The Myth of Scriptural Literalism

[AV1611VET]

It's stiil pretty much a fringy doctrine.

If you're referring to the Lord's Table, it's not a doctrine, it's an ordinance.

 

[Jipsah]

BobRyan said:

Which makes many people happy when they think of the virgin birth, the miracles of Christ, His bodily resurrection and ascension to heaven.
But the moment this act of taking the Bible literally is used consistently across the board - and it gets to the first 9 chapters of Genesis -- well then, that's another thing altogether for 'some'.

Just as some folks are who can accept the universe being created in 144 hours, but can't accept our Lord's Words regarding the Eucharist. They can't, and won't, discern the Body and Blood of our Lord in the elements.

Only if you choose to skim over all the inconvenient details in the text that dictate the correct view and may show your view to be in error.

May, but you have only your doctrine to support youir position, and "because we say so!" is hardly compelling stuff.

Your post entirely ignores those "details" on that topic I mention above - and that you also bring up in your OP.

How about this "detail" " those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." You don't seem to have acknowledged the existence of that verse. Why might that be? That perhaps your doctrine renders it invisible?

Why keep doing that? as if we won't notice?

Speaking of not noticing:
"those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves."

Your a priori bias does not change the text

How about this text:
"The Lord Jesus, on the night 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, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

How much of it does your doctrine require you to discard?

I pay attention to the details in the text.

The ones that suit the doctrinal tub you're beating. The rest disappear.

No they don't -- your doctrines determine your eisegesis.

Oh please! I hesitate to mention "Investigative Judgement", but anyone who believes it dare not mention "eisegesis" for shame.

Because you were comfortable ignoring Bible details from the start?

How about those who merely invent details, like those that "explain away" the Council of Jerusalem, or the "Rise Peter, kill and eat", but carefully restricting what it says to such parts as don't damage your desire to observe selected bits of Mosaic Law. Mind how you guck rocks, amigo, those glass walls are awfully fragile.

funny false accusations is not a form of Bible study or "proof" of any doctrine. I guess we all know that.

You mean like your hilarious "no one bit Christ" line? I reckon you may not have figured out how much that "savors but a shallow wit". Just sayin'

I suggest you do a mental exercise and explore that scenario a bit.

Doc, you might wanna heal your own self. (New Korean Redneck Version)

What IF the Ten Commandments are right in the law that dictates a literal 7 day week in Ex 20:11
What if God is correct in Gen 1-2 about that literal 7 day week.

What if our Lord Really Meant what He said?

What are the implications of that scenario in your POV?

What are the implications if our Lord Really Meant what He said?

Do ever take the time to objectively evaluate the alternative or are you not allowing yourself to stop and think about it for a minute?

My salvation isn't dependent on getting the timing of Genesis "right". It's the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. I'll drink drink His Blood as He commanded. You will certainly do as you please, whether you actually think about it or not.

 

[Jipsah]

Just wondering ... how do you interpret your phone book?

Phone book? When did you last see one of those? But when I see "Johnson, Bob", I usually say "Ah, that really means "Smith, Susan". Doesn't everyone?

or the menu that is given you at a restaurant?

If it says "Take, eat, this is jiajiang mien" I take it literally. Unless it's steakhouse, in which case I order something else.

Literally or allegorically?

I'd venture to say that there are times when that book, menu, or other writing you're holding in your hands needs to be taken literally.

The Bible is one of them.

"Take, eat, this is My Body". Literal, or just metaphorical. I'll take it literally. I reckon if our Lord Himself said it, it's true, end of.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just as some folks are who can accept the universe being created in 144 hours, but can't accept our Lord's Words regarding the Eucharist. They can't, and won't, discern the Body and Blood of our Lord in the elements.

Just so you know, sunrise today was at 6:02 am -- literally.

 

[Jipsah]

If you're referring to the Lord's Table, it's not a doctrine, it's an ordinance.

