History, sola scriptura, and the real presence

From a Facebook conversation

Hays

If Newman could have found what he was looking for from the beginning, his theory of development would be superfluous at best and counterproductive at worst.

Ernesto

There is no such thing as the doctrine of development... might be worth to go back and have a second look. 

Hays

“The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum 8).

Ernesto

The only question being posed here is that Protestantism is inconsistent with the historical record of the church, therefore you should cease to be Protestant. 

Church fathers are not infallible, but pronouncements by the councils are. Furthermore, where all church fathers are in unanimity, as is the historical record, you better have some really good reasons for your opinion to negate theirs...

Hays 

I realize you'd like to artificially limit the issue to the Protestant side of the debate, but your implied alternative is Roman Catholicism, so you don't get to arbitrarily isolate the comparison.

Ernesto

Church fathers are not infallible, but pronouncements by the councils are.

Hays

Begs the question.

Ernesto

Furthermore, where all church fathers are in unanimity, as is the historical record, you better have some really good reasons for your opinion to negate theirs...

Hays

When they contradict biblical revelation, that's a really good reason to negate their teaching.

The criterion of theological truth was never to be grounded in church history (which is a swamp) but to be grounded in biblical revelation.

Ernesto

Where is sola scriptura found in church history?

Hays

Why does sola scriptura need to be found in church history to be true? What makes church history the arbiter? BTW, church history didn't end on the eve of the Reformation. The past 500 years is part of church history, too.

Ernesto

Where else would you pull the doctrine of sola scriptura from? I mean, in know that Luther pulled it out of thin air because it is nonexistent before he proposes it. 

Also of course the past 500 years is part of history too, which is why we can measure it up against the previous 1500 years and see who is more likely to be correct, who is more consistent, where the TRUTH falls.

Hays

i) To begin with, church history is completely indiscriminate. Every side of every theological dispute is represented at some time and place in church history, so church history in itself takes no sides. You yourself presumably think church history is full of heretics and schismatics. So your own appeal to church history will be highly selective.

ii) Sola scriptura is based on the primacy of divine revelation. Public, propositional revelation. If there is divine revelation, then no other source of information regarding doctrine and ethics can be higher than or equal to divine revelation. That's the principle. Uninspired sources of information will be inferior. 

The next question is where divine revelation is to be found. That depends on which stage of sacred history we have in mind. At certain times in sacred history there was the spoken word of God as well as the written word of God, viz. prophets who delivered the word of God orally. 

But at this stage in sacred history, where is divine revelation to be found? Indeed, we only have examples of divine speech (e.g. OT prophets) because that was committed to writing.

iii) Given the Catholic doctrine of development, how does it follow that was is earlier is more likely to be true? do you think the Christology of Justin Martyr is truer than Chalcedonian Christology or Thomistic Christology because Justin is earlier? Is what comes later suspect? 

Marcion is earlier than the Nicene Fathers. Does that carry the presumption that he is right?

Some NT letters were written to combat heresies in churches during apostolic times (e.g. 1 John). So mere antiquity carries no presumption of orthodoxy. 

iv) The starting-point for tracing developments isn't church history but Scripture. We see how certain developments are consistent or inconsistent with Scripture.

v) Are you saying the primacy of revelation is unsupported by scripture? Throughout Bible history, divine revelation is the arbiter of right and wrong, truth and error. 

The next question is where divine revelation is located after the era of public revelation has ceased. The salient question isn't the origin of belief in sola scriptura, but the fact that divine revelation is supreme, and at this phase of church history, divine revelation is preserved for posterity in the Bible alone. 

vi) How do you decide what makes someone a church father? Are they church fathers because they're orthodox, or are they orthodox because they're church fathers? Are church fathers the benchmark of orthodoxy, or is orthodoxy the benchmark of who is or isn't a church father?

You've admitted that the church fathers are fallible. And some early Christian writers like Origen, Tertullian, Donatus, and Novatian aren't classified as church fathers. 

So in practice you're applying a standard of orthodoxy that's independent of the church fathers. 

vii) Your appeal to an unending series of arbiters fails to solve the problem you pose because in that event you need an arbiter to arbitrate who is the authentic arbiter. If you always need a figure in authority to justify your position, then by what authority do you choose your authority figure? The logic is regressive.

viii) What do you think needs to be arbitrated? Interpretation? If so, why shouldn't interpretation be determined by which side has the exegetical arguments for their position? If you lack confidence in reason and evidence to interpret the Bible, how can you argue for Catholicism? Making a case for Catholicism requires you to trust human reason to sift and assess the evidence of Scripture and church history. So you can't begin with authority at that stage of the evaluation.

ix) There is no monolithic "Church" that canonized the Bible. In a direct sense, our Bible comes down to us from Jewish and Christian scribes, not "the Church" or church councils.

And it's not as if they're are serious rival candidates to the NT canon (or OT canon, for that matter). 

x) What evidence do you have that divine revelation continues in oral tradition? What oral traditions are you alluding to? 

