It seems to me that your argument could be summarized as:
a) if one accepts the canon of scripture which was determined by the early church (as valid), then one must also accept the doctrine of the real bodily presence (b/c it was also determined to be truth by that same early church).
Yes that it is correct, because we are saying that the Church has the authority to make that kind of statements.
There is another similar argument that goes:
b) if one accepts the doctrine of the Trinity which was declared as truth by the early church (and which is not expressly stated in scripture), then one must also accept the doctrine of the real bodily presence (which is clearly stated in scripture if one denies a figurative interpretation) b/c it was also declared as truth by that same early church.
No, that is not correct. The proof of authority does not come from a definition of the Trinity but from the creation of a sacred canon of scriptures. The two concepts are correlated because they are received from the same authority but they are not to be considered either cause or effect of the other. Anything associated with the logic in paragraph b) is a strawman.
I have seen scholars make a similar argument, albeit the scholarly argument is toned down considerably. It goes like this:
c) if one accepts the canon of scripture which was determined by the early church (as valid), then one must acknowledge that:
1)the early church was capable (by Godās grace) of making an infallible/authoritative determination; and
- then it is possible that the early churchās determination regarding a real bodily presence is also valid/authoritative (by Godās grace).
Although I wouldnāt accept argument (c), it doesnāt fail b/c of bad reasoningā¦it fails b/c the evidence is against it. [you just mention evidence] ā¦
This is a logical fallacy, the reasoning is correct and the only weak point can be in the axiom that states that the Early Church has been given the authority to understand what is the Godās will. You have to provide evidence that the axiom is wrong, and if the axiom is wrong than the Early Church did not have the authority to put together a canon of divinely inspired scriptures and no one has the authority to setup a canon of scriptures. What it is also unreasonable is to say that an Early Church without authority randomly put together a document that is considered divinely inspired by all he Christians.
- It is not that I think that the validity of the doctrine of a RBP should be assessed and that the doctrine of the Trinity or the formulation of the canon should be accepted w/o question. All of these things should be assessed as to legitimacy (b/c the early church consisted of people who were all quite capable of making mistakes both individually and collectively). It is legitimate and good to consider whether the long ending of Mark should be in or out. In this regard, I note that the early church wasnāt in an upheaval b/c some congregations accepted Revelation and others did not. If they could have various, unidentical collections of sacred works, why do we require all to accept the same canon? The fact that Revelation and the long ending of Mark were eventually included by the early church doesnāt make their inclusion legitimate.
The above paragraph should be discounted because it is based on another strawman unrelated to my initial statements. It also appears that you are saying that the canon of sacred scriptures is not divinely inspired, then why do you waste time with it?
- You are comparing apples to oranges. For example, wrt the doctrine of a RBP, it is a question of interpreting whether Christ was speaking figuratively or non-figuratively. Did he mean āis changed intoā or āis a symbol ofā? Further, we can hold the bread in our hands and investigate its statusā¦
The above paragraph is discounted because it is based on a strawman unrelated to my initial statements. You are doing you interpretative choice.
3)Even if one believes that God ensured that the early church managed to get the canon absolutely correct, it does not follow that one must accept (as authoritative) everything else (or anything else) that the early church purported to define. This is obvious. Even if you believe that I am absolutely correct when I tell you that 2 + 2 = 4 it does not follow that you must believe every other mathematical solution that I provide.
That is another logical fallacy where you show your lack of authority to prove that something else does not have authority. A broken clock is right twice a day, does that make it authoritative. We can deduce through with reason that it is not functional and it cannot be trusted.
- The three determinations arenāt interdependent. In other words, The acceptance of the canon does not necessarily lead to Trinitarianism (wasnāt it that the Arians and the Trinitarians were working off the same set of sacred works?..it wasnāt as if the Arians had a Modalistic NT containing a different set of sacred works that supported their view and denied Trinitarianism)ā¦
I think that you are wrong again. The acceptance of canon through the authority of the Church can only lead to Trinitarism. In the case of Arianism you make exactly my point that unless the Early Church has always been authoritative, then anyone can go its own way and the word of God deos not satisfy the basics of non-contradiction.
