Posted on 08/24/2014 3:18:46 AM PDT by markomalley
The Gospel today sets forth the biblical basis for the Office of Peter—the Office of the Papacy—for Peter’s successors are the popes. The word “pope” is simply an English version (via Anglo-Saxon and Germanic tongues) of the word “papa.” The Pope is affectionately called “Papa” in Italian and Spanish as an affectionate indication that he is the father of the family, the Church.
That Peter receives an office and not simply a charismatic designation we will discuss later. As to certain objections regarding the Office of the Papacy, we will also deal with them later. But for now let’s look at the basic establishment of the Office of Peter in three steps.
I. The Inquiry that Illustrates – The text says, Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi and he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?“
It should be noted that in asking these questions Jesus is not merely curious about what people think of Him. He seems, rather, to be using these questions as a vehicle by which to teach the apostles, and us, about how the truth is adequately revealed and guaranteed.
Jesus’ first two questions reveal the inadequacy of two common methods.
1. The Poll - Jesus asks who the crowds say that He is. In modern times we love to take polls and many moderns put a lot of stock in what polls say. Many people (Catholics among them) like to point out that x% of Catholics think this or that about moral teachings or about doctrines and disciplines. It is as if the fact that more than 50% of Catholics think something makes it true, and that the Church should change her teaching based on this.
But as this gospel makes clear, taking a poll doesn’t necessarily yield the truth. In fact ALL the assertions of the crowd were wrong no matter what percentage held them. Jesus is not John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets redivivus. So, running the Church by poll-taking or democracy seems not to be a model that works.
2. The Panel - Jesus, having taught this implicitly, now turns to a group of experts, a “blue-ribbon panel” if you will. He asks the twelve, “Who do you (apostles) say that I am?” Here we simply get silence. Perhaps they were looking around like nervous students in a classroom, not wanting to answer lest they look foolish. The politics on the panel led not to truth but to a kind of self-serving, politically correct silence.
That Peter finally speaks up is true. But, as Jesus will say, he does not do this because he is a member of the panel but for another reason altogether.
Hence the blue-ribbon panel, the committee of experts, is not adequate in setting forth the religious truth of who Jesus is.
And through this line of questioning, Jesus instructs through inquiry. Polls and panels are not adequate in yielding the firm truth as to His identity. All we have are opinions or politically correct silence. Having set forth this inadequacy, the Gospel now presses forward to describe God’s plan in setting forth the truths of faith.
II. The Individual that is Inspired - The text says, Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”
We are taught here not merely that Peter spoke, but also how he came to know the truth. Jesus is very clear to teach us that Peter spoke rightly not because he was the smartest (he probably wasn’t), or because some one else told him (Jesus is clear that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him), or because he happened to guess correctly. Jesus teaches that Peter came to know the truth and speak it because God the Father revealed it to him. God the Father inspires Peter. There is a kind of anointing at work here.
So here is God’s methodology when it comes to adequately revealing and guaranteeing the truths of the faith: He anoints Peter.
It’s not polls or panels that God uses—it’s Peter.
And while truths may emerge in the wider Church, reflecting what is revealed, it is only with Peter and his successors that such views can be definitively set forth and their truth adequately guaranteed. Thus the other apostles are not merely bypassed by God. He anoints Peter to unite them and give solemn declaration to what they have seen and heard.
The Catechism says the following of Peter and his successors, the popes:
When Christ instituted the Twelve, he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them … The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.
The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head. As such, this college has supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff. The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council. But there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor (Catechism of the Catholic Church, pp. 880-884, selected).
All these truths point back to this moment when we see how God Himself chooses to operate.
And note, too, the dimension of faith we are called to have. We are to assent to the Pope’s teaching and leadership not merely because we think he is smarter, or because it might happen that he has power, riches, or other worldly means that might impress us or compel us to assent. Rather, we assent to the Pope because, by faith, we believe he is inspired by God. It is not in flesh and blood that we put our trust; it is in God Himself, who we believe has acted on our behalf by anointing someone to affirm the truth and adequately guarantee that truth to be revealed by God.
And this then leads to the final stage wherein Jesus sets forth a lasting office for Peter.
