Fallacies of sola scriptura

[JonNC]

No sale. The truth you were talking about was the correct interpretation of Scripture – which, as an adherent of sola scriptura, you must consider more important than anything. You said the Catholic Church’s interpretation was true for Catholics. If it’s true only for Catholics, then it can’t be true for anyone else. That’s tantamount to denying that there is one Truth.

Not trying to sell anything. You included John 14:6, and I responded to that.

And it is true for Catholics, as Catholics are the only ones who abide by the Magisterium.
Do you deny that it is true for you? I don’t. I believe we should view scripture as the final norm. Assuming a singular truth, one of us is wrong. Truth is not subject do our agreement or disagreement.

Kind regards,
Jon

 

[jerryb1020]

Happy to help you! First, I want you to know that the LORD Jesus Christ had you personally in mind when He went to the cross. “Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” The number 12 pertains to Israel: [1] Twelve patriarchs [2] Twelve tribes [3] Twelve thrones (on earth) to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. I believe everything they said because the Word of God is true. The twelve ministered to Israel as per their instructions from the LORD Jesus Christ. Israel has an earthly hope. The twelve had to learn about the Body of Christ from Paul. They then agreed with Paul that they would confine their ministry to Israel. “Read the address on the envelope!” James writes to the “twelve tribes …” [Israel]. Peter writes to the Jews of the dispersion [Israel]. John writes to “My little children.” [Israel]. Israel will one day be the head and not the tail [on earth]. They will evangelize the Gentiles [on earth]. The Body of Christ has a heavenly hope - the “catching away” of the church-age believers. Our citizenship is in heaven. If you are going to study the Body of Christ you must be in Paul’s epistles. When our Lord used the Hebraic idiom of “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” He was addressing the Jews in the Synagogue. “Eating and drinking” denotes the operation of the mind in receiving and digesting [mentally] truth of the Word of God. Note Deut. 8:3; Jer. 15:16.

QuickCat:
You are good, but I do have a question. If you were my pastor, would your interpretations of Scripture be binding on my conscience and on the members of your congregation?

Concerning your last two sentences: “When our Lord used the Hebraic idiom of “eating His flesh and drinking His blood,” He was addressing the Jews in the Synagogue. “Eating and drinking” denotes the operation of the mind in receiving and digesting [mentally] truth of the Word of God.”

How do you know you are right? How can I know you are right? If your interpretations conflict with those of three nearby churches, how would anyone know who is right? I would like certitude if what I hear is binding on my conscience.

Compare your interpretation to John 6
V 53: Jews: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
V54: Jesus: ‘Amen amen (listen up guys – this in important) I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
V55: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day.
V56: For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed.
V57:He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.
V67: From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

Now I am not a scholar, but that last verse seems to indicate that the Jews didn’t see v. 53 -57 as
“receiving and digesting [mentally] truth of the Word of God.”

I find it interesting that every person I know who believes in sola scriptura has a library of at least 50 to 100 books by Protestant authors giving their interpretations of scripture. Are they not influenced by the interpretations and conclusions of the authors?

Consider this: William Barclay, a Protestant Scholar, commenting on Matthew 18:15-18 wrote:
“It is not possible that Jesus said this in its present form. Jesus could not have told his disciples to take things to the Church, for it did not exist; and the passage implies a fully developed and organized Church with a system of ecclesiastical discipline….And the last verse actually seems to give the Church the power to retain and to forgive sins. Although this passage is certainly not a correct report of what Jesus said, it is equally certain that it goes back to something he did say. Can we press behind it a come to the actual commandment of Jesus?”

Wow, wow, wow! “Although this passage is certainly not a correct report of what Jesus said …”
Does he mean what I think he means? Is he denying what the Apostles understood Jesus to say and mean?
If the Apostles got that wrong, what else did they get wrong? If Barclay is right, is there an inspired Bible? Can anything in it be trusted? Where is the certitude that I and the rest of the congregation can rely on?

What happened to the context where Jesus said:
“You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.”
“I will send the Holy Spirit to remind you of all that I said and lead you to the truth.”
“Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven.” (Whatever was bound had to be absolutely correct as God cannot bind an error.)
“He who hears you hears me. He who rejects you rejects me.”
“Whose sins you forgive are forgives, whose sins you retain are retained.”
“Go forth and teach all nations.”
“I will be with you till the end of the world.”

