It's not an organisation and it's certainly not a denomination.

No I haven't done anything of the sort. The principle of Sola Scriptura is that scripture is the ultimate authority. The principle I advocated is that scripture itself tells us we cannot find truth on our own. They are not mutually exclusive!

Fascinating how you can ignore scripture yet believe you are following scripture!!!

as a principle of reform for the Evangelical Reformers assumed that the biblical and historical truth that Jesus did, indeed, found an organized community of followers, His Church.

Firstly, I don't care what the reformers did or did not assume because they are not the authority upon which anything should be based.

Secondly, there is no question that Jesus did not form an organization not least because there is no organization within the scriptures! The FACT is you conveniently choose to ignore there were many churches with many different problems, different beliefs and different people. There was absolutely no organisational structure nor dialogue recorded between any of them and yet they are THE CHURCH. You can argue as much as you like but there's evidence the apostles even visited all the churches in the NT never mind provided some kind of consistency of belief and your claim there was a unity of faith is counter by the biblical realities reflected in the different problems stemming from different beliefs that Paul documented. Seriously, do you not read your bible?

Thirdly, if you study the seven churches (NOTE THE PLURAL) in Revelation... which symbolizes the end times, there is STILL no organisation nor dialogue between them and they each have very different problems.

Fourthly the ONLY historical reality to which you refer shows power struggles and doctrine arguments as the different churches are brought under the same banner and it's HUNDREDS of years after the original church that Christ set up.!

Lastly, you do not need to go to the lengths to describe how the Catholic Church defines itself to include everything that is of Christ's even if has nothing to do with the visible Catholic Church. I am not minded to try the mental gymnastics that's required to fool myself into believing something that so patently is nothing more than man's imagination to reconcile the truth with fiction.

The Catholic Church is both in Heaven and on Earth. It's the Church, not an organization. Local churches make up the Church, the Body of Christ.

 

[FenderTL5]

..There was absolutely no organisational structure nor dialogue recorded between any of them and yet they are THE CHURCH. You can argue as much as you like but there's evidence the apostles even visited all the churches in the NT never mind provided some kind of consistency of belief and your claim there was a unity of faith is counter by the biblical realities reflected in the different problems stemming from different beliefs that Paul documented. Seriously, do you not read your bible?
..the ONLY historical reality to which you refer shows power struggles and doctrine arguments as the different churches are brought under the same banner and it's HUNDREDS of years after the original church that Christ set up.!

The council in Acts 15-16, never heard of it? The Apostle Paul taking an offering for the Church in Jerusalem from the Church in Corinth? Nothing?
Have you read the New Testament? Romans Chapter 16 could offer some insight as to whether there's contact between churches.


In this post you said:

Jesus did not found a church!

Also you:

..it's HUNDREDS of years after the original church that Christ set up.!

Do you know what you believe?

 

[Darren Court]

The Catholic Church is both in Heaven and on Earth. It's the Church, not an organization. Local churches make up the Church, the Body of Christ.

Nope, that's not Christ's ecclesia or even what the Catholic catechism says. There is ONLY one church and it's not made up of churches. The body is not made up of local bodies.... and catholic church is not the Catholic Church!

 

[BobRyan]

"As it turned out, the Protestant idea of sola scriptura had some loopholes when doing doctrine. Sola Scriptura really meant that you came up with a theological argument, idea, or doctrine first, and then you rummaged around in Scripture for some verses to support it. If Scripture was to be involved in theologizing at all, in any era, that has been pretty much the procedure..."

Its the last bit I am wondering about. I think for Luther he was wrestling with the meaning of "the righteousness of God", in the Epistle to the Romans and his new understanding of that led on to what he later taught.

Protestants were in fact "protesting Catholics - protesting their own denomination as they found errors in it that needed to be corrected". Their "sola scriptura" was a testing of their existing doctrines to "see if those things were so" Acts 17:11.

If it were a simple case of "take whatever your denomination says and find at least some shred of excuse for believing it from a text or two" - there would never have been a protesting group... no protestant denominations at all.

In that case the Catholic Church of today would have continued to evolve without any protests based on scripture - and no other groups would exist other than cases like the Orthodox and Church of England where local/regional politics played the primary role in creating the divisions.

Now given this as the starting point --

NT Messianic Jewish Church - is NT first century Christian church - It evangelized gentiles and Jews

While I am not a member of a Messianic Jewish denomination strictly speaking -- it does appear to me that the NT church is in fact a Messianic Jewish denomination as we see in Acts 1 as they choose the 12th apostle Acts 15 as they address a crisis that affected the entire Christian church. -...

www.christianforums.com

It indicates that you would have to go all the back to the end of the first century to start to see where the real divisions were originally taking place.

 

[BobRyan]

In the mean time, here's a funny song by a Lutheran pastor.

-CryptoLutheran

Funny of course -- it leaves out the fact that all of them referred to the Papacy as "antichrist" etc starting with Luther because during his lifetime Popes referred to fellow popes as anticrist so Luther then picked that up. The cartoon makes it appear that the reformers did not agree on anything.