Ernesto

Regarding (i) I understand your point but it is misguided. It is precisely by studying church history that we discover heresies and schisms. So it is not highly selective, rather I want it to be as expansive as possible. 

Hays

No, that's something you bring to church history, not something you derive from church history. By itself, church history is just whatever happens during the course of church history, or the record of events. By itself, church history doesn't identify the white hats and the black hats.

You aren't using church history as your filter. Rather, you are filtering church history through the Roman Magisterium. You impose that filter on church history to screen out what you deem to be false of heretical. 

Ernesto

Regarding (ii) does primacy imply exclusivity? Cannot two things have equal primacy (we know of at least one thing in which three things are equal :) ) Sola scriptura goes beyond primacy of special revelation, it implies ONLY scripture. Where does that proposition find support by any Christian within the first 1500 years of Christianity?

And precisely by formulation, and explicitly within writing we find support for both Scripture and Tradition.

Hays

You're confusing two different issues. Then salient question at issue isn't where we find belief in sola scriptura in church history but where we find divine revelation in church history. What's the locus of divine revelation after the NT era? The issue issuing tracing a belief but a reality.

Ernesto

(i) there are traditionally four characteristics of those considered church fathers: antiquity, doctrinal orthodoxy, personal sanctity and approval by the Church. The doctrinal orthodoxy is an independent standard, measured by scripture and tradition.

Hays

But you're resorting to circular criteria. "Approval by the Church" presumes criteria to arbitrate the orthodoxy of the contender. Which candidates for "the Church" meet the criterion? Appeal to tradition presumes criteria to arbitrate which traditions are orthodox, heterodox, or ecclesiastical legends. 

Ernesto

(ii) it is regressive only if it never had a beginning. It has a beginning with the commission of the 12. Therefore it is not regressive."

Hays

That's equivocal. Your principle is hermeneutically regressive because you evidently claim that authority is necessary to interpret the Bible. But that pushes the question back a step. By what authority to you arbitrate who has the authority to interpret the Bible? So you're stuck in a tar pit.

Ernesto

(iii) everything needs to be arbitrated.

Hays

Which is regressive. Yes, you just responded to that charge, but I provided a counterargument.

Ernesto

There was a monolithic church for 451 years, until oriental orthodox split off (this may actually be resolved in our lifetimes and would be a massive blessing).

Hays

That's based on Roman Catholic ecclesiology, which evangelicals don't concede. Historically, it was a patchwork of regional churches. 

Again, the tacit assumption of your argument is apostolic succession, but that takes the Catholic paradigm for granted, which is not a given in debate with evangelicals. Admittedly, both sides have a respective burden of proof. 

You said revelation continues in oral tradition. Once again, what does that allude to? Are you referring to uninspired reports in the church fathers which attribute a particular teaching to an apostle? 

If so, that wouldn't be on par with revelation or Scripture. Even if some oral traditions transmit apostolic teaching, the process of transmission is fallible (word of mouth). 

I explained why you're appealing to circular criteria. By what authority do you adjudicate the identity of "the Church"? 

Even if we grant for the sake of argument that "the Church" determines what is orthodoxy," that only pushes the question back a step. But what authority do you adjudicate which candidate to be "the Church" is indeed the rightful claimant? 

If you're appealing to Catholic prooftexts from Scripture, by what authority do you interpret those texts? At this stage of the argument you can't cite the authority of the Roman Magisterium since the question at issue is to establish whether is indeed the rightful claimant. You can't invoke ecclesiastical authority to interpret the Bible until you first establish that the church in question has the authority you ascribe to it. So that assessment must be made independent of ecclesiastical authority. You can't legitimately use church authority to interpret the Bible and thereby establish that the Bible singles out the Roman Catholic church, then turn around and say the Bible validates the claims of Rome, because that assumes the very thing which needs to be proved. Unless you already know apart from Roman Catholicism that it has the authority you ascribe to it, you can't fall back on Catholic authority to prove Catholicism from the Bible or vice versa. 

Ernesto

Maybe the timetable is not clear. Jesus grants authority to the apostles. This happens before scripture is written and therefore does not require scripture to prove the claim. The fact that scripture testifies to this just strengthens the claim.

Hays

It does require Scripture to prove the claim since Scripture is your source of information for that claim. You're getting that from the Gospels. They don't merely testify to the claim, as if you had an independent source of information which they corroborate. Rather, the Gospels are the primary source materials for the claim.

Ernesto

This constitutes the Church. This constitutes the leaders Jesus wanted for his flock, as he would not have left them without earthly shepherds.

Hays

The disciples play a temporary role. There's also a concept of church office.

But at this preliminary stage of the argument you can't appeal to the authority of your church to interpret the prooftexts when the question at issue is whether your church has the authority which its interpretation imputes to the prooftexts. 