My conclusion: Jesus did not start a church and leave the Apostles unprepared to have it continue past their lives. Jesus did plan or want 10,000 denominations teaching thousands of variations of the truth. He has not led anyone to start a splinter group off His church. He prayed for unity. Paul chastised the Corinthians for their lack of unity. There is doctrinal unity in the Catholic Church. There is hierarchical succession from my current pastor, Fr. Jim, right back to Peter. And if Fr. Jim teaches something that seems inconsistent with Scripture, I can take that ‘upstairs’ to our local Bishop, and ‘upstairs’ to Rome if necessary, but through it all, I can be assured that what is taught is in total agreement with what the Apostles heard, understood, practiced, taught, and in some cases, died for. That is certitude I can take to the bank!

 

[jerryb1020]

Happy to help you! First, I want you to know that the LORD Jesus Christ had you personally in mind when He went to the cross. “Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” The number 12 pertains to Israel: [1] Twelve patriarchs [2] Twelve tribes [3] Twelve thrones (on earth) to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. I believe everything they said because the Word of God is true. The twelve ministered to Israel as per their instructions from the LORD Jesus Christ. Israel has an earthly hope. The twelve had to learn about the Body of Christ from Paul. They then agreed with Paul that they would confine their ministry to Israel. “Read the address on the envelope!” James writes to the “twelve tribes …” [Israel]. Peter writes to the Jews of the dispersion [Israel]. John writes to “My little children.” [Israel]. Israel will one day be the head and not the tail [on earth]. They will evangelize the Gentiles [on earth]. The Body of Christ has a heavenly hope - the “catching away” of the church-age believers. Our citizenship is in heaven. If you are going to study the Body of Christ you must be in Paul’s epistles. When our Lord used the Hebraic idiom of “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” He was addressing the Jews in the Synagogue. “Eating and drinking” denotes the operation of the mind in receiving and digesting [mentally] truth of the Word of God. Note Deut. 8:3; Jer. 15:16.

John 6

QuickCat:
You are good, but I do have a question. If you were my pastor, would your interpretations of Scripture be binding on my conscience and on the members of your congregation?

Concerning your last two sentences: “When our Lord used the Hebraic idiom of “eating His flesh and drinking His blood,” He was addressing the Jews in the Synagogue. “Eating and drinking” denotes the operation of the mind in receiving and digesting [mentally] truth of the Word of God.”

How do you know you are right? How can I know you are right? If your interpretations conflict with those of three nearby churches, how would anyone know who is right? I would like certitude if what I hear is binding on my conscience.

Compare your interpretation to John 6
V 53: Jews: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
V54: Jesus: ‘Amen amen (listen up guys – this in important) I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
V55: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day.
V56: For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed.
V57:He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.
V67: From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

Now I am not a scholar, but that last verse seems to indicate that the Jews didn’t see v. 53 -57 as
“receiving and digesting [mentally] truth of the Word of God.”

I find it interesting that every person I know who believes in sola scripture has a library of at least 50 to 100 books by Protestant authors giving their interpretations of scripture. Are they not influenced by the interpretations and conclusions of the authors?

Consider this: William Barclay, a Protestant Scholar, commenting on Matthew 18:15-18 wrote:
“It is not possible that Jesus said this in its present form. Jesus could not have told his disciples to take things to the Church, for it did not exist; and the passage implies a fully developed and organized Church with a system of ecclesiastical discipline….And the last verse actually seems to give the Church the power to retain and to forgive sins. Although this passage is certainly not a correct report of what Jesus said, it is equally certain that it goes back to something he did say. Can we press behind it a come to the actual commandment of Jesus?”

Wow, wow, wow! “Although this passage is certainly not a correct report of what Jesus said …”
Does he mean what I think he means? Is he denying what the Apostles understood Jesus to say … and mean?
If the Apostles got that wrong, what else did they get wrong? If Barclay is right, is there an inspired Bible? Can anything in it be trusted? Where is the certitude that I and the rest of the congregation can rely on?

What happened to the context where Jesus said:
“You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.”
“I will send the Holy Spirit to remind you of all that I said and lead you to the truth.”
“Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven.” (Whatever was bound had to be absolutely correct as God cannot bind an error.)
“He who hears you hears me. He who rejects you rejects me.”
“Whose sins you forgive are forgives, whose sins you retain are retained.”
“Go forth and teach all nations.”
“I will be with you till the end of the world.”

