Where did Luther or major Lutherans explain how the "Reformed" exaggerate the role of Reason?

[rakovsky]

Luther's explained with linguistics that in 1 Cor 10 "the spiritual rock followed them, and the rock was Christ" means that "the [spiritual] rock was Christ", not either the spiritual or the material rock "signified" Christ. Luther concluded then under linguistics that "This [specific physical bread] is my body" must not mean "This signifies my body".

I discussed this with Hedrick here:

Dear Hedrick!
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".

 

[rakovsky]

I think Luther made an excellent grammatical proof of the real presence in the bread in his commentary on 1 Cor 10-11, because I can't think of anywhere in the New Testament that Jesus, the apostles or the writers pointed to a specific physical object and used the word "am/is/was/be" to say that the object itself was only a symbol. Luther's explanation was that it is wrong as a matter of Biblical interpretation to point to a specific, real thing and read "is" in the New Testament as only "signifies". (In that case Luther applied this to Paul's saying that "the rock [in the desert] was Christ" and "This is my body" in 1 Luther's commentary on 1 Cor 10).

It's true that in common English, "is" can be used in a vulgar way about a concrete thing to mean "signifies", like if I showed you a portrait and "showed it to be my relative", you would understand "to be" to mean "signified". But in fact as a matter of grammer the portrait definitely "is not" my relative.

A concrete portrait is a "symbol of my relative", or a concrete fashion model is a "metaphorical incarnation of beauty". But a concrete portrait is not my relative and a concrete fashion model is not an "incarnation of beauty".

Jesus said "I am the door", the way, the life, the vine, but each of those are spiritual names or metaphors. Jesus, a concrete person, is not a concrete, specific door with concrete handles, a concrete literal road, a vine with fully literal green branches.

Here is Luther's commentary:

"...all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ."(1 Cor 10:4)

19. Again, some say the common noun in the clause "and the rock was Christ" means the material rock; and since Christ cannot be material rock they explain the inconsistency by saying the rock signifies Christ. They here make the word "was" equivalent to "signifies." The same reasoning they apply to certain words of Christ; for instance, they say where Christ, referring to the Holy Supper (Mt 26, 26), commands, "Take, eat; this is my body"--they say the meaning is, "This bread signifies, but is not truly, my body." They would thereby deny that the bread is the body of Christ. In the same manner do they deal with the text (Jn 15, 1) "I am the true vine," in making it "I am signified by the vine." Beware of such reasoners. Their own malice has led them to such perverting of Scripture. Paul here expressly distinguishes between material and spiritual rocks, saying: "They drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ." He does not say the material rock was Christ, but the spiritual rock. The material rock was not spiritual, and did not follow or go with them.

20. The explanations and distortions of such false reasoners, are not needed here. The words are true as they read; they are to be understood in substance and not figuratively. So in John 15, 1, Christ's reference is not to a material but a spiritual vine. How would this read, "I am signified by a spiritual vine"? Christ is speaking of that which exists, and must so be understood--"I am"; here is a true spiritual vine. Similar is John 6, 55, "My flesh is meat indeed." The thought is not, "My flesh signifies, or is signified by, true meat"; spiritual meat is spoken of and the meaning is, "My flesh is substantially a food; not for the stomach, physically, but for the soul, spiritually." Neithermust you permit the words "This is my body" to be perverted to mean that the body is but signified by the bread, as some pretend; you must accept the words precisely as they mean-- "This bread is essentially, by a real presence, my body." The forcing of Scripture to meet one's own opinions cannot be tolerated. A clear text proving that the infinitive "to be" is equivalent to "signify" would be needed; and, even though this might be proven in a few instances, it would not suffice. It would still have to be indisputably shown true in the place in question. This can never be done. Now, the proposition being impossible, we must surrender to the Word of God and accept it as it stands.

 

[Athanasias]

I think Luther made an excellent grammatical proof of the real presence in the bread in his commentary on 1 Cor 10-11, because I can't think of anywhere in the New Testament that Jesus, the apostles or the writers pointed to a specific physical object and used the word "am/is/was/be" to say that the object itself was only a symbol. Luther's explanation was that it is wrong as a matter of Biblical interpretation to point to a specific, real thing and read "is" in the New Testament as only "signifies". (In that case Luther applied this to Paul's saying that "the rock [in the desert] was Christ" and "This is my body" in 1 Luther's commentary on 1 Cor 10).

It's true that in common English, "is" can be used in a vulgar way about a concrete thing to mean "signifies", like if I showed you a portrait and "showed it to be my relative", you would understand "to be" to mean "signified". But in fact as a matter of grammer the portrait definitely "is not" my relative.

A concrete portrait is a "symbol of my relative", or a concrete fashion model is a "metaphorical incarnation of beauty". But a concrete portrait is not my relative and a concrete fashion

Jesus said "I am the door", the way, the life, the vine, but each of those are spiritual names or metaphors. Jesus, a concrete person, is not a concrete, specific door with concrete handles, a concrete literal road, a vine with fully literal green branches.

Here is Luther's commentary:

Excellent points!

