An Inconsistency in Evangelical Doctrine?

[LDS Guy 1986]

First, what God is can't be accurately defined with a finite mind.

The classic backed into a corner line that every protestant preacher I ever know tries to drill into the minds of there congregation!

You are half right, we cannot understand everything about God, but that is not an excuse to depend on a preacher's sermon instead of the scriptures to base your faith in.

We are to seek after God, we are too do our best to understand him, better and become more like him.

How can you have a "personal relationship" with someone you can't comprehend?

[mfbukowski]

First, what God is can't be accurately defined with a finite mind. Our words, whether we use Greek Pneuma or Hebrew Rhama, or English Spirit, won't ever completely capture what God is. Because what we are doing is looking at something larger than the Universe, and attempting to describe it in terms that we understand, as finite beings, we will always fail trying to describe the infinite.

Well to be honest I have no intention of arguing with you just for the sake of arguing, but we have a definite disagreement on this point. As I see it we can never understand HOW God does what he does or the mysteries of the universe, but I also think that God is smart enough to reveal himself in terms our puny minds can comprehend- as far as he knows we are capable of comprehending. If I can speak to a 5 year old about death in terms a 5 year old will understand, God can tell me about what I need to know about him in terms I can understand. I don't accept all this "mystery" stuff because I see it not as a failing of what I can understand, but as a failing of God's ability to explain himself. And I don't think that God fails.

Now, your definition of what the writers meant using the word Pneuma, as the "mental disposition" of "being spiritual" is rather ambiguous as well, since you are using the word "spiritual" in your definition. What is spiritual?

Fair enough. How about "the mental disposition to be worshipful"? As Vance pointed out, that scripture is about worship, not about the nature of God or spirit.

I would say that there is no appreciable difference between, God is spirit and God is a spirit. I'm not quite sure what you're making of the difference here.

The implication of "God is A spirit" is that God consists of nothing more than being a spirit. For me, God HAS a spirit, but IS not "only" spirit, just as we are not only spirits.

And yes, the word "trinity" isn't in the bible just as "council of the Gods" isn't in there either.

Lol. Well the concept is certainly there- I don't think we really need to go into this one since it is a derail from the OP. But you need to read some David Bokovoy if you think that the council of the gods is not a Biblical concept.

What is in there are descriptions of both God being one, and God being three persons. So what ever "Godness" is, it is of such a state or essence that three can be one. This is only meant as a way to clarify what scripture plainly says. The use of the word essence, may have come from Platonic doctrine from Greek philosophy, but that doesn't make it wrong, since it's redefined to describe Christian theology. They were Greeks, so it's completely logical that they would use words they understood.

It's interesting that you say "they were Greeks" because I am wondering who "they" are in this sentence.

I am not going to argue much about this- I think that at least as far as this paragraph is concerned we pretty much agree. I find the notion of the social trinity works well for me- that the three persons are unified in love ("God is love") and in purpose (Bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man) in a structure highly similar to a family, or at least that is the closest we can understand it.

But that is not the "orthodox" view of the trinity as "one substance" and I would seriously wonder if your view conforms to the Nicene Creed.

But perhaps I am not arguing because what you are presenting is more of the LDS view than I think the classical EV view is; my argument is more with Luther I suppose than you personally. Your view of the trinity appears to be somewhat unorthodox.

God is spirit or is he love? What makes you think that he can't be both?

He HAS a spirit, and the three persons which make up the family "God" are unified by love. So just as a family is one in love, God is one in love. So in a sense, yes of course, God is love.

We don't use the word "love" to describe one's being or essence, but one's attitude. But, we also don't use the word "spirit" to describe one's attitude, rather one's essence or being.

I don't use any word to describe anythings "being or essence" because I don't believe in such things. "Being or essence" are just concepts which cannot be defined or described without using similarly vague terms in the definition. But yes, we do describe one's attitude with the word "spirit" all the time: "He discussed it with me in a spirit of love" or "I'm getting out of here- there is such a spirit of anger!"

Jesus standing there said, "This is my body..."

The disciples didn't think, "Oh wow, he just broke off a part of his flesh and gave it to us...." Nope. They understood him to literally mean, that the words, "this is my body" means this is a symbol of my body that is broken for you. Do this to remember me. It is taken literally, because it was meant to literally be a symbol of what Jesus did for us.

Hmmm- pretty much agree I guess. Close anyway. I personally believe in as much of the "real presence" as one can get into a symbol. It is as actual as a symbol can be, if that makes sense. It is a "proxy" for his actual presence I suppose.