III. The Installation that is Initiated - The text says, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Jesus does not merely praise Simon for a moment of charismatic insight. He goes further and declares that He will build his very Church upon Simon, and thus He calls him Peter (rock). And here, too, He does not merely mean this as a personal gift or as a sort of recognition that will die with Peter. In giving Peter the keys, He is establishing an office, not merely a “promotion” for Peter. This will be God’s way of strengthening and uniting the Church. In Luke’s Gospel Jesus says more of this:
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, all that he might sift you all like wheat, but I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith may not fail; and when thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren (Luke 22:31).
Hence it is clear once again that God’s plan for the Church is to strengthen one man, Peter (and his successors), that in turn the whole Church may be strengthened and united. Thus the Lord Jesus establishes not only Peter, but also his office. This is God’s vision and plan for His Church.
It is true that many have objected to this teaching. There is no time here to do a full apologetical reply to every objection. But frankly most of the objections amount to a kind of wishful thinking by some, who want this text to mean something other than what it plainly means. Nothing could be clearer than the fact that Jesus is establishing both Peter and an office that will serve as a foundation for the unity and strength of His Church.
Some object that within other verses Peter will be called “Satan” and will deny Christ. But Jesus knew all this and still said and did what He does here.
Others object that Jesus is the head and foundation, that He is the rock. True enough, but apparently Jesus never got the objectors’ memo, for it is He Himself who calls Peter the rock and establishes him with the authority to bind and loose. It is also true that both Jesus and Peter can be head and rock, in terms of primary and secondary causality (more on that HERE). And in addition that Peter and his successors are head and rock by making visible and being the means through which Christ exercises His headship and foundational aspect.
Finally, let’s return to the title of this post: “If no one is Pope, EVERYONE is pope!” Without a visible head, there is no principle on earth for unity in the Church. The Protestant experiment tried to replace the Pope with Scripture and gave it sole authority. But Protestants cannot agree on what Scripture says and have no earthly way to resolve their conflicts. While they say that authority resides in Scripture alone, the fact is, in claiming the anointing of the Holy Spirit and thus the ability to properly interpret Scripture, they really place the locus of authority within themselves and become the very pope they denounce. Having denied that there is a pope they become pope. If no one is Pope, everyone is pope.
I have read that some objectors think Catholics arrogant in asserting that we have a pope whom we trust to be anointed by God to teach us without error on faith and morals. But which is more arrogant: to claim there is a pope (not me), or to in fact act like one myself?
In the end, the Protestant experiment is a failed one. Many estimates place the number of Protestant denominations as high as 30,000. Personally, I think this is exaggerated—but not by much. Protestants all claim the Scriptures as their source of the truth but differ on many essential matters such as sexual morality, authority, the necessity of baptism, whether once saved is always saved, etc. When they cannot resolve things they simply subdivide. There is an old joke, told even among Protestants, that goes,
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!” Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
A strange little joke, and not entirely fair since most Protestants of different denominations that I know get along fine on a personal level. But the truth is, the denominations disagree over many very important things. The Protestant experiment is a failure that leads only to endless division. The Church needs a visible head. The Bible alone does not suffice, for there are endless disagreements on how to interpret it. Someone must exist to whom all turn and who all agree will resolve the differences after listening.
Jesus installed an individual in this role to manifest His office of rock and head of the Church. That individual was Peter and after, his successors.
Test your argument (this is why I was "insulting," as you put it"), since Augustine is speaking of the "meat which endureth unto everlasting life" that is given by the Son to us, which is the immediate subject of these passages. Thus, to eat this meat, one needs to believe, and this done "without teeth and stomach." Augustine isn't talking about bananas or donuts, but this spiritual meat from heaven.
Here we can already see St Augustine stressing the need for Jesus as a heavenly food. However, as has already been pointed out to you, Tractate 26 (starting from paragraph 15 onward) more fully develops this concept and indeed the belief he had that the Eucharist was indeed His flesh and blood.
And he goes on to say the same things. From Tractate 26:
“Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food.
(12) What then did the Lord answer to such murmurers? Murmur not among yourselves. As if He said, I know why you are not hungry, and do not understand nor seek after this bread. Murmur not among yourselves: no man can come unto me, except the Father that sent me draw him. Noble excellence of grace! No man comes unless drawn. There is whom He draws, and there is whom He draws not; why He draws one and draws not another, do not desire to judge, if you desire not to err.” (Augustine, Tractate 26)
He even has a nice little Calvinistic conclusion there for us.