IMO it's our Lord's Body and Blood. I didn't see anywhere that our Lord "explained that away ", even to His apostles. He simply asked them if they were leaving too.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Take, eat, this is My Body". Literal, or just metaphorical.

I'm going to go with metaphorical on this one.

After all, the context says:

Matthew 26:26 And when they were taking food, Jesus took bread and, after blessing it, he gave the broken bread to the disciples and said, Take it; this is my body.

What are they holding in their hands?

Bread ... right?

One doesn't have to be a Rhodes scholar to know what's going on here.

 

[AV1611VET]

IMO it's our Lord's Body and Blood.

What is "it" in your sentence?

The bread they were holding? or something else?

I didn't see anywhere that our Lord "explained that away ", even to His apostles. He simply asked them if they were leaving too.

The wine came next, didn't it?

Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Jesus referred to that drink in the cup as both "my blood" and "this fruit of the vine."

Which of the two do you think it is?

 

[BobRyan]

I just stole this tag from another user here (AV1611VET) "The Bible says it, that settles it." The general idea is that Scripture should generally be taken literally as written.

Which makes many people happy when they think of the virgin birth, the miracles of Christ, His bodily resurrection and ascension to heaven.

But the moment this act of taking the Bible literally is used consistently across the board - and it gets to the first 9 chapters of Genesis -- well then, that's another thing altogether for 'some'.

Which makes my point that it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

So then "Whose ox is gored" in the case of the virgin birth, miracles of Christ, His bodily resurrection??

Do you really think that your own denomination looks for "whose ox is being gored" before deciding whether to accept the Bible account of the virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ and His ascension??

OR do you think they simply notice that the text is in the form of a historic account, historic narrative?

Hard for me to believe that you would claim that all your own group considers is "whose ox is being gored".

 

[BobRyan]

What we find is that what is treated common sense and/or as fundamental truths depends entirely one one's doctrinal viewpoint or sectarian presuppositions.

Maybe in your group they first ask "what do I wish to believe" then decide "so then that is what this text means". I guess we have to take your word for that one.

But I don't see that in all groups.

For example, in recent discussions in these forums, posters have been at odds over two different unrelated ideas, one, that God created the universe in literal six 24 hour solar days, and that the other, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the literal Body and Blood of our Lord.

In both cases the deciding factor is "the bible details".

When one only worries about oxen being gored - they simply ignore inconvenient Bible details.

But in both of those examples you list - the Bible details alone solve the problem for the objective unbiased readers.

Both groups take their positions on fact that they're based on the "plain sense of Scripture".

Not true.

I repeatedly point to "bible details" that you and others ignore in both of those cases. As if "we are not supposed to notice".

I am fine with that - since you have free will and can ignore anything you wish.

 

[BobRyan]

Oh please! I hesitate to mention "Investigative Judgement",

because you hesitate to read the details in Dan 7 and Romans 2 or do you have another reason???

 

[BobRyan]

May, but you have only your doctrine to support youir position, and "because we say so!" is hardly compelling stuff.

Because we say so, and "we are right because we always say we are right" is the realm of "sola tradition" not "sola scriptura" -- I think you are barking up the wrong tree on that one.

How about this "detail" " those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." You don't seem to have acknowledged the existence of that verse.

On the contrary - I insist on the full quote of it that includes the part you snipped out.

1 Cor 11:
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which 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 took the cup also 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.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

The text shows us that it is not a sacrifice - it is a "memorial".
The text shows us that it does not pertain to the resurrection - but the death of Christ.

Those who show disrespect for the MEMORIAL service - then show disrespect for the symbols of Christ's body and blood since it is a memorial instead of an actual sacrifice.

Details pointed out before... details ignored. again? Each time the case you attempt to make depends on ignoring details in the text.

 

[The Liturgist]

I just stole this tag from another user here (AV1611VET) "The Bible says it, that settles it." The general idea is that Scripture should generally be taken literally as written.