The context of "God is spirit, those who worship him must do so in Spirit and truth", doesn't mean that all the words for spirit in that passage have to mean the same thing. We don't even do that to ourselves in english.

Sometimes words that are exactly the same, mean different things in different contexts.

If we said that "God is French, therefore we must worship him in French.

You can see that we aren't saying that you must be French to worship him, but rather that you must speak French.

We are describing God's essence as French, which then helps us understand the means by which we connect with him.

The same is true with this passage. The passage says God is spirit, and he must be worshiped in spirit and truth.

I have no problem with what your words actually say here as long as it is not understood to mean that God is made up of (only) spirit, and that is "all" he is. It is clear to me that that is NOT the full meaning of the passage or its intent.

[3DOP]

Hi bukowski...long time. I hope you don't mind what may appear to be slightly derailing.

Besides the obvious differences in our doctrinal beliefs, tt seems to me that another major objection to the Catholic Eucharist by Mormons and Protestants involves misperceptions about the nature of substance and accident. That is what I would like to explore while knowing that our doctrines are incompatible at this point.

According to how I see it, with regards to the Eucharist, or Lord's Supper as you may call it, Mormons believe in no miracle and deny any transformation of substance. The substance is bread and wine (or water) and the accidents include things like color and temperature. Just because a theological concept can be explained according to Aristotelian philosophy does not make it wrong. That seems to be the charge. But Mormon doctrine is fully compatible with Aristotelian notions of substance and accident so far as I can see.

All that follows is for those who would like to maybe try to understand substance and accident according to how I understand it. I don't guess that would be many. I understand. So the question I pose to all is: How would you briefly and precisely explain what Catholics believe about the Eucharist, avoiding Aristotelian terminology?

----------------------------------------------

Substance and Accident is a way to explain change. Accidents are those things that can happen to any object which don't change its substance. For instance, if white wood is painted black, the object in question does not cease to be wood. The wood which did not change is therefore substantial and has received the accidental property of blackness. Most of the time people are agreed as regards what constitutes a substance, and what an accident. I would not anticipate any argument in the example I gave. If the wood is partially consumed by fire you have burned wood. The burns are the accidents and the wood remains. The wood is that which when it is changed, the substance of wood no longer exists. This would occur if the wood were completely incinerated and became ashes and smoke. Is it controversial to suggest that what you have after wood has been consumed by fire is something other than wood?

When we come to the Eucharist, the concepts of substance and accident aren't necessary. The Church went for more than a millenium believing that the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Christ without using this philosophical formula that helps some of us to understand the theology better. You know what we believe I think. How can you say it isn't Transubstantiation? I mean, I know how you can say you don't believe the event happens. I know you find our beliefs problematic. Of course. But your objection seems to be deeper. You seem to object to the way we have explained it lately (last 800 years or so). I can't understand why the description is such a problem, especially when you consider that we believe it to be a miracle, something completely contrary to the ordinary order of things, and simply unbelievable apart from faith? So maybe it would help if you could give what you think is a better description of what Catholics believe happens to the consecrated elements and show why it is more accurate than Transubstantiation. We don't think smoke and ashes are wood under the appearance of smoke and ashes. But we think that with no detectible change, the material substance of bread and wine becomes the accidental form of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. I understand how the idea that any substance can be transubstantiated makes the mind reel. I get that. But for the mind to reel, one has to presuppose the prior substance of bread and wine!

Anyway, it is just an attempt at brevity and precision. I tend to think it must be confusing because of an inability to see what we mean. Assuredly, the definition of the word substance has changed. If one insists on applying a meaning of substance that isn't according to the mind of the Church, it will do more to confuse than to clarify. The beauty of the Aristotelian formula is that you escape the tendency to use words that allow for the bread and wine to exist on a par with Christ. We can't say that Christ is with the bread. We can't say Christ is the bread. We can't say the bread is Christ. Our doctrine requires us to find a way to say that what you see, taste, and swallow is not what your senses tell you it is. (By the way, we have to use our senses all the time to discern substance according to the way Catholics understand substance. The senses are pretty reliable for most practical applications.) At the same time we have to admit that our senses discern something. Something is apparent, but appearances are misleading in this case. That is what we have to explain, and I could easily have forgotten something.