As for the Lord's supper - this is pretty helpful

1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

As for the "Real presence" --

Matt 18:20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

 

[Darren Court]

As for the "Real presence" --

Matt 18:20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

There are several bible verses that more often than not taken out of context to mean something they do not mean. Mt 18:20 is in the top five!.
.
Real Presence.... "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” Heb 13:5. God promised repeatedly to NEVER leave us or forsake us.
"Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?" Ps 139 makes it abundantly clear we can never escape God's presence....
...and there are literally dozens of other scriptures that demonstrate God is omnipresent. That is present everywhere. I've had many conversations with people who talk about the 'Real Presence' and asked them to point out scripture that demonstrates this real presence as opposed to God's ordinary presence which is everywhere all the time. They have been unable too. Maybe you can help?
.
Irrespective, back to Mt 18:20...

The first and obvious problem is that if God is really everywhere, He's with me when I'm on my own or when two or three are gathered in His name.
The second problem is that nobody who tries to use this verse to think God means something more of His presence occurs only when two or three are gathered... not four, five or six. They will try to dismiss the relevancy of two or three, because they simply don't understand why Jesus specifically chose two or three.

The third problem though is the biggest... context. The context of Mt 18 or this part of the chapter, is dealing with sin in the church. It starts in verse 15 and ends here in verse 20. In this section there's a process for someone sinning in the church. i) Go and speak to them ii) Take one or two witnesses to speak to them iii) take it too the church. In modern times, we read this without understanding the culture that Jesus was speaking into... the Jewish culture. Taking it too the church doesn't mean taking it to the whole church. It means taking it to the church elders and there would be two or three of them. Jesus confirms this with poetic parallelism, a characteristics used throughout the Jewish scriptures and something Jesus used to create His own, when He says "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." In other words, He is not saying His is with them physically, not least because He was always present, but that He is in agreement with their decision! In case we missed it the setup for this comment comes in the preceding verse... “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven." This is why it's two or three, why it's about the church elders judging sinning in the church and it's not about Jesus 'real presence'.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Funny of course -- it leaves out the fact that all of them referred to the Papacy as "antichrist" etc starting with Luther because during his lifetime Popes referred to fellow popes as anticrist so Luther then picked that up. The cartoon makes it appear that the reformers did not agree on anything.

As for the Lord's supper - this is pretty helpful

1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

As for the "Real presence" --

Matt 18:20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου
"This is My body"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Darren Court]

Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου
"This is My body"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Darren Court]

Then I guess you also implement..."if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell."

Will you be doing so?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Then I guess you also implement..."if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell."

Will you be doing so?

Unless you're trying to say that everything Jesus said shouldn't be taken literally then using this passage doesn't accomplish anything. It's entirely possible for Jesus to use hyperbole in one place, and to speak plainly in another place. After all, when He says He came to give His life as a ransom for many He was not speaking with hyperbole.

Can you provide an argument as to why the historic Christian belief is wrong; an argument that Jesus did not literally mean the bread and wine are His body and blood?

Because that's the point that needs to be addressed.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου
"This is My body"

-CryptoLutheran

Yet no one bites Christ at the Last Supper
nor does anyone bite Christ in John 6.

In John 6 Peter accepts the "symbolism" it is Christ's WORDS that are true life and that they are to take in -- and not to literally bite Him.
But in John 6 there is another group claiming they think Christ wants them to bite Him - so they leave.

It was a symbol. Christ had not yet even been crucified as of the Lord's Supper. His body had not yet been broken.

1 Cor 11 makes it a memorial "in remembrance of Me", not "in observing Me being sacrificed"

 

[BobRyan]

Unless you're trying to say that everything Jesus said shouldn't be taken literally then using this passage doesn't accomplish anything. It's entirely possible for Jesus to use hyperbole in one place, and to speak plainly in another place.

True. Not everything He said was literal and not everything He said was symbolic.

 

[Darren Court]

Then I guess you also implement..."if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell."

Will you be doing so?

Unless you're trying to say that everything Jesus said shouldn't be taken literally then using this passage doesn't accomplish anything. It's entirely possible for Jesus to use hyperbole in one place, and to speak plainly in another place. After all, when He says He came to give His life as a ransom for many He was not speaking with hyperbole.

Can you provide an argument as to why the historic Christian belief is wrong; an argument that Jesus did not literally mean the bread and wine are His body and blood?

Because that's the point that needs to be addressed.