Ernesto

You completely mistake something that is descriptive for something that is actual. The claim for apostolic succession does not require scripture.

Hays

You're failing to property differentiate and interrelate the order of being with the order of know. It might be a fact that Jesus picked the 12, even if we had no historical record of his choosing them. But if we had no evidence that he picked the 12, then believing that he picked the 12 would lack epistemic warrant, much less be obligatory. 

Ernesto

In the case there would have been no gospels or letters written would the good news of Jesus have been any less important? Clearly not.

Hays

That's like saying there's an antidote for poison but no one knows what it's called or where to find it.  

Ernesto

The apostles and the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit just made it expedient enough to memorialize the truth.

Hays

And what's your source of information for the claims? 

i) You differentiate them but fail to properly interrelate them. You only know it happened from reading the Gospels (esp. Matthew). You don't have direct access to the fact. You weren't there. Your knowledge of the event is mediated by the written record. 

ii) Church history isn't my yardstick.  But if I were measuring Catholicism by church history, it would come up short. It behaves just like a shortsighted organization that makes stuff up as it goes along, then reverses itself on key teaching.

Catholicism and evangelicalism have different concepts of continuity. For Catholicism, the kind of continuity involves a priest-sacrament continuity. By contrast, evangelicals operate with a Word-Spirit paradigm which doesn't require historical continuity. 

ii) A handful of apostolic fathers had some personal contact with an apostle. When you consider the est. birthrates of the apostles and the est. birthdates of the apostolic fathers, there's a very narrow window. How old were the apostolic fathers when they had contact with an apostle? Catholic apologists are apt to imagine an intensive mentoring situation, but is there any justification for that scenario?

iii) It's an interesting mental exercise to exclude the NT from consideration and limit ourselves to what is left regarding the institution of the church if the apostolic fathers were all we had to go by.

iv) Moreover, that suffers from circularity because unless we had the NT for background, the fact that a few apostolic fathers had some contact with an apostle wouldn't be significant unless we knew about the 12 from the Gospels (and other NT references). If you abstract out the NT, and start with the apostolic fathers, it's unclear how having some contact with one or more of the 12 is probative. 

v) In evangelical folk theology, appeal is often made to the guidance of the Holy Spirit as an intellectual shortcut. But that reflects the difference between the laity and theologians. 

vi) However you slice it, God protects some groups from certain kinds of error while allowing other groups to fall into error. 

vii) It's quite possible and plausible for a modern-day Christian to have insight that the church fathers didn't. The church fathers cover a wide period, some far removed from the events of 1C Palestine. 

Their background is generally Greco-Roman training, not Judaism, so they have a foreign frame of reference when they come to the Bible. In general, the proper context of Scripture isn't the history of reception, isn't what is future to Scripture, but background material or the situation contemporaneous with Bible writers.

Knowledge is cumulative. For instance, we have a far more accurate grasp of OT history, thanks to Biblical archeology, than the church fathers. 

Ernesto

I wouldn't advocate for excluding the NT ever, although yes it would be an interesting exercise and we can glean pretty much the entire gospel from the writings of the fathers as they relied so heavily on it. We are lucky that we do have the NT.

Hays

Compare that to how little we'd know about the life and ministry of Christ if all we had to go by was word-of-mouth anecdotes (oral traditions).   

Ernesto

It is possible to have insights that church fathers didn't. However, to have "insights" that contradict the fathers is a completely different matter and one we need to tread on much more lightly.

Hays

Patristic exegesis isn't the default standard, a presumption that must be overcome with difficulty. 

Ernesto

Christianity is unanimous, and has been unanimous from the start, on the Real Presence. Protestants (except lutherans, Episcopalians, anglicans and possibly a few others) reject this claim. Why do Protestants reject this point?

Hays

i) A circular "Christian" consensus by preemptively excluding most Protestants.

ii) It was generally the view of bishops, drawn from the educated classes. It's not as if most laymen were in a position to form an independent opinion.

iii) The synagogue quickly separated from the church, leading to interpretations not ground in an OT outlook.

iv) The frame of reference for John 6 isn't the church fathers or even the readership of John's Gospel but the immediate audience Jesus was addressing on that occasion. The original setting. In context it can't refer to the Mass because the Mass hadn't been instituted, so that referent would be incomprehensible to the original audience. Indeed, the eucharistic interpretation reduces the discourse to a fictional story that never happened, but is a retrojection designed to validate a practice after the fact at the time the Gospel was written.

v) In context, it foreshadows his sacrifice on the cross. To a reader of the Gospel, that has eucharistic connotations because the eucharist commemorates the crucifixion, and uses similar imagery, but that's a spinoff.

vi) If the John 6 is eucharistic, then it promises too much inasmuch as some communicants die in a state of mortal sin.

vii) It uses stock metaphors about eating and drinking. John's Gospel in frequently uses stock metaphors, often derived from the OT. 

vii) In 1 Cor 11, Paul trades on the polyvalent sense of "body," where than can be a metaphor for the church. The sin of the Corinthians was not failure to discern the real presence, but some Corinthians mistreating others at the agape feast.

