Re your post #297, I will follow your paragraphs as usual.
I would think that the lack of detail in your first paragraph is a fine example of the ad hominem fallacy. I will state again, and am happy to illustrate by reference, your poor use of logic, in particular your reliance on special pleading (define a general rule and then define additional rules to exclude anything that doesn’t support your position) and, in your post referred to in my last post, the additional fallacies of creating a straw man (misrepresenting your opponent’s argument so it is easy to refute or ridicule) and last (and I would say worst) quoting your opponent out of context to illustrate a point.
In your second paragraph, how can my statement of my position be wrong? It is my position. You may disagree with it but I can’t see how you can say the state of my mind is wrong, or as you say “simply false”. It is clear you remain unconvinced over my definition of the word literal. It does not follow that that definition is spurious. I used the Oxford dictionary definition of literal. I understand it is an appeal to authority, but it seems to me that it is a widely used and well respected authority. In your second sentence you revert to special pleading mode. “If literal presupposes..” Literal has a meaning based only on the plain and usual meaning of the word under consideration and on the rules of grammar. Your argument is really about whether the words should be taken literally, not whether they have a literal meaning. The two things are separate. You say my reading is discordant with the claims of supernatural action elsewhere. There seem to be three similar kinds of supernatural action in the new testament to me, these are baptism, the real presence in the eucharist and the visitation of the holy spirit at pentecost. Furthermore, your statement presupposes that supernatural action has to follow particular rules. It seems to me that the key point of supernatural action is that it is not subject to rules, otherwise it would be ordinary run of the mill stuff like rocks falling and the sky being blue and would not qualify as super natural. So I understand your point but to me it is very weak.
My point under 6 is not special pleading as you infer. It is external verification of the way in which the words were written and read by early christians. There may well have been a diversity of opinions but I have not seen any evidence from you to illustrate that. The only evidence you have provided is to exclude the writings of the early christians by an obscure universalist entreaty to judaic culture. My approach would be special pleading if I said that the rule was “don’t appeal to anything outside the text” and then said “except in this case because of ….”
Your next paragraph appears to be based on an assumption that my reading is based upon later metaphysical mysticism. You state there is no basis in the text but I say that a literal reading of the text is in support of my position. And when I say literal, I mean literal in the plain english concise oxford meaning of the word. (You seem to use literal to mean what the words are meant to mean, in other words a literal reading is one which reflects the intended meaning of the writer or speaker. While it is valid to seek to understand what the author meant, to do that is not a literal meaning).
The identification of metaphor is another matter entirely. You continue to say my invocation of a metaphoric or literal reading is entirely arbitrary but this is incorrect. I set out in point 3 the reasons for deciding on a metaphorical reading against a literal reading. Perhaps your problem lies in some form of absolutism. You may find it interesting to do some reading on neural networks and the way they solve problems, keeping in mind that our brains are neural networks. In short, we weigh up data for and against, and reach a decision on balance of probabilities. You say the words are metaphor because you give more weight to some data and less to others, I say they are literal for the same reasons. Really all we can hope to do is to appeal to a disinterested observer to see where they come down, or try as best we can, to adopt the view point of the disinterested observer.
In your next paragraph you again retreat to the straw man although I suspect your intention is to demonstrate the absurd conclusions that are reached by adopting my point of view. I do not believe Jesus is made of wood. I take this view from the reactions of those around him and of the early church and from the context of the words. If however there was an early church tradition or discussion in Paul and John of people worshipping grape vines, then I would say at a minimum that early christians did in fact take those words literally. The next question would be whether Jesus meant them literally. This would only be a matter for conjecture as the hypothesis is not testable. The best you can say is that his audience heard them literally.
You focus on communication in your next paragraph. That is exactly my point. Any examination of the response of those he communicated to is suggestive that the words were taken literally, at least by Paul, the writer of John and many of the early church fathers. Surely the action of those communicated to should take some weight? For example if someone asked me for a drink of water and I said “go for your life”, if they took off running you might think the words were meant literally and they had reason to fear, but if they helped themselves to a drink you might think the words were meant in some colloquial sense.