My conclusion: Jesus did not start a church and leave the Apostles unprepared to have it continue past their lives. Jesus did not plan or want 10,000 denominations teaching thousands of variations of the truth. He has not led anyone to start a splinter group off His church. He prayed for unity. There is doctrinal unity in the Catholic Church. There is hierarchical succession from my current pastor, Fr. Jim, right back to Peter. And if Fr. Jim teaches something that seems inconsistent with Scripture, I can take that ‘upstairs’ to our local Bishop, and ‘upstairs’ to Rome if necessary, but through it all, I can be assured that what is taught is in total agreement with what the Apostles heard, understood, practiced, taught, and in some cases, died for. That is certitude I can take to the bank! (A heavenly bank, for sure.)

 

[Murphs10]

And it is true for Catholics, as Catholics are the only ones who abide by the Magisterium.
Do you deny that it is true for you? I don’t. I believe we should view scripture as the final norm.

Greetings Jon,

How can scripture be normative when it requires an interpretation? Scripture is such that it doesn’t speak for itself. If it did, this website would be barren and moot. So, there must be a normative interpretation in my view.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Not trying to sell anything. You included John 14:6, and I responded to that.

And it is true for Catholics, as Catholics are the only ones who abide by the Magisterium.
Do you deny that it is true for you? I don’t. I believe we should view scripture as the final norm. Assuming a singular truth, one of us is wrong. Truth is not subject do our agreement or disagreement.

Kind regards,
Jon

Greetings Jon,

How can scripture be normative when it requires an interpretation? Scripture is such that it doesn’t speak for itself. If it did, this website would be barren and moot. So, there must be a normative interpretation in my view.

Every time I hear the words “true for you” all I think is “logical fallacy”. Nothing can be “true for you” without being also true for everyone, unless it is a subjective idea: I like this, he likes that, etc. etc.

The fundamental logical principle is the “principle of non-contradiction”, a thing cannot simultaneously be and not be. Let me shout this please THERE ARE NO SHADES OF GRAY WITH GOD all things are truth or untruth. There is no such thing as true for you.

JonNC, I love reading your posts: They are well researched, well thought out, and show your intelligence. Yet you keep “copping-out” with the “True for you”. Do you believe that God created the world? Do you believe that we are created in Gods image? Are we not a logical people? Does it not therefore follow that God is logical? If God is logical (fundamentally the closest we can come to making a statement about God is that he is loving and logical) then it clearly MUST follow that a thing is either true or not true. Either our Catholic interpretation of the Bible, God, and theology in general is true, or it is not. If it is not, then any other interpretation may be equally likely to be true.

But no theological understanding or statement can be “True for you”. It is logically impossible.

Seriously, it is our right in this country to state that we are correct and support our position to the exclusion of all others. We may not force our opinions on others, but by all things Holy, STAND UP FOR YOUR BELIEFS. And “true for you” does not do that in any way.

Sorry for the rant, I just get… rantsy sometimes (and yes, I invented the word)

FSC

 

[QuickCat]

have you read 1Corinthians1 at all? Aren’t you doing exactly what Paul said not to do, dividing the church?

10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
12 I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to 5 Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?​

I have read 1 Corinthians [many times]. Paul mentions the 7 unities of the Body of Christ in Ephesians 4:4-6. Have you noted that the Word of God calls us to [1] Salvation [2] Separation [3] Service? Another question: Have you noticed that Paul describes how we are “approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.” You seem to want to ignore this verse as well as ignore the following: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” [Mt. 15:24] “…ye shall sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel” [Mt. 19:28]. You seem to want to “spiritualize” the fact that Israel was promised a land, a king and a kingdom on earth. The 11 asked our Lord about the time element of this kingdom after He had spent 40 days opening the Scriptures to them concerning this kingdom [Acts 1:6]. Why do you think the 11 made it their first order of business in Acts to bring their number back up to 12? Why, after James was killed in Acts 12:2 the apostles did not replace him?

 

[QuickCat]

John 6

QuickCat:
You are good, but I do have a question. If you were my pastor, would your interpretations of Scripture be binding on my conscience and on the members of your congregation?

Concerning your last two sentences: “When our Lord used the Hebraic idiom of “eating His flesh and drinking His blood,” He was addressing the Jews in the Synagogue. “Eating and drinking” denotes the operation of the mind in receiving and digesting [mentally] truth of the Word of God.”

How do you know you are right? How can I know you are right? If your interpretations conflict with those of three nearby churches, how would anyone know who is right? I would like certitude if what I hear is binding on my conscience.