On the Catholic interpretation, we should expect parishioners to be dropping death at communion services given the prevalence of unworthy communicants. But is there actuarial evidence that those who reject the real presence have higher morality rates than those who affirm it?

viii) What does the real presence mean? On the one hand, Catholics insist on the literal interpretation the words while, on the other hand, they vehemently deny that it's cannibalistic. So what does the claim amount to? What kind of flesh and blood is ingested? 

ix) I'd add that on the eucharistic interpretation, not only does it promise too much (e.g. v54) by ensuring the ultimate salvation of every communicant, but conversely it threatens too much by warning that no one is saved unless they receive the Host (v53). But both claims are contrary to contemporary Catholic theology. Paradoxically, if the Catholic interpretation correct, that falsifies Catholic theology!

Ernesto

Patristic exegesis may not be the default standard, but it should be A standard, and yes it should be difficult to overcome.

Hays

That just begs the question by taking the Catholic paradigm for granted. And even contemporary Catholic Bible scholars don't operate that way.

Ernesto

Not a circular christian consensus, but the only christian consensus, and correct, excluding protestants because that view was invented and never part of the discussion.

Hays

A manufactured consensus by never making a dissenting voice part of the discussion. 

Ernesto

The Christian perspective is not to appeal to itself but to appeal to Jesus' words.

Hays

Which you must interpret. And unless you can establish the authority of your church apart from appealing to the authority of your church, then you have the same exegetical resources a Protestant has.

Ernesto

This is irrelevant and just a genetic fallacy.

Hays

To the contrary, your appeal is a blatant example of sample selection bias–where you act like ancient bishops or church fathers are the whole church, rather than an infinitesimal fraction of the church. Your appeal is elitist and preemptively discounts all further Christians who weren't conditioned by Roman Catholicism. Not to mention that dissent was punishable by torture. Because the Protestant Reformation was, among other things, a return to the original sources, it questioned the status quo.

Ernesto

Jesus was speaking literally. Yes the Eucharist was instituted later, but that in no way affects what Jesus said at that moment.

Hays

i) I've explained why you yourself don't think he was speaking literally.

ii) In addition, unless he was speaking with the intention of misleading the original audience, then it does matter whether they were in a position to grasp what he was referring to. On  your view, he doesn't speak to be understandable. He says something that's bound to be incomprehensible to the original audience, then condemns them for their incomprehension because they don't know the future.

Ernesto

I don't follow your 'promises too much/ too little distinction.

Hays

On the Catholic interpretation, it promises that every communicant is guaranteed salvation. They will participate in the resurrection of the just. Yet according to Catholic theology, many communicants die in a state of mortal sin. Conversely, it warns that no one who fails to consume the Host will be saved. Yet according to contemporary Catholic theology, you don't have to be Catholic or even be Christian to be saved.

Ernesto

I think this is the scary situation that you must address... Standing before the throne of God, you will have to say, "Jesus I didn't believe you. I interpreted your words subjectively. Yes I know that the entire history of the Church interpreted it literally, but by my own standards I disagreed with those you divinely appointed."

I tell you what, I wouldnt want to have to face that music...

Hays

Standing before the throne of God, Ernesto will have to say, I delegated my religious duties to second parties. I contracted out my religious obligations others to think for me and believe for me. I didn't obey you. I invested my faith in a blind trust and put the eternal fate of my soul in their hands. 

Ernesto

In no way have I made a circular argument (please refrain from adding this point in the future, you continually get it wrong and it isn't adding value to the conversation).

Hays

Your persistent incomprehension is not my yardstick.

Ernesto

The appeal for Church authority goes to JESUS, who clearly founded the Church both as testified in Scripture and in early Church Writings.

Hays

You labor under the illusion that your argument is linear rather than circular because "the appeal for church authority goes back to Jesus." But your appeal is filtered through the authority you impute to the Catholic church. It's viciously circular for you to prooftext the authority of Rome from the Gospels while you simultaneously invoke the authority of Rome to validate your interpretation. If that's too subtle for you, I can't help you.

Earnesto

Ironically, you have not given one good reason to believe in the proposition of sola scriptura...

Hays

I did that early on. You missed the boat

Earnesto

To say that this interpretation only came from X people is obvious and in no way invalidates that interpretation.

Hays

For a second time, you're unable to follow the argument. I already explained that to you. You're committing the fallacy of sample selection bias by acting as if a minuscule fraction of "the Church" (church fathers, ancient bishops) speaks for the entire church. Likewise, the fact that, not coincidentally, consensus was lost when the ranks for the educated class vastly expanded and readers went by to the primary sources in the original languages. 

Ernesto

There is nothing incomprehensible about Jesus' words in John. It is actually rather clear; 

Hays

True. It foreshadows the Crucifixion, not the Mass.