He's saying that we shouldn't look to Jesus to fill our bellies (in other words as Someone who is some kind of heavenly ATM providing us things here on earth), rather He is the source of life itself therefore we must believe in Him first before anything else including seeking after any carnal need or desire.
This ignores the context of the verses he is dealing with, which are:
Joh 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
This "meat that the Son of man shall give unto you" can be nothing else but Himself, which is eaten through faith "without teeth and stomach."
Here we can already see St Augustine stressing the need for Jesus as a heavenly food. However, as has already been pointed out to you, Tractate 26 (starting from paragraph 15 onward) more fully develops this concept and indeed the belief he had that the Eucharist was indeed His flesh and blood.
Augustine holds to suprasubstantiation. He believes in Christ's presence in the Eucharist in a spiritual sense. The Eucharist is both Christ Himself on the table, and the Christians (we also are the bread); and it is through faith that we spiritually commune together in the celebration of Christ's body. The elements themselves, however, are not transubstantiated. Indeed, they "pass away," and are consumed, although Christ and the Church are not consumed.
“What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end.” (Augustine, Ser. 227)
Augustine does not hold to a Zwinglian type view of the Eucharist, that it is purely symbolic. But he does hold that there is a difference between the spiritual and the physical. And thus, in a spiritual way, Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, but you are not actually eating chunks of Christ's liver.
I agree with the Catholic Notion of infused Grace, not Imputed or Forensic Protestant notion.
End of story
That there is ONLY salvation found thru the church?
Catholics say the same thing so, if you believe that Catholics claim to eat Jesus' liver then no wonder you don't accept the teaching. There's a difference between the physical and the substantive. We don't say He is physically present in the Eucharist (as if we are chewing on a piece of meat) but He is substantially present (and this literally present)
With that said I guess we are just going to have to continue to disagree about what St Augustine is talking about in the Tractate 25 quote you always post. I say it's about the insufficiency of carnal food to give everlasting life, you say it's about the Eucharistic feast. Fine.
If it is about the Eucharist though then you (and anyone who agrees with you) claims St Augustine was teaching there is no need to celebrate the Last Supper. That is, there's no reason at all to even receive the "symbolic" Eucharist, because, after all, just "believe, and you have eaten already".
So don't even eat a symbol. "Just believe".
It's amazing though you quote his sermon 227. Here's another portion of that sermon:
"That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. (Augustine, Sermons, 227)."
Now I suppose you will continue to see that through the lens of "believe and you have eaten already" and I can't help that. Again, we just disagree what was being discussed at that time. I submit though to anyone else reading this post to read the entire paragraph again. It's clear (at least to me) the Saint is stressing the need for faith in Christ first, before anything else. And that the food He provides is not food to fill a belly, but grant life eternal.
""12. “They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:”13 there are works which appear good, without faith in Christ; but they are not good, because they are not referred to that end in which works are good; “for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”14 For that reason, He willeth not to distinguish faith from work, but declared faith itself to be work. For it is that same faith that worketh by love.15 Nor did He say, This is your work; but, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent;” so that he who glories, may glory in the Lord. And because He invited them to faith, they, on the other hand, were still asking for signs by which they might believe. See if the Jews do not ask for signs. “They said therefore rate Him, What sign doest thou, that we may see and believe thee? what dost thou work?” Was it a trifle that they were fed with five loaves? They knew this indeed, but they preferred manna from heaven to this food. But the Lord Jesus declared Himself to be such an one, that He was superior to Moses. For Moses dared not say of Himself that He gave, “not the meat which perisheth, but that which endureth to eternal life.” Jesus promised something greater than Moses gave. By Moses indeed was promised a kingdom, and a land flowing with milk and honey, temporal peace, abundance of children, health of body, and all other things, temporal goods indeed, yet in figure spiritual; because in the Old Testament they were promised to the old man. They considered therefore the things promised by Moses, and they considered the things promised by Christ. The former promised a full belly on the earth, but of the meat which perisheth; the latter promised, “not the meat which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life.” They gave attention to Him that promised the more, but just as if they did not yet see Him do greater things. They considered therefore what sort of works Moses had done, and they wished yet some greater works to be done by Him who promised them such great things. What, say they, doest thou, that we may believe thee? And that thou mayest know that they compared those former miracles with this and so judged these miracles which Jesus did as being less; “Our fathers,” say they, “did eat manna in the wilderness.” But what is manna? Perhaps ye despise it. “As it is written, He gave them manna to eat.” By Moses our fathers received bread from heaven, and Moses did not say to them, “Labor for the meat which perisheth not.” Thou promisest “meat which perisheth not, but which endureth to eternal life;” and yet thou workest not such works as Moses did. He gave, not barley loaves, but manna from heaven."