Anyway...sorry for the lengthy explanation that no one will read except maybe you bukowski. I would really be interested in how you would better explain our belief than we have so far. I don't mind if you or anybody else doesn't like the philosophical terminology, just as long as there is no confusion about the theology. Thanks so much for your consideration. I know it is not the exact direction you were going with the thread. But I think it is important that we all are on the same page as to what Catholics really mean if we are going to praise Luther for rejecting it in one place, and criticise him for accepting it another.

Peace,

3DOP

[USU78]

Ooops- yep, ChristKnight is right- I got it backwards.

I thought it was Duns Scotus and, later, the Lollards who pushed consubstantiation and which led to much mischief in Western Christianity. Perhaps I misremember? Lutherans are, as I understood it, agnostic on the subject.

[USU78]

Hey man, I don't want to get into trouble with the Catholic Police!

NObody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[USU78]

Oopsie

[LDS Guy 1986]

NObody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

I congratulate you on coming up with an objection to the doctrine of the Trinity that I had not heard before. Perhaps someone trained in theology and philosophy might be of some help here. If Luther could accuse so sophisticated a thinker as Thomas Aquinas of knowing "neither his philosophy not his logic," perhaps I may be forgiven for questioning the argument of your opening post. You wrote:

Luther rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, saying it came from Greek philosophy. He was right.

Luther accepted the Nicene Creed notion of "substance" in the trinity, also found in Greek philosophy- it was the same idea of "substance" as the one which justified the trinity!

Most Evangelical Christians reject transubstantiation but accept the Nicene Creed notion of the Father and Son being "one substance"

I find that inconsistent. They accept part of Catholic doctrine, but not all of it. Incidentally, Catholics do not have that inconsistency. I disagree with their theology, but at least it is consistent.

Luther did not simply reject transubstantiation because it used a Greek philosophical term or concept. In a later post, you quote Luther himself (finally), where we see quite a different situation, though you apparently don't realize it:

[Hughes]

I don't use any word to describe anythings "being or essence" because I don't believe in such things. "Being or essence" are just concepts which cannot be defined or described without using similarly vague terms in the definition. But yes, we do describe one's attitude with the word "spirit" all the time: "He discussed it with me in a spirit of love" or "I'm getting out of here- there is such a spirit of anger!"

I hope you forgive me. I am only going to respond to this, one because it's late and I'm tired, and two because I think it is the core of your argument, and three because Rob is much better than I at any of this...

Here you said, that we use the term "spirit" to describes one's attitude all the time. Yet, even in your examples, you demonstrated that you don't do that, unless you use an actual attitudinal descriptor. Like Love or Anger.

You see, we never say to someone, you really are "spirit" aren't you? OR that just makes me "spirit" all the time. Sorry it just doesn't work.

Even in your example, the modifier "spirit" indicates what the essence or type of Love or Anger or what have you, you are talking about.

So, in as much as you say you don't "believe in such things." You demonstrated by your usage of "spirit" that you do in fact believe that it describes the type or essence of something you're talking about.

So, back to the point, "God is spirit" describes what God's type of being he is. Just as saying we are both spirit and physical would describe the type of being we are.

[Mudcat]

Here's the problem:

Luther rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, saying it came from Greek philosophy. He was right.

Luther accepted the Nicene Creed notion of "substance" in the trinity, also found in Greek philosophy- it was the same idea of "substance" as the one which justified the trinity!

Most Evangelical Christians reject transubstantiation but accept the Nicene Creed notion of the Father and Son being "one substance"

I find that inconsistent. They accept part of Catholic doctrine, but not all of it. Incidentally, Catholics do not have that inconsistency. I disagree with their theology, but at least it is consistent.

Hey Bukowski,

The thread seems to have gotten a bit more nuanced on the issue.

It's interesting... what you are saying. I still am having a bit of trouble connecting all the dots with your chief complaint. I am going to try and lay out what I think you are saying.

• Premise 1. Luther rejected transubstantiation because it was a doctrine based on Greek philosophy.
  
• Premise 2. Luther accepted the Trinity regardless of the notion that this doctrine was rooted in Greek philosophy.
  
• Premise 3. Evangelicals agree with Luther on both Transubstantiation and the Trinity.
  
• Conclusion 1. Luther's rationale on these doctrines is inconsistent, given the Law of Non-contradiction and also following Premise 1 and Premise 2.
  
• Conclusion 2. Evangelicals rationale on these doctrines is also inconsistent, given Premise 3 & Conclusion 1.
  