The rubric that literalists generally claim to follow is: "“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” That sounds very reasonable, but is based one glaring fallacy - that there is no generally agreed upon authority for what can be considered "common sense", and what are to be considered "axiomatic and fundamental truths".

What we find is that what is treated common sense and/or as fundamental truths depends entirely one one's doctrinal viewpoint or sectarian presuppositions. For example, in recent discussions in these forums, posters have been at odds over two different unrelated ideas, one, that God created the universe in literal six 24 hour solar days, and that the other, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are the literal Body and Blood of our Lord.

Both groups take their positions on fact that they're based on the "plain sense of Scripture". Scripture does in fact say that the universe was created in six days. Our Lord did in fact say "take, eat, this is My Body". Taken simply as written, they carry roughly equal weight. But doctrinally, the acceptance or rejection of the of the literal words those passages are make-or-break matters, and holding the "correct" meaning of them is of vital imprtance.

To all Catholics (Roman, Orthodox, Anglo, etc), as well as most of the "traditionalist" denominations the Real Presence of the Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist is extremely important, while to more modern groups it's just part of a remembrance ceremony. To the more modern Protestant groups the believing the literal 6 Days of Creation is a matter of declaring one's rejection of secularism and dedication to the authority of God's Word, while to the Traditionalists it's simply a symbolic account of God's creation of the universe.

The bottom line is, who decides what is to be taken literally and what isn't, given that we have no solid basis upon which to decide that one thing is a fundamental truth and another is not? We have the Creeds (thanks be to God!) to summarize what we all believe, and the old reliable "what that really means..." when the Word threatens to damage our most dearly held doctrines. But it looks like for the most part it's every man for himself.

Comments?

This is very apt, especially when we consider how vast the differences are between the Reformed and Restorationist Christians who stress literal-historical interpretations of Scripture, and the Antiochene Fathers of antiquity, who stressed literal-historical interpretation (as opposed to the Alexandrian Fathers, who stressed Christological-typological-prophetic interpretation - in practice many Patristic figures like the Cappodacians and St. Athanasius seem to have used both methods, since they are not mutually exclusive). Since I believe it is a fair assertion that St. Chrysostom, though ordained a priest in Antioch before becoming Patriarch of Constantinople, used at least some Alexandrian hermeneutics in his exegesis of scripture, I think it can be said that it was his best friend who was the foremost Antiochene exegete, that being Theodore of Mopsuestia, venerated in the Assyrian Church of the East as Mar Theodore the Interpreter, as they regard his Literal-Historical interpretation of Scripture as important, although not binding in the way Adventists view the interpretation of Ellen G. White.

If we compare how Theodore of Mopsuestia interpreted Scripture, on literal-historical lines, with the interpretations one encounters in the Reformed Calvinist churches, such as those of John Calvin and Karl Barth, and in Restorationist churches like the Adventists and the more conservative part of the Stone-Campbell Movement, The Churches of Christ, we see that the Calvinists whether using Calvin’s Institutes or Barth’s Church Dogmatics as their systematic theology, the Adventists following Ellen G. White in a literal-historical interpretation, and the Church of Christ denomination (which in contrast to the more liberal half of the Stone-Campbell Movement, the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ, bans the organ and stresses A Capella singing but not the A Capella Exclusive Psalmody of John Calvin and preserved in certain traditionalist Calvinist churches such as the Reformed Presbyterian Church, also known as the Covenanting Presbyterians), we see that not only do the Reformed and Restorationists embrace different interpretations compared to each other, especially the Adventists, whose interpretation is radically different, but all of the above are dramatically different than the interpretation of Mar Theodore the Interpreter (of Mopsuestia), who like his friend St. Chrysostom believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The only possible similarity is that Theodore of Mopsuestia was anathematized a hundred years or so after his death by Emperor Justinian in an ill fated attempt to end the schism with the Oriental Orthodox (he also anathematized Origen, who I would argue was his Alexandrian counterpart, in that both pushed Alexandrian and Antiochene exegesis too far, but I also disagree with their anathemas, since they both died in the peace of the Church and were widely venerated as saints, and indeed Mar Theodore still is a very important saint to the Nestorians, and indeed his anathema caused a schism in France and Spain with the rest of what became the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches known as the Three Chapters Controversy, as Theodore was a very popular saint there, and it was only after several decades of schism that reconciliation occurred; I don’t believe either was anathematized by the OO, but they certainly reject Theodore of Mopsuestia’s doctrines), on the basis that the extremely problematic Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia was drawn upon by Nestorius in developing his Christological system intended to justify his rejection of the term Theotokos, or Mother of God, in reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which led to him being deposed by the Council of Ephesus, which in turn the Church of the East never accepted.