 

[Athanasias]

Theological development tends to be reactive. For most Orthodox theologians this is not much of an issue or concern because without being confronted by Zwingli and the other radical reformers, the Orthodox position remained unchanged and unchallenged. We Lutherans had no choice, and neither did our Catholic brothers and sisters. Why the differences between Lutheran and Catholic sacramental theology? (Not all that different really) Well, Lutherans use Scripture as the measure of all theology including tradition. Catholics give similar weight to both Scripture and Tradition, and one such tradition is Scholasticism.

I still scratch my head knowing that Transubstantiation was influenced by the logic of Aristotle; a pagan.

Hey Mark I have a question on this. I have been reading the book of Concord(which is a excellent and well thought out theological apology for Lutherans). How authoritative is this book for Lutherans? Anyway my question is a bit more simple. So would you say Lutherans mainly reject transubstantiation because of the influence of Aristotelian concepts inserted into theological framework? Is it a disbelief in scholastic theology because of the use of Aristotle's philosophy?

That seems to be implied by what you said when you said

"I still scratch my head knowing that Transubstantiation was influenced by the logic of Aristotle; a pagan".

Are Lutherans totally against the use if Aristotelian philosophy to describe sacramental theology or theology in general?

Peace be with you brother! Have a blessed Holy Week.

 

[rakovsky]

Hey Mark I have a question on this. I have been reading the book of Concord(which is a excellent and well thought out theological apology for Lutherans). How authoritative is this book for Lutherans? Anyway my question is a bit more simple. So would you say Lutherans mainly reject transubstantiation because of the influence of Aristotelian concepts inserted into theological framework? Is it a disbelief in scholastic theology because of the use of Aristotle's philosophy?

That seems to be implied by what you said when you said

"I still scratch my head knowing that Transubstantiation was influenced by the logic of Aristotle; a pagan".

Are Lutherans totally against the use if Aristotelian philosophy to describe sacramental theology or theology in general?

Peace be with you brother! Have a blessed Holy Week.

May I please ask you to take that to another thread?
In this one I mainly want to focus on the Lutheran/Catholic vs. Reformed debates, and I know that your discussions can get very detailed, Athanasius.

 

[Athanasias]

May I please ask you to take that to another thread?
In this one I mainly want to focus on the Lutheran/Catholic vs. Reformed debates, and I know that your discussions can get very detailed, Athanasius.

Sure Sorry!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hey Mark I have a question on this. I have been reading the book of Concord(which is a excellent and well thought out theological apology for Lutherans). How authoritative is this book for Lutherans? Anyway my question is a bit more simple. So would you say Lutherans mainly reject transubstantiation because of the influence of Aristotelian concepts inserted into theological framework? Is it a disbelief in scholastic theology because of the use of Aristotle's philosophy?

That seems to be implied by what you said when you said

"I still scratch my head knowing that Transubstantiation was influenced by the logic of Aristotle; a pagan".

Are Lutherans totally against the use if Aristotelian philosophy to describe sacramental theology or theology in general?

Peace be with you brother! Have a blessed Holy Week.

I don't mind answering this, but I will keep it simple. The BoC is an exposition of the doctrines and theologies revealed in Scripture, an as such remains subject to Scripture which is always the normative standard.

Scripture talks about the logic of men being foolishness to God; so yes, human logic is not to be trusted. Ever.

Truly we could care less who proposed "transubstantiation" as it is not supported by Scripture. Transubstantiation implies the exclusion of bread from the Eucharist, yet Scripture names both the Bread and Wine and the Body and Blood, by what they are in regard to the Eucharist; therefore, trusting in God's Word, we can only accept that both are present. We do not however try and define how and in what ratio; rather that Christ's body and blood are simply present "in, with and under the bread and wine" (from the Small Catechism); how, when, where, why and how much are a mystery; it is what it is. Period.

 

[rakovsky]

Transubstantiation implies the exclusion of bread from the Eucharist, yet Scripture names both the Bread and Wine and the Body and Blood, by what they are in regard to the Eucharist; therefore, trusting in God's Word, we can only accept that both are present.

I am open to either view. Catholics don't think that the molecules themselves necessarily rearrange into proteins, and for the bread itself to be body, one could propose that the bread's inner "substance" has thereby been "changed" from bread substance into "body substance" (Trans-substan-tiation). Sometimes a view that looks tentatively right one way will look tentatively better another way. You did a great job answer Athanasius' question, it would just be easier if he wants to continue it for it to be on another thread.[/QUOTE]

 

[Commander Xenophon]

I think both the Lutheran and Catholic views are completely acceptable. Some zorthodox disagree, but the Luthersn approach makes sense to me. I have resd by the eay that if one of our Orthodox priests sees the bread take on a fleshy appearance, he is required to stop the Prothesis and call for the bishop immediately, to make sure it is not a demonic illusion.

I believe that Lutherans, Anglo Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics and the Church of the East (Nestorian) have a compatible Eucharistic doctrine. Calvinists and most Anglicans are close, but a spiritual presence alone seems to be inadequete. Zwingli and Melancthon I just cant agree with.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I think both the Lutheran and Catholic views are completely acceptable. Some zorthodox disagree, but the Luthersn approach makes sense to me. I have resd by the eay that if one of our Orthodox priests sees the bread take on a fleshy appearance, he is required to stop the Prothesis and call for the bishop immediately, to make sure it is not a demonic illusion.