Hopefully, that is a fair summary and I imagine if that is all there was to it, you would certainly have the right of Luther's positional inconsistency and by virtue Evangelical inconsistency, as well.

I do think there is more to the story, however. Certainly Luther was no fan of "Greek philosophy" in some respects to be certain. In a letter to a friend, he made the following comment regarding Aristotle's Physics

"these are the unprofitable study of this age. I desire nothing more ardently then to lay open before all eyes this false system' date=' which [b']has tricked the Church by covering itself with a Greek mask; and to expose its worthlessness before the world."

emphasis mine. source

In another letter to the same friend, he writes.

"Our theology and St. Augustine are continuing to prosper and reign in our University through the hand of God. Aristotle is declining daily and is inclining toward a fall which will end him forever. It is remarkable how lectures in the Sentences are despised; no one can hope for an audience unless he proposes to lecture on this theology; that is' date=' the Bible, or St. Augustine, or some other doctor of ecclesiastical authority. Farewell, and pray for me."[/quote']

Same source. I bolded a portion of this statement as I think it is critical to a clear view of what Luther meant in his attacks on Greek philosophy. "Greek Philosophy" is perhaps to broad a term.

I think if we were to define "Greek Philosophy" as Luther would attribute it. "Greek Philosophy" would likely mean anything that has stepped beyond the bounds of the Bible and St. Augustine's view. I think St. Augustine's view, at least to Luther, was tantamount to the Bible.. at least in the respect of establishing a cogent theology from the Bible.

Luther seemed to be addressing, Aquinas' synthesis of Aristotelian thought and it's impact on Catholic doctrine on the notion of Transubstantiation... if I am understanding things correctly.

There was nearly an 850 year span between Augustine and Aquinas. Augustine on one side of the Dark Ages and Aquinas coming on the scene just prior to the cusp of the Renaissance. Not to mention that their was another 200 or so years between Aquinas and Luther himself.

Now Luther certainly thought the Church had gone the wrong direction.. at least since the 12th century to his day. Much of the misdirection was because of Aristotelian thought that had reemerged in the Church in these post Medieval times.

Luther may have had a great dislike for Aristotle, but there is no escaping Aristotle's impact in the West on any subject, let alone religion. As a supporter of Augustine's theology, Luther could certainly not deny the concept of the Trinity. Augustine seemed to hold a standard doctrinal view of the Trinity, based upon what he wrote in On the Trinity, Book I

Chapter 4.

[mfbukowski]

I hope you forgive me. I am only going to respond to this, one because it's late and I'm tired, and two because I think it is the core of your argument, and three because Rob is much better than I at any of this...

Here you said, that we use the term "spirit" to describes one's attitude all the time. Yet, even in your examples, you demonstrated that you don't do that, unless you use an actual attitudinal descriptor. Like Love or Anger.

You see, we never say to someone, you really are "spirit" aren't you? OR that just makes me "spirit" all the time. Sorry it just doesn't work.

I'm not following you. We don't say to someone "you really are 'attitude' aren't you" either. We don't say "you really are 'mood'" either.

Even in your example, the modifier "spirit" indicates what the essence or type of Love or Anger or what have you, you are talking about.

My point is simply that "we worship God in spirit" means something like "we worship God with a worshipful attitude". Yes, it is redundant, but yes, that is what it says.

So, in as much as you say you don't "believe in such things." You demonstrated by your usage of "spirit" that you do in fact believe that it describes the type or essence of something you're talking about.

Speaking about an attitude is simply a discussion of a linguistic category- linguistically, the word "attitude" is used as a general description of many possible emotional states, of which "reverent" or "worshipful" are two. The difference is that it is the ancients thought of such category not as linguistic conveniences, but as being more "real" that what we our senses tell us is "real".

So, back to the point, "God is spirit" describes what God's type of being he is.

Partially, it does. One way we speak about God includes speaking about his "spirit". It is a linguistic term we use to discuss one of the attributes we linguistically ascribe to him. He has many such attributes, and there are many ways of speaking about "what type of being he is", including also, from my point of view, "having a body" just as we speak of people "having" spirits and bodies.

We can also be said to be "spirits". It is a common thing, though admittedly now become rather old fashioned, to speak of people as being "souls". "Oh you poor soul!" "Several thousand souls perished in the Japanese earthquake and tsunami"- I just heard that one on tv a minute ago.