Compare your interpretation to John 6
V 53: Jews: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
V54: Jesus: ‘Amen amen (listen up guys – this in important) I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
V55: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day.
V56: For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed.
V57:He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.
V67: From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

Now I am not a scholar, but that last verse seems to indicate that the Jews didn’t see v. 53 -57 as
“receiving and digesting [mentally] truth of the Word of God.”

I find it interesting that every person I know who believes in sola scripture has a library of at least 50 to 100 books by Protestant authors giving their interpretations of scripture. Are they not influenced by the interpretations and conclusions of the authors?

Consider this: William Barclay, a Protestant Scholar, commenting on Matthew 18:15-18 wrote:
“It is not possible that Jesus said this in its present form. Jesus could not have told his disciples to take things to the Church, for it did not exist; and the passage implies a fully developed and organized Church with a system of ecclesiastical discipline….And the last verse actually seems to give the Church the power to retain and to forgive sins. Although this passage is certainly not a correct report of what Jesus said, it is equally certain that it goes back to something he did say. Can we press behind it a come to the actual commandment of Jesus?”

Wow, wow, wow! “Although this passage is certainly not a correct report of what Jesus said …”
Does he mean what I think he means? Is he denying what the Apostles understood Jesus to say … and mean?
If the Apostles got that wrong, what else did they get wrong? If Barclay is right, is there an inspired Bible? Can anything in it be trusted? Where is the certitude that I and the rest of the congregation can rely on?

What happened to the context where Jesus said:
“You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.”
“I will send the Holy Spirit to remind you of all that I said and lead you to the truth.”
“Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven.” (Whatever was bound had to be absolutely correct as God cannot bind an error.)
“He who hears you hears me. He who rejects you rejects me.”
“Whose sins you forgive are forgives, whose sins you retain are retained.”
“Go forth and teach all nations.”
“I will be with you till the end of the world.”

My conclusion: Jesus did not start a church and leave the Apostles unprepared to have it continue past their lives. Jesus did not plan or want 10,000 denominations teaching thousands of variations of the truth. He has not led anyone to start a splinter group off His church. He prayed for unity. There is doctrinal unity in the Catholic Church. There is hierarchical succession from my current pastor, Fr. Jim, right back to Peter. And if Fr. Jim teaches something that seems inconsistent with Scripture, I can take that ‘upstairs’ to our local Bishop, and ‘upstairs’ to Rome if necessary, but through it all, I can be assured that what is taught is in total agreement with what the Apostles heard, understood, practiced, taught, and in some cases, died for. That is certitude I can take to the bank! (A heavenly bank, for sure.)

Thanks for your concern. Is the Lord Jesus Christ an actual door? [John 10:2,7,9. Is the Lord Jesus Christ actual water? [John 4:10]. Paul describes the church of this dispensation as “one bread” in 1 Cor. 10:17. Is the church actually a loaf of bread? BTW, Barclay was excellent in the historical, but he was awful theologically. The verses you quote inre binding and forgiving fit wonderfully well with Mt 19:28, but do not at all fit the Body of Christ. The 12 will sit on those thrones judging Israel [on earth] when our Lord sets up His earthly kingdom. You transliterate Mt. 28:19 - you use the word “world” and you should have used the word “age” [aion]. What age would that be???

 

[FathersKnowBest]

QuickCat,
I was just wondering if you could respond to my Post #92. Thanks.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
have you read 1Corinthians1 at all? Aren’t you doing exactly what Paul said not to do, dividing the church?

QuickCat, why did you change the subject? Aren’t you dividing the body of Christ, which is what 1Corinthians1 warns about?

And sure, Israel was the promised land from which the Messiah sprung forth. And sure there is symbolism with the 12 heads of the new Israel so they needed to replace Judas Iscariot to have 12 loyal Apostles in heaven… But you are reading way more into this than is there if you think St. Paul is leading a different religion than the other Apostles. After all, he went to Peter twice (as shown in Galatians 1 and 2) to make sure he was preaching a consistent message. once at the beginning of his ministry and once 14 years later at the Council of Jerusalem. Also Peter validated Paul’s epistles as scripture in 2Peter3.

By the way, the Apostels were Jesus’ witnesses on earth. They were replaced by the bishops they named. This includes James.