Ernesto

the Jews there understood it...

Hays

The Jews didn't think he was referring to transubstantiation or the sacrifice of the Mass. They thought he was referring to cannibalism. That's the literal interpretation-which you reject. 

Ernesto

The Christian Tradition does not guarantee salvation to those who receive the Eucharist. You may need to go back and do some historical reading on this point.

Hays

Another confused statement by you. The question at issue is what your own prooftext says and implies, and its lack of consistency with Catholic theology. 

Ernesto

...interpreted by his divinely appointed officers

Hays
Which begs the question. 

Ernesto
The Bible is clear on the doctrine of the Real Presence. It logically follows from Jesus exposition of the the Bread of Life discourse (which precisely does not make it cannibalism) to Jesus declaring that the last supper elements are his body and blood.

Hays
An assertion in search of an argument.

Ernesto
There are two ways to interpret that, the way that the Christian Church has interpreted it for 2000 years or the way that Protestants have for the last 500.

Hays
Followed by your question-begging contrast between "the Christian Church" and Protestants.

Ernesto
You make a fallacy by claiming that the above view was only held by Bishops. That is irrelevant. You exacerbate and show your understanding by appealing to the absence of evidence of the 'regular folk' as if that counts towards there being a contrary view. Fallacious.

Hays
i) The fallacy is when Catholics do a bait-n-switch about "the Church". What they really mean is the Roman Magisterium, as if that's equivalent to "the Church". Or when they act like some ancient bishops or church fathers speak for the whole church. That may be a representative sample from your own standpoint, but it's just a reflection of your Roman Catholic bias. 

ii) I didn't appeal to the absence of evidence from the laity. The point, rather, is that consensus has no probative value if the vast majority were in no position to render an informed and independent judgment on the issue. Not to mention the disincentive of facing torture for bucking the status quo. The kind of consensus you tout has no more evidential value than the consensus of Muslims that Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets. 

Ernesto
You further confuse appeals to this doctrine being proposed by the Church as circular, when the Church proposes this doctrine for independent reasons beyond it declaring it so.

Hays
Ironically, your objection is confused since I discussed your circular reasoning, not in relation to the real presence but prooftexting the authority of the Rome from Scripture while invoking the authority of Rome to interpret the prooftexts. 

Ernesto

Wrong, simply a claim. Claim being: it is clear (as interpreted by reading the text in the original greek) on its face.

Hays

As someone who double-majored in history and Classics, I read the Greek NT. Try again.

Ernesto

Furthermore, it has been so understood from the beginning to mean what it means.

Hays

I explained to you how the Catholic interpretation falsifies Catholicism. You said nothing to directly rebut my argument. You simply denied it. But a denial is not a refutation. 

Ernesnto

Wrong. These are the two options. (Either X or Y)

Hays

You're incapable of leaving your Catholic bubble long enough to argue with anyone who doesn't share your assumptions. 

Ernesto

Wrong. When Historical Christians refer to the Church, they refer to the Church largely as it stood unified at least to prior 451 and probably also including up to 1054.

Hays

Which for Catholic apologists is code language for church fathers, church councils, the papacy and Roman episcopate. The apparatus that promulgates dogma.

Ernesto

Wrong, this was the only interpretation, for all Christians. Provide proof for otherwise please...

Hays

i) It's hardly incumbent on me to disprove a claim for which there's no evidence. Provide polling data for what all Christians believed for the first 1500 years of the church. Were pollsters going door-to-door to interview medieval peasants? 

ii) In addition, the way you frame the issue begs the question of what's evidentially relevant. Consensus is not a substitute for exegesis. 

Ernesto

These people were in precisely the position to provide their commentary.

Hays

Not the laity. 

Ernesto

Points like this provide proof to your lack of depth in history. These opinions were formulate precisely when they were being most persecuted. These beliefs came about during the hardest of times for Christians... You should know better but do not.

Hays

You're unable to follow your own argument. You're the one who constantly appeals to the first 1500 years of church history. What was the fate of theological dissenters in the Middle Ages? 

Ernesto

You have your interpretations because of the particular church you belong to.

Hays

I've attended a wide variety of denominations and churches over the years, viz. Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Messianic Jewish, Anglo-Catholic. I bring my theology to the church I attend, I don't derive it from the church I attend. 

I own hundreds of academic commentaries on the Bible representing a wide range of theological traditions, including commentaries by modern Roman Catholic scholars. Your mind-reading skills leave a lot to be desired.

Ernesto

and cannot be what Jesus intended for his Church.

Hays

Actually, providence is a pretty good indication of what Jesus intended for his church. 

Ernesto

You are a leaf in the wind without authority to guide the interpretation

Hays
Proper exegesis isn't based on authority but reason and evidence. Retreating into authority is a backdoor admission that you can't justify your interpretation by responsible exegetical methods, so you resort to leverage. 