[LeSellers]

We can also be said to be "spirits". It is a common thing, though admittedly now become rather old fashioned, to speak of people as being "souls". "Oh you poor soul!" "Several thousand souls perished in the Japanese earthquake and tsunami"- I just heard that one on tv a minute ago.

Airlines report the number of people on the aircraft as "SOB": "Souls on Board". This distinguishes from the number of paid seats (revenue) from the whole count: crew, passengers, and "lap children"

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

I congratulate you on coming up with an objection to the doctrine of the Trinity that I had not heard before. Perhaps someone trained in theology and philosophy might be of some help here. If Luther could accuse so sophisticated a thinker as Thomas Aquinas of knowing "neither his philosophy not his logic," perhaps I may be forgiven for questioning the argument of your opening post.

Well I am happy for one so well "trained in the ministry" to weigh in on these issues.

Luther did not simply reject transubstantiation because it used a Greek philosophical term or concept. In a later post, you quote Luther himself (finally), where we see quite a different situation, though you apparently don't realize it:

And here of course you quote Luther, but let me insert something at this point

In fact, I think it is more complex than even your erudite explanation supposes. I think in fact Luther can be seen as a "proto-modern" thinker caught in a still medieval world, and though he had inklings of what was to come philosophically with the rejection of Aristotle in the next 200 years, he can be seen as in some ways a precursor of Hume. He really doesn't like "substance" logically and sees the flaws, but doesn't have the philosophical acumen to throw out the entire system. He is still too steeped in medieval culture.

Ultimately, I would argue that this makes him, as I said in the OP, inconsistent in his attack on Aristotle.

.... In his view, a doctrine, to be required as an article of faith for Christians, must have

[mfbukowski]

• Premise 1. Luther rejected transubstantiation because it was an improper/unnecessary usage of "substance theory".
  
• Premise 2. Luther accepted the Trinity because it was a proper usage of "substance theory".
  
• Premise 3. Evangelicals agree with Luther on both Transubstantiation and the Trinity.
  
• Conclusion 1. Luther's rationale on these doctrines is consistent, following Premise 1 and Premise 2.
  
• Conclusion 2. Evangelicals rationale on these doctrines is also consistent, given Premise 3 & Conclusion 1.
  

Now there is a boatload of hidden premises that ought to be injected into that "fix". Including how proper/improper usage of "substance theory" is ascertained. But, I am out of time for the moment. I don't mind exploring the issue further though.

Regards,

Mudcat

Hey Mr. Mud- how you be??

I pretty much agree with you up until this last part.

I see the whole concept of "substance" as totally flawed and a part of Greek philosophy which never belonged in Christian thought. It is all unbiblical, and Luther saw that but didn't take it far enough, for his own reasons whatever they were- political, or just not seeing the inconsistency, but I would not doubt that it was at least partially political. Maybe he was just a bad philosopher, but stupid he was clearly not.

See my rather lengthy post to Bowman above for the details.

Thanks for chiming in.

I am looking for all the EV comments I can get!

[mfbukowski]

Airlines report the number of people on the aircraft as "SOB": "Souls on Board". This distinguishes from the number of paid seats (revenue) from the whole count: crew, passengers, and "lap children"

[3DOP]

I want to point out that it is presumption against a miracle, not Aristotelian philosophy to which everyone beginning with Luther objects.

This will be an unbearably long post for 95% of you. I believe it will be worth the while of the rest of you to persevere. I am attempting to refute a mistaken assumption regarding the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist in regards to why we believe it. We know that besides the Tradition of our Fathers, we DO have a biblical warrant for it.

No one has disputed my claim and the example I gave above about how we can posit Luther's doctrine or Mormon doctrine in Aristotelian language. Aristotelian terminology is NOT the problem. The problem is with the theology! Would anyone object to Aristotelian language if Catholics believed that there was no substantial change to the bread and wine? Of course not. That''s what everybody else believes. So it isn't a problem of substance and accident. It is a difference in our faith. If you quibble with Catholic philosophy that's fine, but don't imagine you can solve our different belief with modern wording or a banishing of Aristotle. With or without Aristotle, Catholics believe what others deny. This is why Luther said that the advantage of his belief was that it required less miracles:

He (a certain Cardinal in Luther's acquaintance) argues with great acumen that to hold that real bread and real wine, and not merely their accidents, are present on the altar, would be much more probable and require fewer superfluous miracles -if only the church had not decreed otherwise.

---from page one of this thread.

