against Calvin's Institutes' view of Eucharist and the reformed view

St. Augustine: 

You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”

-”Sermons”, [227, 21]

“He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen’”.

-”Second Discourse on Psalm 32″. Ch. 4. circa

“For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.

Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.

“The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice… . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.

Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:


http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/11/antidote-to-john-calvins-institutes_25.html

His blog is called Biblical evidence for Catholicism (link also on side of my blog)

This link goes in to detail to argue against Calvin's view of the Eucharist here

Check the rest of his blog for more arguments on this subject here

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/calvin-calvinism-index-page.html

also here part of comment 182 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/ :

Sproul seems not to realize that if the Eucharist is “the one sacrifice of Christ” then in the Eucharist there is no re-sacrificing of Christ (because that wouldn’t be the “one sacrifice of Christ”), but rather a participation in and making present of the one and only Sacrifice of Christ. There is a world of difference between crucifying Christ again, and participating in a supernatural way at different times and places around the world in that one sacrifice of Christ. The latter does not at all “denigrate” Christ’s sacrifice, but elevates and extols it.

This is how the early Church understood the Eucharist, not as a re-sacrifice of Christ, but as a participation in the one sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. (Regarding the patristic teaching on this see the section titled “Proof of Sacrificial Priesthood” in Tim’s other article “Holy Orders and the Sacrificial Priesthood.” While the Hebrews of the Old Testament could only offer animal sacrifices that were unable to take away sins, but were only types of Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, in the New Covenant by Christ’s institution of the Eucharist and the New Covenant priesthood we now can participate in Christ’s sacrifice, and all over the world by this participation offer to the Father the one and only perfect sacrifice of Christ that takes away sins. For the Church Fathers, the Eucharistic sacrifice is the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11, in which the prophet by the Holy Spirit says that “from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations and in every place incense is offered to my name and a pure offering.” Christ is the pure offering, and in the Eucharistic sacrifice that takes place daily all over the world, believers participate in Christ’s one and only sacrifice in offering that “pure offering” to the Father.

But the Protestant paradigm does not include the aspect of “participation.” And this is why from the Protestant point of view, Catholic doctrines such as the communion of saints (according to which the saints participate in Christ’s work through their merits and prayers), the Catholic doctrine that our sufferings are participations in Christ’s suffering, the Catholic doctrine that sanctifying grace is a participation in the divine nature, the Catholic doctrine that the Church as Christ’s Body is not mere metaphor but a reality, the Catholic doctrine that Mary by her participation in Christ’s work of redemption is a co-redemptrix and that all the saints are co-redeemers by way of participation in Christ’s work, the Catholic doctrine that the authority of the Apostles and their successors is a participation in Christ’s divine authority, the Catholic doctrine that heaven is not merely being in God’s presence but participating in God’s own perfect eternal beatitude, (and I could go on and on), all these doctrines depend on the notion of participation. So for the Protestant paradigm, which does not recognizing participation, all these Catholic doctrines “denigrate” Christ and His work, by implying that what He did was insufficient or inadequate (e.g. 70%), and that we must make up the difference, by adding to it. So without the notion of participation, the Protestant construal of all the Catholic doctrines that involve participation is that they add to Christ or add to what Christ did or repeat what Christ did, and thus denigrate Him or His work, whereas in the Catholic paradigm all of these are participations in Christ and His work, and so do not denigrate it in the least, but glorify it by carrying it forward through time and all over the world, or bringing all times and places to it.

and in comment 185:

On the same and previous page of his book Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism, Sproul writes:

Protestants also struggle with the question of how the human nature of Christ can be in more than one place at the same time. The Roman Catholic view essentially attributes the quality of omnipresence to the physical body of Jesus. If the Mass is being celebrated simultaneously in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, then, according to Roman Catholic teaching, His physical body and blood, which are part of His human nature, not part of His divine nature, are present in more than one place at the same time. Rome says this happens because there is a communication of power from the divine nature, which can be omnipresent, to the human nature. But once the human nature assumes the attributes of the divine nature, Rome has a problem with her own Christology. The Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the relationship of the two natures of Christ, saying that He is vera homo vera dues, that is, “truly man and truly God,” and that the two natures are in perfect unity but without mixture, confusion, separation, or division, so that each nature retains its own attributes. So, Rome needs to explain how attributing omnipresence to the body of Christ does not involve a deification of the flesh of Jesus, giving it a divine attribute. How does that not confuse the two natures of Christ?