Ernesto

It doesn’t show with your understanding of the Greek passage in John, you are in contradiction against all those who not only contemporaneously understood the plain meaning of the text…

Hays

The contemporaries were the Jewish audience Jesus was addressing. They took him to be referring to cannibalism. But you don't think that's the plain meaning of what he said.

There's very little you an provide by way of documentation for how the text was understood by contemporaries of John. Are you alluding to an apostolic father?

Ernesto

Community afterwards (see τρώγω vs. φάγω commentary, you might not even know what I am talking about).

Hays

Language which is consistent with metaphorical usage.

Ernesto

You did not provide a sufficiently clear argument how this is the case. You said something along the lines that it proves too much or too little, which proves the lack of understanding of how Historical Christians have understood the doctrine.

Hays

Your response is confused. The question at issue isn't how Roman Catholics understand the real presence but whether that's consistent with text. You consistently fail to engage the argument–because you can't. 

Ernesto

It is incumbent on you to provide evidence that there were Christian within the Church who disagreed with the Church’s stance.

Hays

No, that's not incumbent on me because you are framing the issue in terms of your Catholic paradigm, which Protestants reject. 

Ernesto

However, you correctly insinuate that there is no evidence for this.

Hays

Actually, I pointed out that you made a sweeping claim for which you can't begin to provide commensurate evidence.

Ernesto

Correct, but when the exegesis is all in consensus, we have a pretty good idea of what the Church believes and what is correct

Hays

You constantly resort to the fallacy of a manufactured consensus by preemptively excluding everyone who doesn't tow the party line.

Ernesto

The Real Presence had unanimous support within the first 300 years of the Church, prior to the persecutions ending.

Hays

Once again, you're unable to keep track of your own argument. You arbitrarily careen between the first 300 years of church history and the first 1500 years of church history. The ancient church was intermittently persecuted by the state, but later on, the Roman Catholic church became the persecutor. 

Ernesto

You have nothing to base it on except "your own understanding."

Hays

A self-defeating objection that Catholic apologists blindly resort to. But Catholics must rely on their fallible understanding of Scripture, church fathers, and church history, to arrive at their belief in the authority of Rome. They can't begin with the authority of Rome. That's the conclusion of their own private assessment of the evidence. When you attack the competence of reason, you disqualify yourself from being able to argue for Catholicism. 

Ernesto

Appealing to the Holy Spirit is vapid, as I would do the same.

Hays

I haven't appealed to the Holy Spirit. Try again.

Ernesto

Unfortunately your arguments seem to indicate that those books are going to waste, as you have not read them…

Hays

Actually, it's striking to see the difference between how modern Catholic Bible scholars interpret Scripture and doctrinaire laymen like yourself.

A final point: you have a habit of resorting to condescension as a substitute for argumentation. But your condescension isn't justified by the low level of your intellectual performance. It's the behavior of a rhetorical bully who tries to shame his opponent into submission because he can't defend his position through reason and evidence. Adopting a patronizing tone betrays the weakness of your position. You use condescension as filler to pad out the deficiencies in what passes for your arguments. 

Ernesto

I think you are close on this point. I think they could have thought of cannibalism, but that only indicates that they took his words seriously! And I think we should too. Where the Jews make a mistake is that partaking in the Eucharist, which as you have mentioned was not instituted at the time of the bread of life discourse but came later, is not partaking in cannibalism but in partaking in living flesh and blood, not of the dead. To reiterate, the reaction of the crowd supports the literal reading of Jesus’s Words.

HaysCannibalism doesn't require a dead victim. Pieces of flesh can be sliced off a living victim. Likewise, one can drink human blood from a living victim. 

Ernesto

Here is how St. Irenaeus Understood the Eucharist

Hays

The opinion of a church father can't be legitimately deployed to override the text and shortcircuit exegesis. Now perhaps you're going to claim that as a very young man, Irenaeus was an acquaintance of Polycarp, who was an acquaintance of St. John, but that's too many steps removed to presume this represents St. John's interpretation of the Bread of Life Discourse. 

Ernesto

I disagree, I think the changing use of verbiage indicates Jesus’ doubling down to ensure that the audience would in fact understand his words literally.

Haysi) Eating and drinking are common biblical metaphors. Likewise, John's Gospel is chockfull of metaphorical imagery.

ii) Jesus talks about his flesh and blood because the reference is to his sacrificial death on the cross. Jews understood the concept of blood atonement. And Jesus had already, very publicly predicted his death (Jn 2:19-21).

iii) The Jews in John's Gospel aren't hostile to Jesus because they were offended by the sacrifice of the Mass–which wasn't on their horizon. They resented him for saying they needed to be saved. They thought they were already saved. They resented him for saying they needed to be saved through him. Then there were the Sabbath-controversies. In addition, they were appalled at his teaching that the Temple was just a temporary placeholder, and he was going to replace the temple. And they were especially incensed as his claim to be Yahweh. 