So okay. But the Church decreed this because Catholics believe that more happens than Luther came to believe. Luther called it a "superfluous miracle". Catholics don't want to believe more than we are supposed to. Bukowski points out that the literal meaning of "This is my body", permits of an interpretation that boggles the mind. He can no more easily believe that Christ was holding His Body, than that Shakespeare's Juliette was the sun. I get that.

But I propose that Catholics, without consulting philosophy at all, are reluctant for biblical and theological reasons to make the presumption against "a superfluous miracle". For reasons that will appear below, Catholics cannot be convinced of the "wisdom" that guided Luther to say that the Catholic dogma involved a superfluous miracle. Furthermore, if there is an obvious meaning of Shakespearean literature, we think it doesn't necessarily apply to the words of God.

1) When God said "Let there be light," it appeared. It seems to us that by the power of God when He speaks a command, all of creation is obedient, and that which is uncreated appears out of nothing. (Mormons do not believe in creation out of nothing. I know that) We tend to view Jesus' words at the Last Supper in the same way.

2) The history of the nation of Israel was a history of people who doubted the power of God. They doubted that God could feed them in the desert, that He could bring forth water from the rock, that he could deliver them from this and that enemy. So much did the people doubt that the Psalmist comments in such a way as to make Catholics uncomfortable at the thought of presuming that God's word must be taken symbolically even if Jesus says: "This is my body":

And they tempted God in their hearts, by asking meat for their desires. And they spoke ill of God: they said: Can God furnish a table in the wilderness? Because he struck the rock, and the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed. Can he also give bread, or provide a table for his people? Therefore the Lord heard, and was angry: and a fire was kindled against Jacob, and wrath came up against Israel. Because they believed not in God: and trusted not in his salvation. And he had commanded the clouds from above, and had opened the doors of heaven. And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them the bread of heaven. Man ate the bread of angels: he sent them provisions in abundance.

---Ps. 77:18-24

Note "the bread of angels". God fed them most miraculously and yet they asked "Can God?" after seeing the Red Sea parted. Instead of asking "Can God?" they should have cried out with all of their hearts and souls, "God can!"

Fast forward to John 6. The multitudes have followed Jesus after the miracle of loaves and fishes. It reminded them that Moses fed his followers "the bread of angels", the manna from heaven, spoken of in the Psalm about God's faithless children. They want yet another miracle! Hearing of their enthusiasm for the food that Moses obtained, Jesus offers them something so difficult to believe that it made them faithlessly stammer, "Can God?"This is when Jesus reveals that He will give us meat that no one could possibly have imagined:

They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee? What dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

---John 6:30-32

They want "miracle food", and Jesus offers them miracle food:

Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

---John 6: 49-55

Except for the twelve, this was too much for the people to believe. It was too great a miracle. Maybe they thought it was superfluous! In any case, after their spokesmen complained about how impossible it was to believe, Jesus had a few more words for the disciples that some interpret to spell out how he was speaking figuratively. Taken alone, out of the entire biblical context, I could go that way, but I still wouldn't be comfortable with why Jesus let all of those mutlitude go away thinking He was a literalist nut, if He was really teaching symbolism to them:

After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

---John 6:68, 69

This is some of the background to "This is my body" in Matthew. If Jesus had said in Matthew, "This is a true figure of my body," we wouldn't be having this conversation. But what He said at the Last Supper seems to confirm to Catholics that He really, truly, literally meant what seemed impossible to believe after the miracle of the loaves and fishes. The disciples who "went back, and walked no more with him", assuredly understood Him to be teaching what has since become the Catholic doctrine, and Jesus never corrected them. I guess it was one miracle too many for them. Superfluous. Is it so unreasonable of us Catholics to take Jesus' words as they pertain to the Eucharist/Lord's Supper at face value? (We haven't even discussed St. Paul yet) Given what has gone before, it seems like we have to set aside the presumtions that we would employ under more ordinary circumstances such as the illustration from Romeo and Juliet. Assuredly we have no grounds whatever, biblical or philosophically, for wondering if perhaps that little yellow ball in the sky is substantially Juliet, while the heat and light are accidental! Heh. But is it really warranted to insist for sake of consistency that if Juliet is symbolic our Lord's Supper is of necessity symbolic as well?