Note be didn't say, "eating the meat is a metaphor" he said "to eat the meat, first believe, and then you have eaten already". This is not something that is foreign to a Catholic. You have to believe Jesus first before consuming the consecrated bread. Otherwise it's of no effect.
So the message here is the same. Just because he doesn't say "then receive Him in the Eucharist" doesn't mean St Augustine doesn't believe we shouldn't *also* do that too.
It's a classic case of just taking a specific teaching about a specific topic and applying it more broadly than it should.
Go ahead and reply I don't see any reason to continue. I get it, you disagree. Imagine that, a critic if the Catholic Church disagrees with something it says. If you need to say that again in so many other words though, go for it. It won't show anything new though.
Oh?
Has not your chosen church made all KINDS of statements about it?
HMMMmmm...I'd think that after 358 replies this horse (everyone a pope) has been fairly well flogged to death.
Why NOT ride off in a different direction?
Today's game will be played...
Transubstantiation; too...
I said "liver" since there are Catholic "miracles", which have been posted on FR, which involve wafers transforming into chunks of a liver or a heart in order to demonstrate their true nature. But, probably, it is a piece of a donkey or a chicken that the priest put into a bottle.
I say it's about the insufficiency of carnal food to give everlasting life,
Who cares what you say? What matters is what you can demonstrate. Your assertion is meaningless if you can't answer what I have said. Either Augustine is talking about the "meat" that comes down from heaven, or he isn't. And, obviously, I have proven the former, while you have failed at the latter.
That is, there's no reason at all to even receive the "symbolic" Eucharist, because, after all, just "believe, and you have eaten already".
There is plenty of reason to receive the Eucharist, but not to accomplish what is already done spiritually. It is, as Augustine puts it, to "set our hearts on heaven" and to "treasure unity" amongst ourselves. It is a way of celebrating what has occurred spiritually, not carnally. Why? Because we also are the bread, and the wine, which is offered on the table. Augustine even goes at some length describing how the Christian is like bread, molded unto Christ.
It's amazing though you quote his sermon 227. Here's another portion of that sermon:
I quoted this myself, and none of it contradicts what I have explained are his teachings. Lutherans and even Reformed Presbyterians have these same teachings and speak in the same way. You must come to understand the difference between them and the Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation, which is alien to the scripture, as well as placing salvation into the hands of a carnal act, rather than a spiritual one.
Note be didn't say, "eating the meat is a metaphor" he said "to eat the meat, first believe, and then you have eaten already". This is not something that is foreign to a Catholic. You have to believe Jesus first before consuming the consecrated bread.
Your very own words contradict it. If you have "eaten already," then consuming the consecrated bread is a redundancy.
Too close in some ways anyway.
Both, as in, transubstantiation? This is an easy mistake to make because the Catholics constantly misquote him, or refuse to quote the entire things.
I have not looked into it much, but in any case while the RC may invoke Scripture and or history and tradition, as if that was the basis for their assurance of Truth, this cannot be, else they be as evangelicals in being discerning Truth on the weight of evidence, Scripture being supreme.
Instead, their basis for assurance of Truth rests upon the premise of the assured infallibility of Rome, who has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Thus as have been abundantly evidenced, only what Rome, as the steward of Divine revelation, says Scripture, history and tradition assuredly mean is determinative of Truth for the RC. As if that is how the church began.
And until they allow that the magisterium can be wrong even in principal matters, yet Truth preserved by God raising up men from without it, and be persuaded by the weight of Scriptural substantiation, then they both invalidate the church itself and operate under a cultic system.
Elsie:
Like I said, the topic of the thread was related to the Sunday readings that every Catholic heard at Mass/Liturgy this past Sunday, which was Isiah 22 [the Keys prefiguration] and Mt 16:16-18.