A couple of random metaphors to address the test you have put forward. (I commend your use of falsification here).
Matthew 5:13-16 “You are the salt of the earth”. Are we in some sense made into salt, perhaps through transubstantiation? The second sentence, “if salt becomes tasteless...”suggests metaphor as Jesus then talks about salt becoming tasteless, not about men losing their taste. A similar point can be made about the words “you are the light of the world” where light seems to be used as a metaphor for good works. So I say the context shows metaphor.
There is (as far as I know) no evidence either in the gospels or in early church writings that people thought they were salt or lights in some meaning of the word.
The essential difference between this and the account of the last supper is the initial statement and then the taking up and working it as a theme, and as an illustrative theme. If Jesus said “this is my body” and then went on along the lines of “in the same way that bread feeds men, my body will feed men through my sacrifice then a metaphorical reading would be favoured. This is similar to the sense in John 6:35, and, if John 6 excluded verses 51-58, I would agree with you that the meaning was metaphorical.
Some other examples are Matthew 7:1-5. It is clear Jesus is not talking about splinters but is illustrating a point about judging.
Going to your favoured text of John 15, the words of Jesus follow this same rule. There is an initial statement which is then taken up and worked as a theme. Probably more important to the meaning of this chapter is the statement that my “father is the vinedresser”. Some other indicators of metaphor include the use of the word “as” in verse 4, the use of the word “as” in verse 6 and the movement away from metaphor in verse 9 with the reframing of the theme in terms of love. In other words, Jesus drops the metaphor that he uses for an introduction and focuses on his real theme.
I have reread the accounts of the supper in Matthew, Mark and Luke and cannot discern the words as in any way illustrative of a theme, nor can I detect any form of theme being presented. Mathew contains a foreshadowing of the crucifixion and an acknowledgement of a new covenant, as does Mark, Luke presents the supper as instituting a ritual, “do this in memory of me”. Similarly, Paul in 1 Corinthians 23 describes a ritual rather than illustrating a lesson.
I would appreciate you directing me to the “numerous points” that highlight the significant problems in my interpretation of John 6 as a Eucharistic text.
Hi John
So is the authority higher than God himself and his Word
the Roman Catholic Church, logic or your opinion?
Hi Dave
Well there are plenty assumptions built in here. Probably the first is that the bible is the word of god given once and for all rather than the writings of men seeking to share there understanding of christianity with others.
With respect to the Catholic Church, I take the supreme court view of the pope myself, that is to say he calls the shots when it isn’t so clear. Personally I don’t give papal infallibility much weight. It didn’t exist before 1870 and from what I can recollect, the pope of the time was strongly anti modernist. Others will disagree. Even on the doctrine of infallibility, you will note that catholics are careful to say the pope is infallible because the holy spirit speaks through him.
With respect to logic, I am not sure what you mean here. Do you mean rules of logic or empiricism or something else? Again it is a matter of belief. Many people would say that no logical person would believe in God, or as a minimum, the existence of god cannot be derived logically.
With respect to opinion, ultimately what else is there? If you believe something then it is your opinion, similarly if I believe something it is my opinion. I can’t see how you can differentiate yourself as the observer from that which you observe. A different question would be why should someone else share my opinion? Interestingly to me, surely the protestant tradition is based on opinion? I think that you guys try and get around this by saying that your reading is inspired by the holy spirit (note the parallel with the catholic view of infallibility) but if that is the case, how come there is such a wide divergence of views within the protestant tradition. I have read estimates of 2-300 different protestant sects within the USA.
So my view of religion is a bit like Plato and the cave, we are doing our best to see some sort of underlying reality.
With respect to the Catholic Church, I take the supreme court view of the pope myself, that is to say he calls the shots when it isn’t so clear. Personally I don’t give papal infallibility much weight. It didn’t exist before 1870 and from what I can recollect, the pope of the time was strongly anti modernist. Others will disagree. Even on the doctrine of infallibility, you will note that catholics are careful to say the pope is infallible because the holy spirit speaks through him.