And later the Oriental Orthodox would reject Chalcedon as being too close to Nestorianism. However, Calvinism was accused by some Lutherans of being Nestorian. Regarding the Restorationist churches, strictly speaking, according to the definition of the Council of Ephesus, one is Nestorian if one refuses to use the term Theotokos, even if one does not explicitly or even intentionally embrace Nestorian Christology, since the denial that St. Mary is the Mother of God requires a separation between the Divine Logos and Jesus Christ which is the key problem of Nestorianism; if we consider that Jesus Christ is fully human and fully God, the only way that St. Mary did not give birth to God in the Incarnation is if there is some separation, and thus the doctrine of hypostatic union and the principle shared by the Chalcedonians, the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Christians (of today, at least) that the humanity and divinity of Christ coexist from the Incarnation without change, confusion, separation or division, and this lack of division, this theandric union, is paramount to our salvation in Christ. This apparently did not occur to Theodore of Mopsuestia, and was rejected by Nestorius, who opposed the use of the term Theotokos and the veneration of her more broadly. In general, I would be surprised to encounter many Reformed or Restorationist Christians who venerate St. Mary as the Mother of God (although there are a few; I know one pastor in the Church of Christ whose theological instincts incline towards Orthodoxy and who is often at odds with certain members of his congregation, who are opposed to his celebration of Christmas, Easter, etc, and desire the more minimalist worship for which they are known).

Returning to the Eucharist, Theodore of Mopsuestia not only believed in the Real Presence of Christ, but also believed that the bread and wine became the dead body and blood of Christ in that part of the Eastern Eucharistic liturgies known as the Prothesis, or Liturgy of Preparation, and then become the resurrected Body and Blood of Christ when the Holy Spirit descends upon them in the part of Eastern liturgies known as the Epiclesis. The usual view in the Eastern churches is simply that at the Epiclesis (rather than the Words of Institution, which in some Syriac Orthodox anaphorae are paraphrased, and which are absent from the main Assyrian anaphora, the ancient second century Hallowing of the Apostles Addai and Mari), the bread and wine presented at the altar are changed by the Holy Spirit into the actual body and blood of Christ. So we see Theodore has a more complex Eucharistic theology than most Eastern Christians would have or even be comfortable with.

There is also an Anaphora attributed to him, the Hallowing of Mar Theodore the Interpreter, which is one of the other two used by the Church of the East, the third being the Hallowing of Nestorius. Unlike that of Saints Addai and Mari, these feature the Words of Institution (which the Roman Catholics, unwilling to tolerate until the past decade, when the Syro Malabar Catholic Church has revived them, anaphorae attributed to those it considers heretics, awkwardly inserted into the Addai and Mari liturgy). However, while it is considered extremely unlikely that Nestorius wrote the Anaphora attributed to him (in fact, it appears to be a variation of the standard Byzantine anaphora, incorporating elements from that of St. Basil, and is generally dated to the fifth century), the unique text of the Anaphora of Theodore of Mopsuestia makes it quite possible that he wrote it.