Sproul is claiming/suggesting that the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is a kind of Eutychianism, in that it conflates the two natures of Christ, by claiming that Christ’s human nature is omnipresent, and thus possesses an attribute of His divine nature.

The Catholic response involves four points. First, the Catholic doctrine distinguishes between different modes of presence, such that something can be present either in the mode of accidents, or in the mode of substance, as explained in comments #4 and #24 of the “Augustine on Adam’s Body and Christ’s Body” thread. So the accidents of Christ’s physical body are present in the mode of accidents only in heaven; in the Eucharist the accidents of His body are present only in the mode of substance.

Second, the Catholic doctrine does not claim or entail that Christ’s physical body is omnipresent, but that in the Eucharist His body is present in the mode of substance in many places at the same time. If Christ’s physical body were omnipresent, there would be nothing especially sacred about the Eucharist, because Christ would no more present there than anywhere else. So the notion that Christ’s human nature is omnipresent would be incompatible with Eucharistic adoration.

Third, those limitations that are essential to human nature should not be confused with those limitations that are proper accidents of human nature. Failing to make this distinction can lead to mistaking the removal of limitations non-essential to human nature for Eutychianism. Being presentin the mode of substance in only one place is not essential to human nature, and for this reason Christ’s human nature remains intact when He is present simultaneously in many places in the mode of substance.

Fourth, Christ’s presence in the mode of substance in the Eucharist is a miracle, not a natural power or property of His human nature. Similarly, His passing through closed doors (Jn 20:19,26) and His face shining like the sun (Mt. 17) were not natural powers of his human nature; they were miracles. But miracles removing limitations non-essential to human nature do not destroy the integrity of Christ’s human nature. And in this way the miracle by which Christ’s body and blood are present in the mode of substance simultaneously in many different places in the Eucharist does not destroy the integrity of His human nature, and thus does not conflate His human nature with His divine nature. For this reason, the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence does not entail Eutychianism.

and here is part of the link he gave in that quote #4 :

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/augustine-on-adams-body-and-christs-body-is-reformed-theology-truly-augustinian/:

What about this ‘slide into Eutychianism’? It seems to me that we need to distinguish miraculous divine acts regarding Christ’s human nature, from the conflation of Christ’s divine and human natures. We can’t just assume that the former indicates the latter. And the principle of charity would require us not to assume Eutychianism when a miraculous divine act regarding Christ’s human nature is the explanation being offered. The problem with Eutychianism wasn’t the elevation of Christ’s human nature by way of divinization; the problem was a conflation of the two natures into one nature. The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist does not claim (or imply) that Christ’s human nature ceases to be human, or that Christ’s risen body does not have flesh and blood, or that it ceases to be material, or that it ceases to have dimensions. It is a spiritual body (1 Cor 15:44), but it is not a mere spirit. Grace does not destroy nature, and the hypostatic union does not destroy Christ’s humanity. The flesh He received in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, He will have eternally. But we have to distinguish those limitations that are essential to human nature, from those limitations that are proper accidents of non-deified human nature. If we don’t make that distinction, and make it in a principled way, then we run the risk of mistaking the removal of non-essential limitations for Eutychianism.