God is the only one who saves, and he saves thru Christ and The Holy Spirit and the Church is the instrument that Christ founded and formed to bring humanity into communion with Him and others. The CCC is out there that goes into this, no need for me to go into it here so that is the readers digest basis. Now what happens to those who are “outside of the Church”, well that is posited positively to say for those not in perfect communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, God does and can use the Church, which is a visible sign of his presence here on earth [So not some Gnostic ecclesiology here from the Catholic perspective] to save those are not fully in communion. So yes, in reference to the well stated theological axiom of the Church Fathers, outside the Church there is no salvation, there have been statements as to what precisely that means [and you will get theologians who have different opinions] but in the end theologians do not in and of themselves define doctrine, they help the Church define it.
So I said more than maybe I thought I would but you asked a question, there is my brief reply. The Catholic Church doesn’t hide what it believes, the CCC is right there online for those interested in further study and reflection on that question.
Indeed it is, as the scripture itself teaches, and as embraced by the Church Fathers as well:
Cyril of Jerusalem on Sola Scriptura:
Not even his own teachings, if it cannot be shown out of the holy scriptures, should be accepted:
“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)
So then the point of “first believe and you have eaten already” is not to say that we shouldn’t receive the Eucharist. So then to quote that as a “refutation” to the Dogma of Transubstantiation is misapplication of the quote because it has nothing to do with the nature of it. It’s not speaking of the nature of the Eucharist rather the importance of the belief in Christ just as I said!
“If you have “eaten already,” then consuming the consecrated bread is a redundancy.”
Again, what you aren’t getting is that kind of “logic” goes both ways if “believe and you have eaten already” means what you say it means. Because I can easily say to you (as I already have), “if you have ‘eaten already’ then consuming a symbol is a redundancy”.
...wipe off your spittle...
The suggestion to look up the verse in the bible was so that it was clear and tangible that the verse is there; not lack of work or laziness on my part. The background work is finding the supporting verses. I will write them if necessary - however they have more impact if actually looked up. Bible studies use this approach, as well.
...After going through a blender...
The reformation (deformation) was the blender. And it came much later.
This is actually an excellent metaphor - Catholic doctrine was came first (1,500 years) and was the ingredient placed in the reformation blender. After such blending mush and error was produced.
Corinthians Cahpter 4 Verse 15
For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.
Paul is clearly a father for the Corinthians and sees himself as such.
Hmmm. Thank you. You’ve basically conceded the point on Aquinas’ inversion of Aristotle’s categories by issuing nothing but a “no he didn’t” denial. In other words, your response didn’t address the “substance” of the charge, so the charge stands until evidence to the contrary is offered.
As for literalness, it is inconsistent to freely accept the abundance of metaphor found on virtually every page of Scripture, only to deny it in this one instance without cause. You have no doubt heard this before, but I am interested to see your response. You know Christ is variously called a door, a vine, manna, the way, the rock, the light of the world, the morning star, etc. etc. etc. So you know by precedent there is nothing unusual or wrong in finding metaphors in Scripture that describe Christ in all His perfections.
But here you have presented a statement that seems to say, or at least imply, that no metaphor is valid. If I am incorrect in this, please correct me. But this is what I hear you saying, and I cannot reconcile it with Scripture, which clearly abounds in metaphor.
Furthermore, those metaphors describe not only Christ, but our relationship to Him. Consider baptism. The water is real enough, but it is not transubstantiated into the washing of our soul from all guilt of sin. Nor is our being lifted out of the baptismal waters an actual resurrection of our body unto eternal glory. But it is a figure, which to apply your radical literalism would result in an absurd heresy, or a whole family of nonsensical untruths.
As if that were not enough, we also know God intended the wilfully unbelieving to remain confused by spiritual truth as He taught it, because Jesus specifically said that was why He taught publicly in parables. And what are parables? Long metaphors!
So,the default setting has to be to expect metaphor. If you tell me to read only for literal meaning, you are effectively telling me to ignore most of Holy Writ. I’m not in a position to comply with that. Man must live, not by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Even when He uses metaphor.
Peace,
SR
“.. default setting has to be a metaphor...”
The bible is often metaphor, and no one denies this, other than my perhaps wrong understanding that bible alone Christians take all of scripture literally, except John 6.
However, certain instructions are NOT metaphor or symbol; the ten commandments and the beatitudes are clear instruction; as well as John 6.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.