 

[paul_c]

Thanks for your concern. Is the Lord Jesus Christ an actual door? [John 10:2,7,9. Is the Lord Jesus Christ actual water? [John 4:10]. Paul describes the church of this dispensation as “one bread” in 1 Cor. 10:17. Is the church actually a loaf of bread? BTW, Barclay was excellent in the historical, but he was awful theologically. The verses you quote inre binding and forgiving fit wonderfully well with Mt 19:28, but do not at all fit the Body of Christ. The 12 will sit on those thrones judging Israel [on earth] when our Lord sets up His earthly kingdom. You transliterate Mt. 28:19 - you use the word “world” and you should have used the word “age” [aion]. What age would that be???

Quick Cat,
When Jeus said he was the door, or the vine, or the cornerstone, or the good shepherd, people understood the metaphor. Likewise, when he said that you needed to eat his body and drink his blood to have life within you, people took him at face value. If they thought it was a metaphor, they would not have abandonned him as the did in John 6: 66.

For those willing to stay with Jesus, he elaborated on this in the last supper discourses, where he says in Luke 22:
19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”
20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
See how this links to John 6:
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever

And in case you claim that this was only for the Jews, see what Paul says to the Corinthians in 1Corinthians 11:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

he also says in 1Corinthians 10:
16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Now as you can see, if you don’t partake of the body and blood of Christ you do not have life within you and you are not part of the Body of Christ

 

[po18guy]

When our Lord used the Hebraic idiom of “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” He was addressing the Jews in the Synagogue. “Eating and drinking” denotes the operation of the mind in receiving and digesting [mentally] truth of the Word of God. Note Deut. 8:3; Jer. 15:16.

OK, let’s look at what Paul taught: in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, regarding the Lord’s supper. It is a “sharing” or “participation” in the Lord’s Body and Blood. If you eat and drink unworthily, you eat and drink condemnation unto yourself. So, are you implying that simple human failure to “mentally digest this idiom” condemns you to eternal hell?

I must also point out that your interpretation is less than 500 years old and completely ignores or disregards a nearly 2,000 year old belief and practice. Your assertion means that the early Church fathers got it all wrong. You can’t be saying this, can you?

Scripture, without proper interpretation is a foundation of sand.

 

[po18guy]

Quick Cat,
When Jeus said he was the door, or the vine, or the cornerstone, or the good shepherd, people understood the metaphor. Likewise, when he said that you needed to eat his body and drink his blood to have life within you, people took him at face value. If they thought it was a metaphor, they would not have abandonned him as the did in John 6: 66.

For those willing to stay with Jesus, he elaborated on this in the last supper discourses, where he says in Luke 22:
19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”
20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.
See how this links to John 6:
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever

And in case you claim that this was only for the Jews, see what Paul says to the Corinthians in 1Corinthians 11:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

he also says in 1Corinthians 10:
16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

Now as you can see, if you don’t partake of the body and blood of Christ you do not have life within you and you are not part of the Body of Christ

Notice also the timing of the institution of the Holy Eucharist: the last supper, and just before the Shepherd was struck and the flock scattered. It was their strength to return to Him and to gather on that first day of the week. For the Passover to be valid, the lamb had to be eaten. Jesus’ flesh, which He gave for the life of the world, also had to be eaten.

This very recent heresy has been nurtured by the evil one to divide the Body of Christ.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote
Originally posted by Quickcat
When our Lord used the Hebraic idiom of “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” He was addressing the Jews in the Synagogue. “Eating and drinking” denotes the operation of the mind in receiving and digesting [mentally] truth of the Word of God. Note Deut. 8:3; Jer. 15:16.

OK, let’s look at what Paul taught: in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, regarding the Lord’s supper. It is a “sharing” or “participation” in the Lord’s Body and Blood. If you eat and drink unworthily, you eat and drink condemnation unto yourself. So, are you implying that simple human failure to “mentally digest this idiom” condemns you to eternal hell?

I must also point out that your interpretation is less than 500 years old and completely ignores or disregards a nearly 2,000 year old belief and practice. Your assertion means that the early Church fathers got it all wrong. You can’t be saying this, can you?

Scripture, without proper interpretation is a foundation of sand.

You are correct but let’s take Quickcats interpretation ands plug it into 1Co 11:27-29 and see if it makes sense, okay? 1 Co 11:27-29 says:

"27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Now with Quickcats interpretation:

27 Wherefore whosoever shall receive and mentally digest the word of God, unworthily, shall be guilty of the word of God. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him receive and mentally digest the word of God. 29 For he that receives and mentally digests the word of God unworthily, receives and mentally digests damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body."