From our human experience it seems that bodies cannot be in two places at the same time. But, then, our ordinary experience of bodies is through their accidents in the mode of accidents. (E.g. We experience bodies through their color, size, shape, texture, etc.) We simply do not experience bodies in any other way. But there is no reason why the substance of a body cannot be in two places simultaneously, in one place in the mode of quantitative dimension and in another place only in the mode of substance and not in the mode of quantitative dimension. We simply don’t have any basis for claiming that a substance cannot be in two places at the same time, in two different modes. And therefore we shouldn’t assume that the Church’s teaching that Christ is present in the Eucharist according to the mode of substance [i.e. transubstantiation] is Eutychianism, and not a supernatural miracle that nevertheless does not destroy the integrity of Christ’s true human nature, just as His passing through closed doors (Jn 20:19,26) and His face shining like the sun (Mt. 17) did not destroy the integrity of His human nature.

Recognizing that there are other modes of presence, besides the mode of quantitative dimension, opens up the conceptual window to the Church’s teaching regarding the Eucharist, because then we see that we do not have to choose between Christ being present in the Eucharist in the mode of quantitative dimension (as His physical Body was and is), and Christ being present only by His Spirit. The former is the Capharnaite error of which St. Augustine spoke:

‘Except a man eat my flesh, he shall not have eternal life’ (John 6:54). Some [the Capharnaites] received this foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them.”(Exp on Psalms 98:9)

The Capharnaite error was to assume that Jesus was going to give them His flesh in the mode of quantitative dimension.

But the other error (i.e. that Christ is only present in the Eucharist by His Holy Spirit) does not allow us to eat of that flesh and drink of that blood of which He said, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.” (John 6:53)

and from comment 24:

The Capharnaite error to which St. Augustine refers is the error of those persons from Capernaum, described in John 6, who imagined that Jesus was talking about giving them His flesh in a carnal manner, e.g. by cutting off parts of His body and handing it to them to eat. It seemed both absurd and repulsive to them, and many of His disciples ceased walking with Him over it. (John 6:66) The Capharnaite error is not that of thinking that Christ wanted them to eat His body and drink His blood. The Capharnaite error is thinking that He would give His body and blood to them in a carnal manner. The difference between the carnal manner, and the actual way in which He gave His body and blood to His disciples at the Last Supper (and gives them to us at every valid Eucharist) lies in the mode of presence. In the carnal manner, the accidents of His substance would be present in the mode of accidents. That is, the color, the temperature, the texture, the consistency, the shape, quantitative dimension, etc. (these are all accidents) of Christ’s body and blood would be present in the mode of accidents, such that receiving the Eucharist would be like eating raw animal flesh and drinking animal blood.

But, in the Eucharist, Christ is present in the mode of substance (this is why it is called transubstantiation). The accidents of His body and blood are present (because the whole Christ is present), but His accidents are present not in the mode of accidents, but in the mode of substance, which is not per se extended. So we receive into our mouths and into our stomachs the whole Christ (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity); we don’t receive only a part of Christ. To receive the substance of Christ is to receive the whole of Christ, i.e. the whole of what He is, not every part of his physical extended body as extended (to think like that is, again, to think like the Capharnaites), but including every part of him in the mode of substance.

The accidents that exist in the mode of accidents, after the consecration, are the accidents of bread and wine, even though bread and wine are no longer present. So we receive Him in a way that is not repugnant to us, under the accidents of bread and wine, rather than (as the Capharnaites thought He meant) under the accidents of flesh and blood.

Some people think that in the Eucharist we only receive Christ spiritually. They think that receiving Christ spiritually is the only alternative to the Capharnaite error. Of course, we do receive Christ spiritually, i.e. in our heart and mind. But we also receive Christ into our mouth and stomach. But we deny Capharnaitism. The Catholic position is thus a middle position between the error of Capharnaitism and the error of denying that in the Eucharist we eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Yes Christ is present locally in the Host and Precious Blood, but in the mode of substance, not in the mode of an extended body. Yes we masticate Him, but as He is present in the mode of substance (i.e. His sacramental mode of presence); we do not masticate His body in its mode as extended body, as it is in Heaven seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come in glory. We are not chewing on His arm or leg. To think like that is to think like a Capharnaite. The Capharnaite error is still an error, even after Jesus ascended into heaven. The mode by which He gave Himself to His disciples on Holy Thursday at the institution of the Eucharist, is the same mode by which He gives Himself to us today in the Eucharist.

from comment   83 here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/signs-of-predestination-a-catholic-discusses-election/

Where does Jesus talk about this supposed sacrifice?