In any case, it is clear that his Eucharistic theology was vastly different than the Spiritual Presence of Calvinism, or the Signification of Zwinglianism, or the Memorialist interpretation we see in Adventism, or the various ideas such as Memorialism or Receptionism one might find in the Stone-Campbell Movement ( my friend @actionsub can expound on this perhaps) .

Thus, in conclusion, I agree with St. Irenaeus of Lyons, that the literal words of Scripture can be interpreted in different ways, and thus one needs a canonical interpretation. If there was one self-evident interpretation, then the discord we see over it and the schisms it has caused since the Reformation would not have happened.

That said, as I am fond of pointing out, in the interests of ecumenical reconciliation, the differences in doctrine between most Nicene Christian churches are minor. There are only a few outliers whose ideas are radically different and pose problems with ecumenical reconciliation, for example, another Restorationist church, the Quakers, although some Friends, the Evangelical Friends, have moved back into the mainstream, and it is only those Friends who engage in pure Waiting Worship and reject the sacraments, or believe they happen internally on a spiritual level, or accept people of radically different beliefs, like Unitarian Universalists, that are problematic, and these groups aren’t fully Nicene, I would argue.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The bottom line is, who decides what is to be taken literally and what isn't, given that we have no solid basis upon which to decide that one thing is a fundamental truth and another is not? We have the Creeds (thanks be to God!) to summarize what we all believe, and the old reliable "what that really means..." when the Word threatens to damage our most dearly held doctrines. But it looks like for the most part it's every man for himself.

It's always "every man for the last lesson I accepted from my denomination, church, or small group" and that means that doctrine varies from one group to another no matter how large or small the group is.

Catholics in communion with the Holy See interpret according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, which teaching is both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition steeped, and Magisterial authority interpreted. I happen to be a Catholic so I like this approach because it is ancient, it manages to take scripture both literally and according to its genre, it avoids the kind of literalism that ignores the way stories are told in the holy scriptures and it avoids excessive reliance on rationalism. The physical sciences are taken to heart while at the same time their underlying philosophical assumptions are examined and either accepted or rejected according to the historic Tradition of the Church.

The sciences have, for a long time, tended towards atheism, and that has influenced the way some matters are presented in science text books and scientific research papers, yet the facts discovered and the interpretation of them can be very revealing of God's intended lessons in creation for us, his creatures. Thus the creation story is read literally and as a story to be accepted as a story rather than as a history or as a running commentary news report.

God did create the heavens and the earth, he did create human beings, and he did expel them from their original paradise. Yet God did not adhere to creation-science models for creation, nor is God restricted to the creation-science-sanctioned means of creation and preservation (related to Noah's flood) posited in creation science literature.

A Catholic Christian may take the whole account as miracles presented for belief - as the miracle stories we find elsewhere in scripture are presented for belief without a 'scientific explanation' - or as a story that explains what God did in terms that are humanly cogent, that is to say, things that a man such as Moses, and the people of his day, could grasp and repeat as oral tradition until the time for writing them down arrived.

Thus one can take the scriptures at face vale and interpret them literally while also understanding that literal interpretation does not mean interpreting the holy scriptures as if they were written like people today write text books, news papers, or encyclopaedia articles.

The holy scriptures are ancient literature and are written as ancient people wrote; that is to say, they wrote as grand themes presented for belief and for memory-recitation. So the stories are more like oral history that is preserved by having poetry-like cadences and memorable turns of phrase. Any reader can tell from the words used in the KJV, for example, that the themes in Genesis 1 onwards are grand holy and special stories quite unlike the stories one can read in a news paper and quite unlike the information one reads in a book on physics, math, chemistry, or even biological evolution.

These works of science present data, experimental tests, and their results, and then offer a mathematical model that matches the observed data and after the mathematical model is presented a prose explanation of what the model means is offered. And a newspaper presents quotes and witness testimony about recent events and then offers an editorial comment on the meaning of the events. It ought to be very clear to any reader that neither the sciences nor the news offer written works in the style of holy scripture. No one ought to treat the holy scriptures as if they were presenting science or news.