Ernesto

Please provide context, as I may have misunderstood your point.

Hays

Back to this passage: 

53 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. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Let's grant the eucharistic interpretation for the sake of argument. This means, according to v53, that no one is saved who doesn't take communion. Yet that's certainly not the position of Vatican II or John-Paul II or Benedict XVI. 

Again, this means, according to v54, that everyone who takes communion will participate in the resurrection of the just. But once again, that's certainly not the position of traditional Catholic theology. So if the eucharistic interpretation of John 6 is correct, then it falsifies Catholic theology. 

Ernesto

So what is your point and how do you support it? Obviously Protestants reject Historical Christianity; why should they be believed.

Hays

i) Truth isn't determined by taking a headcount. The correct interpretation isn't determined by taking a headcount. Many or most folks believe much or most of what they do due to social conditioning, which is one reason appeal to consensus is a highly unreliable guide to truth. 

ii) Popular opinion carries no presumption that the opinion is true. For that matter, mere scholarly opinion carries no presumption that the opinion is true. An interpretation is only as good as the logic and evidence adduced in support of the interpretation. Reasons rather than opinions are what merits consideration.

iii) Whether or not people find an argument convincing is irrelevant to whether it's a good argument. Atheists find arguments for Christianity unconvincing. That, in itself, doesn't invalidate the arguments for Christianity. Most Jews are not persuaded by the messianic claims of Jesus. But that, in itself, doesn't make the messiahship of Jesus doubtful. 

iv) It's also the case, in the history of ideas, that an erroneous idea may not appear to be erroneous at the outset. Or it might seem to be a minor error. We may only come to recognize the error, or appreciate the magnitude of the error, as it works out in practice. As people begin to build a political or theological edifice on that seminal, seemingly innocuous idea. Marxism is appealing on paper because it's utopian. The irony is the chasm between how idealistic Marxism is on paper and how inhumane it is in reality. 

Likewise, certain theological ideas involving the status of Mary or the nature of justification (to mention two examples) may have unforeseen consequences until those undergo further development in theory and practice. At that juncture it's easier to recognize where things got off to a bad start. 

Ernesto

Maybe related to the above. I am not manufacturing consensus. Consensus is a fact. I only exclude Protestants as they are not part of Early Church History. Remember, my original claim is if you study Church History you would cease to be Protestant. Imbedded in this claim is that if you study Church history, you would rightly exclude the Protestant position as being ahistorical, illogical, and against the text. But again, this is only AFTER having studied history.

Hays

You know, there's such a thing as the Protestant church historian. Every major evangelical seminary or major evangelical college has at least one or more professors of church history. Some of them specialize in patrology. There are also Protestant NT textual critics whose discipline requires them to have an intimate mastery of the church fathers. Protestant church historians, Protestant pathologists, and Protestant NT textual critics are deep into church history. Not to mention Eastern Orthodox church historians, who are at loggerheads with Roman Catholicism. 

Ernesto

My only reference to 1500 years is to state that the Doctrine of the Real presence was unchallenged during this entire period. My reference to 300 years is to establish the fact that this is an ancient Doctrine, one held from the very beginning. You have made a claim in the prior post about Medieval Theology, but that is not relevant to this doctrine. 

HaysAs I recall, your original appeal to 1500 years was in reference to whether sola scriptura could be found in the first 1500 years of church history. 

Ernesto

I think this is more telling of the underlying difference and worth exploring. You obviously did not come to the conclusion that Jesus was speaking symbolically on your own. You were taught this by someone and came to accept it.

Hays

i) Knowledge of comparative theological traditions provides a person with a list of exegetical options. He can then compare and contrast the exegetical options with the text of Scripture to assess which interpretation has the most explanatory power. Which interpretation has the better of the argument. 

ii) An interpretation may seem to be obviously correct in ignorance of the alternatives. If that's the only interpretation a reader has been exposed to, competing interpretations may not even occur to him. That's one reason it's useful to be conversant with a variety of viewpoints–and not just knowing about different interpretations, but working through a careful argument for a particular interpretation.

iii) That's also a way to counter socially conditioned interpretations. Cultivate an awareness of alternatives outside one's sphere of social conditioning. 

Ernesto

Honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. Care to share a point?

Hays

Modern Catholic Bible scholars use the same methods of interpretation as their Protestant counterparts. And these aren't renegade Catholic scholars, but scholars in good standing with their religious superiors. Sometimes appointed by popes to the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Sometimes teaching at pontifical universities under the direct supervision of the Vatican. Their exegetical conclusions are often in stark contrast to lay Catholic apologists. Their interpretations often challenge traditional Catholic interpretations of Scripture. 

ErnestoDo you have any argument form your side to support the Protestant opinion. I would especially be interested if anything from the pre 1500s would be included.