John
You cannot say the Pope is OK when things get a little difficult and then not give much weight to infallibility. (Although I guess you just did). In one sense you are relying on him to be the referee but then don’t think he can make decisions well. I am assuming this is what you are saying. As the kids are told, the referee is always right, don’t argue with him.
Infallibility did exist prior to 1870. It was always recognised by the fathers. I would not be included in that group of Catholics that are careful to say the Pope is infallible. If one understands what infallibility is, then there is no need to be shy about it. If we can acknowledge that the Holy Spirit works infallibly through the writers of scripture, then it should not be any surprise that Jesus appointed an earthly leader to take his place. Remember Jesus said that he would pray for Peter. That is one powerful intercessor who is unlikely not to deliver on his promise.
Irenaeus of Lyons in Against Heresies 3:3:2[AD189] says:
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles., With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”.
Cyprian of Carthage (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256AD]
“Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come”.
John, just because a doctrine was defined in a particular year, it does not mean that it was invented then. Perfect example is the Trinity, which, by the way, was defined in 325AD, after both the above fathers talked about the primacy of the church and the pope. Now, we all know that the Trinity was not invented in 325AD. Usually a definition comes from the Church because there may be some confusion or a certain heresy has arisen.
Regards
Donna
John Storer , I am disappointed in you...Donna is right. You are risking your soul, and you should know better. Slightly beter than Eric, John shows he is not an orthodox Catholic....Prtestant friends out there , this is Storerism not Catholicism.
Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . “), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . “).
Well, just like Protestants are held to be wrong by virtue of their differing views on many matters, we now have an example of disagreement on display for us among our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. The similarities are striking.
I don’t think anyone ever said protestants were wrong by virtue of differing views. I would be more inclined to say that if there is a religious truth and it is revealed to you by reading scripture in the light of the holy spirit then how come so many people come up with different answers? In other words the principle of sola scriptura is shown to be wrong by empirical test. Alternatively, christian religious belief is entirely subjective and there is no universal truth. To me either outcome is unsatisfactory.
I say my view on papal infallibility is my own view, I don’t say it is right or wrong and I don’t care tuppence if anyone shares that view or not. Donna and Robert subscribe to a stronger form of papal infallibility then myself but I am prepared to give the concept lip service. It might be that you could find similar doctrines within your own communion. As an example, a friend of mine is a uniting church minister but rejects the tenet of strong predestination even though this is important within the calvinist belief system. He simply doesn’t believe it is a core belief, however he has a hardcore committment to the social justice message of the gospels so it seems to me that he sees that message as a core belief. Another friend in a pentecostal church gets around it by subscribing to predestination but saying that everyone is predestined, another weak form of belief.
I can’t say I ever cared too much what protestants believed or didn’t believe, but I have recently been exposed to a bit of evangelical sourced catholic bashing which got right up my nose and pushed me to put the blowtorch on some of the dodgier protestant beliefs, particularly those that are unbiblical such as the rejection of the real presence, predestination and, for some, the rejection of the sacramental nature of baptism.
As an example, a friend of mine is a uniting church minister but rejects the tenet of strong predestination even though this is important within the calvinist belief system.
Not that surprising (from the initial unification of said denomination, it has included amongst others Arminian Methodists.)
Still on soteriology, Rome itself isn’t completely united; what with Molinist and neo-Thomist wings long having been officially tolerated and Trent fudging between them.
Well I just learnt a new word. I am afraid I am not across the various schools you have listed. Personally, I think active debate is a healthy thing.
With regard to papal infallibility, I suspect that the view talked about in evangelical circles is probably a straw man and informed by 17century nationalistic ideas of “popery” rather than religious views in particular.
Before they confuse honest decent Protestant folk I think Messers Storer and Wynter should read the code of canon law:
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.
Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