In conclusion the literalism of creation-science is bad interpretation and bad theology.

I haven't delved into the interpretation of the holy Eucharist because that topic is covered in a good number of threads already present in CF.

 

[The Liturgist]

And I'm obviously of the latter view. Even the Canon of Scripture itself is a matter of holy tradition. But even those of us who claim to hold to Sola Scriptura are altogether to chuck a "what that really means..." or two when their doctrine is at risk. At come right down to it, most if not all Christian groups hsave their own traditions that they hold dearer than Scripture, hence the necessity to keep the "WTRM" devise loose in their scabbard when a favorite doctrine is at risk.

Exactly, and until recently, the Assyrians only really accepted those books of the New Testament that were in the original Peshitta, and not all 27 in the Athanasian Canon (the Syriac Orthodox, to conform with the Coptic and Armenian churches, added the missing books to their edition of the Peshitta, by copying them from the Harklean Bible, a highly literal Syriac translation dated to around 616 AD, by St. Thomas of Harqel).

And Revelation was highly controversial to the point where it took St. Athanasius to get it included in the canon, and of the ancient churches, only the Coptic Church formally included it in their lectionary, reading it end to end on Holy Saturday (Athonite Monks also do this, but not in a formal liturgical context), although the Roman liturgy alludes to it, for instance with the hymn Agnus Dei, which was added in the late 6th century in part due to opposition from Rome to the canons adopted by the Eastern Orthodox at the Quinisext Council, which included a ban on depicting Christ as a lamb.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm going to go with metaphorical on this one.

After all, the context says:

Matthew 26:26 And when they were taking food, Jesus took bread and, after blessing it, he gave the broken bread to the disciples and said, Take it; this is my body.

What are they holding in their hands?

Bread ... right?

One doesn't have to be a Rhodes scholar to know what's going on here.

Amen - the details IN the text give reader the correct view - it is only bias against those details that results in other suggestions to the contrary of what we find in the text itself.

IN every case - coming up with some other idea -- requires ignoring certain key details.

I know that there are those who would distance themselves from the details in the text of scripture and land heavily on who-said-what in "traditions" long after the NT Authors -- well everyone has free will they can focus on what they wish.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The Bible is one of them.

Why?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why?

For the same reason a manufacturer would put out a product, then write a user manual that's literal.

The Bible is our Standard for faith and practice.

Imagine someone building a house, having their own interpretation of what a foot is.

One carpenter's ruler has a foot as nine inches, another ten, another twenty.

Can you imagine what the house would look like when it's done?

 

[The Liturgist]

Amen - the details IN the text give reader the correct view - it is only bias against those details that results in other suggestions to the contrary of what we find in the text itself.

On the contrary, the bias is in anti-Catholicism prejudicing people into embracing Eucharistic models which the first three reformers whose doctrines we actually know anything substantial about* , Saints Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague (the only Protestant Reformers venerated as saints by an Orthodox Church), and Martin Luther, did not embrace, and indeed Luther passionately rejected the idea that the Eucharist is anything other than what Christ says it is, His Body and Blood, as our Lutheran friends @ViaCrucis and Mark will certify.