Hays

Once again, you're trying to shoehorn me into your Catholic paradigm. But your criterion is not a logical basis for assessing the Protestant interpretation. The reception history of John 6 is irrelevant to original intent. What's germane is not what's future to the text but the contemporary circumstances of the discourse as well as OT background material. 

But if you're interested in how a Protestant patrologist approaches the issue, cf. Michael A. G. Haykin, “A Glorious Inebriation”: Eucharistic Thought and Piety in the Patristic Era” in Thomas R. Schreiner and Matthew R. Crawford, eds., The Lord’s Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until He Comes (NAC Studies in Bible & Theology, vol.10; Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010), 103–126.

Ernesto

Correct, but by definition, what you are eating or drinking is dead (it is no longer connected to the living being that provides it any meaning). Aristotle would go as far as to say anything removed from the human body is no longer human as only in its connection to the human is its meaning provided. 

Hays

Ad ad hoc definition of cannibalism

Ernesto

That is why Jesus insists on the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. It is not cannibalism because it is a participation in the entirety of Jesus. Do you know what is meant by Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity?

Hays

You're importing extraneous qualifications into you prooftext that it doesn't contain.

Ernesto

I think that connection is highly significant as have all Christians proclaiming Orthodox Christianity. But the question was more fundamental, did you understand St. Iranaeus' quote to promote the understanding promoted by Orthodoxy?

Hays

Irrelevant to the exegesis of Jn 6

Ernesto

As to your explanation of John 6:22-71, I would like to ask you about why you think that Jesus doubles down on his verbiage in terms of literally eating? Furthermore, why does he change verbs from "fagw" to "trwgw"? 

Hays

He doesn't double down on literal eating. The verbs are neutral with respect to literal or figurative meaning. He doubles down on what the imagery represents: his redemptive death on the cross. 

Ernesto

I am not sure this is consistent with the passage. The Jews get angry with him in 52. Then Jesus reiterates the literally eating (using trwgw). This hardly seem prefigurative to a none eating activity of dying on a cross. 

Hays

You constantly beg the question. Of course a metaphor about eating is literally about non eating. That's true for metaphors in general. That's true of other metaphors in the Gospel of John. The question is what the figurative imagery symbolizes.

Ernesto

Further, why were Christians considered cannibals by pagans, and put to death for this belief? If the Christians would have contemplated a Protestant notion, surely they would have explained themselves dont you think?

Hays

Because eucharistic language sounds cannibalistic unless you appreciate its figurative meaning. Moreover, pagans had no background regarding the context of the eucharist as symbolic reenactment of Jesus dying on the cross. 

Enesto

Ok I think this made it clearer. I think this is where the state of grace position held by Orthodoxy makes sense of what is being said. Furthermore, it falls all under the umbrella of the role of the sacraments in religious life. There are two things I think worth noting here. Orthodoxy completely takes Jesus at face value in those two verses. We do not believe that those who hear Jesus' teaching and reject it have life in them right now. Why? Because Jesus just said so. Therefore this is separate and apart from what God is able and willing to do for an individual at the time of judgment. Good provided the sacraments but is not bound by them. This is why Orthodoxy reserves salvation's final status to God and does not go around flouting terms of "I am saved" and these things. Hence when understood by the entirety of the Orthodox teaching, there is nothing contradictory. 

Furthermore, verse 54 must be taken within the entirety of Orthodox Doctrine. We do believe that those who partake in the Eucharist will be raised by Jesus on the last day. Of course, the individual can freely at any moment reject this status by falling into sin. 

Hays

Your response is contradictory. On the one hand you say you take those verses at face value. On the other hand, you modify them according to Roman Catholic dogma. 

Ernesto

I am not asking you to follow the masses when it comes to the doctrine of the Real Presence. I am asking you why the Church established by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit would have gotten this doctrine wrong? 

Hays

i) Loaded question since I don't regard your sect as the Church established by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.

ii) That said, God allows Christians to fall into error. Christians disagree on a variety of issues. So God doesn't protect all Christians from error. Broadly speaking, either Protestants are right or Roman Catholics are right. You act like it's acceptable for God to let one group of Christians fall into error but not another group. But your partiality is just an expression of your Catholic bias. However you view it, one side is right while another side is wrong. Why should I concede that if God doesn't protect Protestants from error, that's acceptable–but if God doesn't protect Catholics from error, that's unacceptable? That only follows on the assumption that Rome is the One True Church®–which is the very issue in dispute.

Ernesto

Why is it that your exegesis of the Bread of Life discourse so long and convoluted and violative of Occam's razor? 

Hays

i) Nothing is more convoluted that the dogma of transubstantiation. Consider the far-fetched speculations offered by Alexander Pruss to make sense of it. 

ii) I've said that Jesus is referring to his sacrificial death on the cross in John 6. Nothing "long and convoluted" about that interpretation. I said he uses picturesque metaphors. That's no more convoluted that his use of picturesque metaphors in his teaching generally. 

Ernesto

Why do you reject Jesus' own words?

Hays
When did you stop beating your wife?