-CryptoLutheran

That's called irony!
.
You quote "This is my body"... because you claim it's literal and the you ignore gauge out eye because you chose to believe it's symbolic.
.
If you wanted to address the issue with respect, context, scripture and argument then maybe you should have posted more than "This is my body"?
.
After all, when He says He came to give His life as a ransom for many He was not speaking with hyperbole. No because He did physically give His life at the cross, hours after He allegedly told His disciples to literally eat His body and drink His blood.
.
"This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes."
.
Here the purpose (remembrance) and the outcome (the proclamation)whilst Mt 26:26 gives us the context (whilst they were eating).
.
Do any of these things require the literal eating and drinking? No and infact the context in Matthew really explains the problem with this becoming a sacrament! It was "whilst they were eating". In other words, Jesus in the middle of a meal, took the very bread (not special bread), and took the wine (not special wine) and made a simple declaration of what they should do and why.
.
So the problems with literal belief start to mount up. i) It's not a ceremony but an act whilst eating ii) It's not special bread or wine that's prepared previously or been pronounced holy iii) The purpose is remembrance.
.
Does this bread and wine have to literally become body and blood to fulfill these purposes? Absolutely not and indeed one of the arguments for literal interpretation is for extra purposes not identified in these verses or indeed in any other.... i) to connect with the 'real presence' (which is odd when you consider Jesus presence is everywhere at all time) ii) to worship God iii) to unify believers and many other reasons. They even make up rules that if you miss attending Mass, you are in a state of mortal sin! NONE OF WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE
.
A quick word on 'real presence' from scripture...Romans 8:38-39 "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Matthew 28:20 "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Hebrews 13:5 " Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you." What then is this 'real presence' of Christ that can be only found when an appointed Priest says prescribed words over a wafer and juice? There is clearly absolutely no scriptural evidence of this and infact no early church reference until hundreds of years AFTER Christ had died!

One of the goto verses for those in such belief is found in John 6... "So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;...." which comes just another question of literal or symbolic wording. The problem here is that advocates of literal interpretation have to flip flop between symbolism and literalism within the same scriptures. Verse 35 "Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty." You see the very bread that we must literally eat, then will literally mean we will never go hungry! Except it doesn't work and so the bread in this verse has to be literal but the rest is symbolic! That's flip flopping!
.
John 6 gets more problematic because in this section

• It's argued Jesus was telling the crowd He is the bread of life and that nobody who eats this bread will go hungry
• Their response? No, it wasn't, "What we have to literally eat you?" but rather " They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
• At this point, the first time Jesus told anyone, nobody bats an eyelid about eating Him because they knew He was talking symbolically.
• Only when Jesus repeats the claim that they must eat His flesh, they ask “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
• In the JEWISH context of knowing that cannibalism is abhorrent to their God, this would have been a great time for Jesus to explain, what He meant and most specifically why eating His body didn't contravene God's instruction not to eat flesh.... but Jesus didn't.
• He went on to say we have no life in us unless we eat His body and drink His blood. At this point, some of the disciples got upset and left... and the literalists jump on this as evidence that they understood the teaching and found it too difficult, but the bible doesn't say this and the context help.
• The assumption here is that if Jesus didn't mean literally eat His body, He would have corrected them. That's silly because there are many times in the bible people got the wrong end of the stick and Jesus didn't correct them and even if you're a die hard literalist, this is still one of them because Jesus didn't explain that eating His body isn't cannibalism.
• But the context nails any idea of these disciples grumbling because Jesus told them they had to eat His body "Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this..." Grumbling about what? Well, whatever the real grumbling was about Jesus is about to deal with it! " Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet 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. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” There's nothing here to explain their grumbling if it was about eating the flesh and drinking the blood and yet this last statement was what caused "From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."
• In context then there is nothing to support the idea that Christ was giving them a RADICALLY new concept of eating flesh that isn't considered cannibalism.

But it gets more and more difficult... You see, the argument is that Christ's words are literal and we must literally eat the body, etc. but when it's pointed out this is cannibalism, the defense is that they don't literally eat the flesh and drink the blood but rather do so in a spiritual way that isn't cannibalism. There are several absurdities here… i) Spiritually Christ doesn't have a body neither does the Father or the Holy Spirit. They are omnipresent without physical bodies which is why we can't take photos of them! Ii) If eating flesh doesn't mean literally eating flesh then no matter how hard we try to mentally reconcile, Christ's words were not literal - and that's a huge problem because Christ must have forgot to explain this to His disciples. Why? Well, because it took over 100 years for the matter to get any kind of formalization and then there were various opinions, arguments and beliefs until the matter was finally settled. If it's such an important doctrine how come "apostolic succession" failed to preserve it such that there was no debate? More to the point why didn't Christ make sure it was documented in His word?

 

[Darren Court]

Yet no one bites Christ at the Last Supper
nor does anyone bite Christ in John 6.

In John 6 Peter accepts the "symbolism" it is Christ's WORDS that are true life and that they are to take in -- and not to literally bite Him.
But in John 6 there is another group claiming they think Christ wants them to bite Him - so they leave.

It was a symbol. Christ had not yet even been crucified as of the Lord's Supper. His body had not yet been broken.

1 Cor 11 makes it a memorial "in remembrance of Me", not "in observing Me being sacrificed"

Further more Matthew makes it clear it's not even a ceremonial remembrance because Christ exemplified "whilst they were eating"... Eating the bread and drink the wine.... Jesus interrupted the meal to instruct these ordinary meal elements would serve as remembrance as OFTEN as they ate, of His sacrifice. Then the implication is they continued to eat the very same bread and drink the very same wine.
.
Yet the church or shall we say men, have made this remembrance during a meal into something else, something very different where ONLY a Priest can conduct, it's not during a meal, it has special elements and worst of all the rule that if you miss it your in mortal sin and can end up in hell!