Additionally, the Early Church asserted the doctrine of the Real Presence in the late first and early second century, as can be ascertained by the Didache, the apologetics of St. Justin Martyr, both of which also attest to the importance of Sunday worship, and also the oldest surviving Eucharistic texts, the ancient Alexandrian liturgy usually called the Liturgy of St. Mark or the Liturgy of St. Cyril, preserved in the second century Strasbourg Papyrus, the Liturgy of Saints Addai and Mari, also of second century provenance, and the third century Anaphora of Hippolytus, contained in the book The Apostolic Tradition composed by the martyred antipope St. Hippolytus (who was killed along with the legitimate Bishop of Rome after the two had reconciled by the Pagan Empire during the dreadful persecutions of the Third Century, a century of victory through the blood and tears of tortured Christians bravely confessing Christ and hoping in Him for salvation, and this anaphora has remained in continual use by the Ethiopian Orthodox since the fourth century in all probability, for the Ethiopian liturgy follows the Antiochene structure, and specifically seven Syrians are credited with helping the Ethiopians to translate it, and the Anaphora of Hippolytus follows, indeed is the oldest attested example of, the liturgical form used in Antioch (although it seems likely that the Anaphora of the Apostles, the ancient liturgy which St. John Chrysostom adopted into the liturgy bearing his name) is based, is older; all of these, indeed all Patristic texts, assume a position of uncritical acceptance, no, that is not strong enough an expression, rather, project a triumphalist position, boldly, that the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of Christ.

This view was never seriously challenged before Calvin, and especially Zwingli, Cranmer and the Radical Reformers, who were no doubt reacting to certain changes in the way the Eucharist was celebrated by Roman Catholics, for example, communion in the species of one kind only, which was one of the principle grievances of St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague and the basis for the Utraquist movement which led to the formation of the Unitas Fratrum, which survives today as the Moravian Church, the oldest fully intact Protestant denomination, and which Martin Luther also addressed, but Luther and the Moravians addressed these issues without discarding the doctrine of the Real Presence.

IN every case - coming up with some other idea -- requires ignoring certain key details.

On the contrary, I would argue that it is opponents of the Real Presence doctrine who are cherry-picking eisegetes, particularly those who claim the Eucharist is a metaphor or a symbol. Our Lord did not say “This is a symbol of my body” and “This is a symbol of my blood.” When we read John 6 into the mix, and then throw in 1 Corinthians 11, especially 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 , it becomes clear. Using logic, which we should use, because Christ the Logos is Logic and Reason personified, it would be impossible for someone to fall ill or die from failing to discern the body of our Lord if the body of our Lord were not present.

I know that there are those who would distance themselves from the details in the text of scripture and land heavily on who-said-what in "traditions" long after the NT Authors -- well everyone has free will they can focus on what they wish.

Indeed, and I would argue that you and @AV1611VET are doing precisely that according to the traditions of your respective denominations, which unlike the works of St. Justin Martyr, which were likely written between 130 and 165 AD, when St. Justin was martyred, or the Didache, which is older yet, or the Alexandrian liturgy and that attributed to Saints Addai and Mari, which have been dated to the second century, are unprecedented until the 1500s, which represents only the most recent quarter of the two millenia of Christianity. Specifically this is because the confessional and doctrinal statements of your denominations condemn the Roman Catholic Church and the doctrine of the Real Presence has been linked to that.

I would note that of the errant interpretations of the Eucharist, Memorialism is less objectionable to me than Zwinglianism, because when we assert the Eucharist is a sign or symbol, it follows that Christ should have said as much, but Memorialists are still engaging in eisegesis insofar as their doctrine conflicts with a literal reading of 1 Corinthians 11, especially 27-34, and also John 6 and the synoptic accounts of the Last Supper. However, it seems this is an easy mistake to make, since I myself only realized that 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 contradicts memorialism some years after seminary. This I would lament makes the omission of it by the Revised Common Lectionary on Maundy Thursday (when those verses were traditionally read along with the preceding Institution Narrative, by all denominations I am aware of, from Anglicans to Assyrians) that much more problematic. After all, how can the average church-going layman grasp an exegesis without the high intensity exposure to the text that the lectionary provides?

By the way, I would also note that the post you replied to by @AV1611VET (thank you for your service defending the US @AV1611VET by the way; I have great respect for the veterans who are on this forum regardless of our differences in the complex field of theology, for example, I imagine my friend @Der Alte would disagree with me on the subject of Eucharistic doctrine being a Baptist, but his Scriptural knowledge is outstanding and he is a veteran to be admired) does appear to contain a logical fallacy known as an Appeal to Ignorance.

