I’ve heard a counter-argument for Sola Scriptura explaining that the Bible never says “scripture alone is all we need” for salvation. The argument seems to follow the logic of “Everything in the Bible is true, but that doesn’t mean everything else is false. While scripture is necessary, God never explicitly says that’s all we need.” While there is certainly more complexity to the full argument, it made me think of a counter-example regarding the eucherist: what looks like a wafer of bread is actually the body of Christ, because Jesus explained in John 6: 50-51 “This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, that anyone may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down out of heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. Yes, the bread which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” Couldn’t a similar argument against Sola Scriptura be used to support consubstantiation? Just because what looks like a wafer of bread is actually Jesus’s flesh doesn’t mean it’s not also in fact bread?
Transubstantiation is the constant teaching of the church. Scripture does not explicitly spell out the details of transubstantiation, because it was already accepted by both the authors of scripture and the target audiences. Therefore, in John 6, the Evangelist is discussing where Eucharist fits into Christ’s other teachings; John is not giving a treatise on the detailed theology of sacrament itself. The theology of the sacrament was transmitted orally through instruction given to clergy in preparation for ordination. Thus, the passage does not provide a complete argument for the Eucharist, because it was never meant to be a complete argument.
It actually is not bread at that point, the substance of bread is replaced. It simply looks like bread.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.