How does one receive and mentally digest the word of God unworthily? To be unworthy means to have sinned. Those who receive and mentally digest the word of God do so as sinners. So we are to examine ourselves and if we are sinners know that by receiving and mentally digesting the word of God we receive and mentally digest our own damnation. According to Quickcat’s interpretation the Word of God does not save, it condemns.

 

[JonNC]

Greetings Jon,

How can scripture be normative when it requires an interpretation? Scripture is such that it doesn’t speak for itself. If it did, this website would be barren and moot. So, there must be a normative interpretation in my view.

So, what if that normative interpretation is not accountable? Or, what if the interpreter has nothing that requires him to be reflective of scripture?

I think you are talking about hermeneutics, and of course there must be that. All Lutherans are saying is that scripture must be the final norm, as that is the only thing that can hold teachings accountable. I rely on the hermeneutics of the Church.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=FidesSpesCarita;6644579]Every time I hear the words “true for you” all I think is “logical fallacy”. Nothing can be “true for you” without being also true for everyone, unless it is a subjective idea: I like this, he likes that, etc. etc.

The fundamental logical principle is the “principle of non-contradiction”, a thing cannot simultaneously be and not be. Let me shout this please THERE ARE NO SHADES OF GRAY WITH GOD all things are truth or untruth. There is no such thing as true for you.

JonNC, I love reading your posts: They are well researched, well thought out, and show your intelligence. Yet you keep “copping-out” with the “True for you”. Do you believe that God created the world? Do you believe that we are created in Gods image? Are we not a logical people? Does it not therefore follow that God is logical? If God is logical (fundamentally the closest we can come to making a statement about God is that he is loving and logical) then it clearly MUST follow that a thing is either true or not true. Either our Catholic interpretation of the Bible, God, and theology in general is true, or it is not. If it is not, then any other interpretation may be equally likely to be true.

But no theological understanding or statement can be “True for you”. It is logically impossible.

Seriously, it is our right in this country to state that we are correct and support our position to the exclusion of all others. We may not force our opinions on others, but by all things Holy, STAND UP FOR YOUR BELIEFS. And “true for you” does not do that in any way.

Sorry for the rant, I just get… rantsy sometimes (and yes, I invented the word)

FSC

Hi FSC,
Thank you for your kind words. May I suggest that you reread the post you responded to. I said clearly there is only one truth. Either sola scriptura is correct, or scripture and tradition is correct. Both cannot be true, at least as we currently define them.

I would also say that both of the following is true:

I stand for my beliefs; that the practice of sola scriptura holds accountable all teachers and teachings, that it does not exclude in any way Tradition, councils and creeds, or confessions.

That Catholics truly believe that Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium hold the full deposit of faith.

That I shout with you that there are no shades of gray with God. Sometimes, however, our sinful nature shades our ability to see His truth in harmony and unity. Pray for reconciliation.

Jon

 

[Des]

All Lutherans are saying is that scripture must be the final norm, as that is the only thing that can hold teachings accountable.

I’ve heard you preach this maybe 5 or 6 months ago on here and it’s still as much a paradox now as it was then.

 

[JonNC]

I’ve heard you preach this maybe 5 or 6 months ago on here and it’s still as much a paradox now as it was then.

That’s fine, Des.

Blessings,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

I’ve heard you preach this maybe 5 or 6 months ago on here and it’s still as much a paradox now as it was then.

A couple of afterthoughts:

1. I’m sorry I haven’t explained it well, but rest assured I am not trying to convince anyone.
   So, I’m not preaching.
2. My only hope is to let some folks know that SS is not the American Evangelical model of throw everything out if its not explicit in the Bible. I hope I’ve done that, at least.

Jon

 

[CoachSTL]

A couple of afterthoughts:

1. I’m sorry I haven’t explained it well, but rest assured I am not trying to convince anyone.
   So, I’m not preaching.
2. My only hope is to let some folks know that SS is not the American Evangelical model of throw everything out if its not explicit in the Bible. I hope I’ve done that, at least.

Jon

JonNC,

Would it be correct to say that Jesus teaching is Catholic?

 

[Des]

1. My only hope is to let some folks know that SS is not the American Evangelical model of throw everything out if its not explicit in the Bible. I hope I’ve done that, at least.

Jon

So you mean with any Catholic Dogma you disagree on, it’s not necessary to go to your Bible to disprove it?