I believe that Lutherans, Anglo Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics and the Church of the East (Nestorian) have a compatible Eucharistic doctrine. Calvinists and most Anglicans are close, but a spiritual presence alone seems to be inadequete. Zwingli and Melancthon I just cant agree with.

Some Calvinists, but Methodists have always accepted a "Spiritual" not physical presence. I don no know if they take a "receptionist" view or not.

 

[rakovsky]

I believe that Lutherans, Anglo Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics and the Church of the East (Nestorian) have a compatible Eucharistic doctrine.

For what it's worth, I am skeptical that Lutherans and RCs have a compatible teaching.
Does the substance of bread change in Lutheranism, such that the substance is no longer at all bread and only Jesus'? Because that's the teaching of the RCs and of St Cyril. And if St Cyril teaches that, the OOs might tend to too.

Part of my own skepticism or doubts of the Lutheran view is that if the bread's substance remains and Jesus' spirit body merely enters into the bread food without changing the precise pre-change nature of the bread itself but only uniting with it and entering it, I don't know if we can say that the bread "changed". The Orthodox do have a teaching that the bread changed.

My doubt of the RC view / ST Cyril's view is that I see bread and it's called bread sometimes after the change. If the physical properties of bread are there, it seems that a nature is there too and so might the substance be.

 

[rakovsky]

Some Calvinists, but Methodists have always accepted a "Spiritual" not physical presence. I don no know if they take a "receptionist" view or not.

I think many Anglicans can't figure out what they think on the real presence in the bread. In one poll I made they voted
3 Lutheran/Catholic v 3 Calvinist/Zwinglian v 4-5 "other"
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ngle-anglican-position.7937857/#post-69404644

On another poll they voted
4 Direct/Objective/Specific Presence in food to 2 symbolic/virtual/effective presence to 6 Other
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...l-food-itself-to-be-have-christs-body.7938581

How can I word this question better to address the many "others"?

Saying that Christ has a real presence in the Eucharist in a spiritual way only can mean very different things, even so that Lutherans and Calvinists could agree on those bare words. For example, by real presence, the Calvinists mean that he is "really present" to the believer's spirit, as opposed to have a real, actual presence in the physical food itself in a spiritual mode of direct being, the latter resembling the Orthodox view.

And then they have the controversy over whether the BCP and articles are defining authority for Anglicanism on the topic, and even if the articles conform to Receptionsm or to the direct/real presence in the bread itself.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I think many Anglicans can't figure out what they think on the real presence in the bread. In one poll I made they voted
3 Lutheran/Catholic v 3 Calvinist/Zwinglian v 4-5 "other"
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ngle-anglican-position.7937857/#post-69404644

On another poll they voted
4 Direct/Objective/Specific Presence in food to 2 symbolic/virtual/effective presence to 6 Other
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...l-food-itself-to-be-have-christs-body.7938581

How can I word this question better to address the many "others"?

Saying that Christ has a real presence in the Eucharist in a spiritual way only can mean very different things, even so that Lutherans and Calvinists could agree on those bare words. For example, by real presence, the Calvinists mean that he is "really present" to the believer's spirit, as opposed to have a real, actual presence in the physical food itself in a spiritual mode of direct being, the latter resembling the Orthodox view.

And then they have the controversy over whether the BCP and articles are defining authority for Anglicanism on the topic, and even if the articles conform to Receptionsm or to the direct/real presence in the bread itself.

Most Anglicans now regard the 39 articles as an historic foot-note; just as the ElCA/ELCIC does with the Book of Concord.

 

[rakovsky]

Most Anglicans now regard the 39 articles as an historic foot-note; just as the ElCA/ELCIC does with the Book of Concord.

Mark,

Can you think of a way that I could have phrased the questions better in the polls above to address those who answered "other"?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<ship>
Part of my own skepticism or doubts of the Lutheran view is that if the bread's substance remains and Jesus' spirit body merely enters into the bread food without changing the precise pre-change nature of the bread itself but only uniting with it and entering it, I don't know if we can say that the bread "changed". The Orthodox do have a teaching that the bread changed.
<snip>

Not quite right. What you describe here is more a Methodist view as I understand it. Christ's body and blood are truly (physically) present in, with and under the bread and wine.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Mark,

Can you think of a way that I could have phrased the questions better in the polls above to address those who answered "other"?

Sorry, I don't see the polls, can you direct me.

 

[rakovsky]

Sorry, I don't see the polls, can you direct me.

Yes.
I meant the two polls that I linked to here:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...e-role-of-reason.7932441/page-2#post-69431619

 

[rakovsky]

The Book Review by the Lutheran L.W. Spitz of "Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament" considers it to be an issue of rationalism:

"Though his words often sound quite Lutheran, Calvin does not want to have his doctrine on the Word and Sacrament identified with that of the Lutherans. His rationalism appears in such syllogisms as the following: "A doctrine carrying many absurdities with it is not true...."