Specifically, I would propose the the argument advanced by @AV1611VET , while sincere, is unintentionally specious in that it does not address why we should obviously conclude that the words of our Lord are metaphorical in this instance, while accepting them as literal elsewhere, particularly given that our Lord made it clear when he was using parables, for example, and those statements of His which were not parabolic were either imperative, declarative or prophetic in which case they were fulfilled in a spectacular fashion “destroy this temple and I shall raise it again in three days”, and this statement, which was enigmatic, the Evangelists bother to explain. The Gospels do a very good job of making sense of the “Hard Sayings” of our Lord, and the Apostles resolve any further ambiguity. And when we look at 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 and John 6, these provide a compelling disambiguation of any potential misunderstanding of the Institution Narratives contained in Matthew, Mark, Luke and 1 Corinthians 11 through v. 26.

I would urge you both to focus on Martin Luther, who had no love for the Roman Catholic Church, and the similarities between the Eucharist as celebrated by Lutherans and Lutheran Eucharistic theology and that which we find consistently in the Early Church, and to this day in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches. His specific arguments in defense of the Real Presence and the specific reforms he made in the celebration of the Eucharist, which parallel those made by the Czech reformers St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague a century earlier, have the effect of removing certain innovations surrounding the Eucharist introduced by the Roman church, which had the effect of denying the Chalice to the laity, discouraging frequent Communion, and instead shifting the focus from eating and drinking the Body and Blood of our Lord to seeing and venerating the consecrated Host, whether at the Mass, or via Eucharistic Devotions, et cetera.


*Despite Adventist and Landmark Baptist claims to the contrary, of the Waldensians little is known except they perhaps were inadvertantly Donatist, but perhaps not, but in any case had no qualms about embracing Calvinist doctrine when granted asylum in Switzerland after the appalling massacre of 15,000 of them by Italian troops known as the Piedmont Easter, and since then the Waldensians persist as an ethnic congregation in the PCUSA in the Carolinas, and as a Methodist church which is the main Protestant church in Italy, which is fitting given that it was Italians who killed so many of them in the 16th century. The Lollards were basically inspired by St. Francis of Assisi and the other mendicant religious orders like the Dominicans, Servites, and Carmelites, and followed his model of life to an extreme, rejecting Papal authority in the process, and concerning John Wycliffe, he was not the founder of a Church and his corpse was posthumously desecrated on the suspicion that he was a heretic.

 

[The Liturgist]

For the same reason a manufacturer would put out a product, then write a user manual that's literal.

The Bible is our Standard for faith and practice.

Imagine someone building a house, having their own interpretation of what a foot is.

One carpenter's ruler has a foot as nine inches, another ten, another twenty.

Can you imagine what the house would look like when it's done?

The Bible is the revelation of Jesus Christ and the means of Salvation based on what the Bible says about itself in Luke 24:25-49, and elsewhere in the New Testament. It is not a book of Church Order and was never used as such, which is why we have the First Century Didache and Didascalia, two separate church orders used in different local churches, both of which are harmonious with each other, but reflect a measure of freedom, and are not contradictory towards the Scriptural revelation.

The Standard of Faith and Practice, among other things, needs must include a Creed, which was supplied by the Council of Nicaea and refined just under 60 years later at the Council of Constantinople, and a Canon of the New Testament, due to the proliferation of spurious writings by Gnostics and other heretics, and these two things, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Canon of 27 books in the New Testament, are now accepted universally by all normative Christian denominations including your own, yet they are external to Scripture and date from the Fourth Century, when the persecution of the third century stopped, and the containment of heresies that had begun in the first, second and third centuries, and especially the major fourth century heresies of Arianism and Macedonianism, denial of the deity of Christ and the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit, and thus the doctrine of the Trinity, became of foremost importance to the Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Grumble, I wrote such a lovely post and none of you are paying attention!

see #53