All that has preceded stems from what appears to me be a presumption that apart from Greek philosophy Catholics wouldn't have figured out a way to believe the words of Jesus literally in John 6:49-55. But we did and do. We understand Jesus' words the same way as those disciples that went away. We don't understand how it happens, but when we kneel down to receive our Lord we are not asking, "Can God" do anything. We are testifying with all of our hearts and souls our faith: "God can, God can, God can." The Catholic Church, if she has erred, has not done so because of Aristotle, but because of a well-grounded redemption history that shows that God's faithful ordinarily sin through lack of faith, not too much faith.

3DOP

[mfbukowski]

This post has been heavily edited- final submission at 2:50 Pacific time

I want to point out that it is presumption against a miracle, not Aristotelian philosophy to which everyone beginning with Luther objects.

Let me make this clear, and this is the reason I did not answer your first post.

I believe in miracles. I have no problem with Catholics believing this is a "miracle". I personally believe it is a symbol, but that is the theological system I believe.

All that has preceded stems from what appears to me be a presumption that apart from Greek philosophy Catholics wouldn't have figured out a way to believe the words of Jesus literally in John 6:49-55. But we did and do. We understand Jesus' words the same way as those disciples that went away. We don't understand how it happens, but when we kneel down to receive our Lord we are not asking, "Can God" do anything. We are testifying with all of our hearts and souls our faith: "God can, God can, God can." The Catholic Church, if she has erred, has not done so because of Aristotle, but because of a well-grounded redemption history that shows that God's faithful ordinarily sin through lack of faith, not too much faith.

That is absolutely beautiful!

I am familiar with your points, and have been over them many times with Catholics and myself "as a Catholic" (since as you know I was a Catholic once) arguing it out in my own mind.

What I am objecting to is the philosophy of substance. Period. It just makes no sense and is bad philosophy. If you want to accept that philosophy, that is your business, but I think that it is clear that it all boils down to linguistic confusion and I believe that my position cannot be refuted.

Scholastic philosophers typically do not try to "refute" modern analytical philosophy, they just do not deal with it. It would be like a Catholic trying to "refute" Buddhism or vice-versa; they are just based on totally different world views.

The world is a big enough place for all of us.

It is my opinion though, that of all the theological choices available, Mormonism is the most compatible with Pragmatism, which is my world view. I find that very satisfying in my life, that I believe I have a coherent world view which integrates science, philosophy and theology. We all get to do that and create our own concept of the universe, and in a real way, I think, that creates our own universe(s).

But I think even thinking that way is very "Mormon". Our universe is organized by man- each of us individually under our Father, the Man of Holiness. I see Mormonism as highly philosophically compatible with a moral humanism for that reason as well.

The reason I am here is to hope that I can make that "click" for others, and help them achieve the peace and certainty that I feel about all this.

Sometimes I get cocky about that, and I apologize for being that way. It has just taken me 40 years of thinking very hard, and reading tons of material, to reach this position in life. I guess I am just set in my ways.

[mfbukowski]

If Christ is literally present in the sacrament/Eucharist, it is a mystery and it is literally "unspeakable" to use Wittgensteinian language.

Wittgenstein himself, from whom I get this whole analytical approach to philosophy, was a life long Catholic, and called himself a "mystic" on these matters.

Wittgenstein himself apparently believed in the "real presence" as an unspeakable mystery. He did not talk about it because he believed it could not be spoken about clearly. It defied reason. That's what miracles do.

Philosophy only deals with language and what we can speak about. What we can speak about, we need to speak clearly about. We don't speak about miracles- we point them out and say "God did that". That's about all we can do.

So Wittgenstein himself would be the first to condemn the language of "substance" as totally confused and un-unintelligible, but yet he lived as a Catholic.

Something was going on there we will never know about.

But that does not save those who espouse "substance" as an "explanation" for the Trinity, nor save Luther from his inconsistency.

[mfbukowski]

On a list of the "Top 10 Philosophy Books of the 20th Century":

4. Philosophical Investigations by Ludwig Wittgenstein

This is, in my view, the greatest philosophical book ever written. Compared to Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, it is easy to read, but its true meaning is no less difficult to assimilate. At its heart is an assault upon the tendency, pervasive in almost all philosophical thinking, to "look for a substance whenever one sees a substantive". Thus, we ask: "what is the mind?" "what is consciousness?" and so on, without realising that our puzzlement will not be dispelled by finding something that is the mind, consciousness, etc. This is because the source of that puzzlement does not lie in the absence of such "substances", but rather in the assumption that there must be such things in order for the words we use to have any meaning. Wittgenstein's assault on this assumption is rich and many-faceted and has wide-reaching implications for all philosophical thinking.

Underlining Added

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

Well I am happy for one so well "trained in the ministry" to weigh in on these issues.

What is the basis for your pseudo-quotation here?

You wrote:

I think in fact Luther can be seen as a "proto-modern" thinker caught in a still medieval world, and though he had inklings of what was to come philosophically with the rejection of Aristotle in the next 200 years, he can be seen as in some ways a precursor of Hume. He really doesn't like "substance" logically and sees the flaws, but doesn't have the philosophical acumen to throw out the entire system. He is still too steeped in medieval culture.

Your original claim was that Luther rejected substance metaphysics in Eucharistic doctrine and that evangelicals are being inconsistent in following Luther in that regard while accepting substance metaphysics in the doctrine of the Trinity. You have now abandoned that claim and are engaging in a bit of mind-reading: Luther, you assure us, didn

[mfbukowski]

Rob:

Don't have time to fully respond now- won't until Monday.

You missed the entire point.

By creating two substances and mixing substance and accident (per YOUR quote) he was de facto giving up on substance by defining it away into nothing.

That is not mind reading- the whole concept of "Sacramental Union" is a chimera designed to prop up a "substance theory" which did not have a logical leg to stand on.

Of course he still used the terminology, but they were words without meaning.

[3DOP]

Hey bukowski. Thanks for your willingness to try to explain your position. I'll refrain from venturing into philosophical speculation beyond my understanding. I am content if I have established that regardless of what philosophy it is explained with, Catholic beliefs stem from our interpretation of the deposit of revelation. In whatever philosophical garb the Fathers should have explained their theology, Mormons would disagree with it. Substance/Essence was an attempt to explain how God could be one and three. There have been many tries both before and after the Council of Nicea and the Church has never been satisfied with anything but a compelete oneness compatible with Jewish monotheism and a radical threeness compatible with the New Testament revelation that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all three God. If words like person and substance do not help, let us by all means not use them. But the theology preceded the formulae, whether we use the language of fishermen or the language of Wittgenstein.

I respect your need to do something else for a time. I'll be going out of town tomorrow for a few days and expect the thread to have spent its energy by the time I am scheduled to return. Maybe Lord willing, we'll have an opportunity to refresh some of these topics sometime after that. In the mean time, I appreciate your joy in finding what you perceive as a faith that fits with your worldview, and while I can't wish that you wouldn't formally return to the faith of your youth, I surely wish you every blessing that God can possibly give under the circumstances, and well...I like you. I want you to be happy now and forever. God bless you.

3DOP

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

Perhaps you should simply have waited until Monday. Your comments clarified nothing.

Rob:

Don't have time to fully respond now- won't until Monday.

You missed the entire point.

By creating two substances and mixing substance and accident (per YOUR quote) he was de facto giving up on substance by defining it away into nothing.

That is not mind reading- the whole concept of "Sacramental Union" is a chimera designed to prop up a "substance theory" which did not have a logical leg to stand on.

Of course he still used the terminology, but they were words without meaning.

[Calm]

There have been many tries both before and after the Council of Nicea and the Church has never been satisfied with anything but a compelete oneness compatible with Jewish monotheism and a radical threeness compatible with the New Testament revelation that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all three God. If words like person and substance do not help, let us by all means not use them. But the theology preceded the formulae, whether we use the language of fishermen or the language of Wittgenstein.

I think that many LDS distrust philosophy because they see many such attempts to replace (as opposed to follow from) revelation and inspiration. LDS would generally say "we know by revelation, we understand by inspiration" meaning that true knowledge of God's Word can only come through the Spirit. This does not deny the usefulness of reason (and perhaps for completeness we should add on to the 'summary' "we study by faith and reason"), but just identifies where we should begin and end, imo.

Came across an interesting quote of JS's that has to do with this subject tangentially:

The Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile, though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body; for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost. In such a case, there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible to the eye, than upon an Israelite, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligence.

http://emp.byui.edu/SatterfieldB/Quotes/Gift%20of%20Holy%20Ghost/Increases%20Our%20Capacity.html (has some other quotes about the effect of the Holy Ghost upon intelligence, etc.

It is an interesting mix of mental and physical effects that is being claimed to occur here through the work of the Holy Ghost.

[Vance]

There have been many tries both before and after the Council of Nicea and the Church has never been satisfied with anything but a compelete oneness compatible with Jewish monotheism and a radical threeness compatible with the New Testament revelation that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all three God.

What, exactly is "Jewish monotheism"?