Again, it is absolutely essential to recognize the different starting points, so that you don’t implicitly “beg the question” (i.e. assume precisely what is in question between us). Your question presupposes that if something isn’t clearly stated in Scripture, then the Church cannot know it or teach it or require the faithful to believe it. But Catholics don’t hold that presupposition (which isn’t itself in Scripture, and which therefore refutes itself, by failing to pass its own test). The deposit of faith comes down to us through Scripture and Tradition, as mediated to us by the Church. See sections 8-10 of Dei Verbum.

The abuse of this is that a work of man is posited here which accumulates merit –rather than the joy of trusting in Christ’s work and promise. This is the only thing which is being denounced.

If the work of man were forbidden, then Christ’s own work would be forbidden, since He is not only true God but also true man. If the work of man were forbidden, then Jesus would never have commissioned the Apostles to do a single thing. And St. Paul could never have said that he fills up in his own flesh what is lacking in Christ’s sufferings. (Col 1:24) But, as it is, you are misunderstanding the mass, as though it were a mere work of man, when in actuality it is the work of the God-man, just as He works in baptism. In the Eucharist, the priest lends, as it were, his lips and hands to Christ, just as at baptism it is Christ who baptizes.

from comment 77 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/reformed-imputation-and-the-lords-prayer/:

Concerning Hebrews 10: 15-18, Haydock writes:

Now where there is remission of these, there is no more an oblation for sin. That is, there is no need of any other oblation to redeem us from sin, after the price of our redemption from sin is paid. There is no need of any other different oblation; all that is wanting, is the application of the merits and satisfactions of Christ. No need of those sacrifices, which were ordered in the law of Moses. To convince them of this, is the main design of St. Paul in this place. The pretended reformers, from several expressions of St. Paul in this chapter, think they have clear proofs that no sacrifice at all ought to be offered after Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross; and that so many sacrifices and oblations of masses, are both needless and against the doctrine of the apostle, who says, that Christ by one oblation hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (ver. 14.) And again, that where there is a remission of sins, now there is no more an oblation for sin. This objection, which is obvious enough, was not first invented by the Calvinists against them they nickname Papists: the same is found in the ancient Fathers; and by their answers, and what they have witnessed concerning the daily sacrifice of the mass, they may find their doctrine of a religion without a continued sacrifice evidently against the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church from the first ages[centuries] of the Christian religion, till they came to be reformers, not of manners, but of the Catholic belief.

Hear St. Chrysostom (Hom. xvii.) in his commentary on this very chapter: “What then, saith he, do not we offer up (or make an oblation) every day? We offer up indeed, but with a remembrance of his death. And this oblation is one, and not many. How is it one, and not many? …because, as he that is offered many times, and in many places, is the same body, not many and different bodies, so is it one sacrifice. He (Christ) is our high priest, who offered this sacrifice, by which we are cleansed: we now offer up the same….He said: Do this in remembrance of me. We do not offer a different sacrifice, but the very same, as then our high priest.” St. Chrysostom here says, and repeats it over and over again, that we offer up a sacrifice. 2. That we offer it up every day. 3. That the sacrifice which we daily offer isone and the same oblation, one and the same sacrifice, which our high priest, Christ, offered. 4. That in offering this sacrifice, which in all places, and at all times, is the same body of Christ, and the same sacrifice, we do, and offer it, as he commanded us at his last supper, with a remembrance of him. Is this the practice, and is this the doctrine of our dear countrymen, the English Protestants? But at least it is the constant doctrine, as well as practice, of the whole Catholic Church.

The council of Trent, as we have already cited the words, (chap. vii.) teacheth the very same as St. Chrysostom who never says, as some one of late hath pretended, that what we offer is a remembrance only. As the sacrament of the Eucharist, according to the words of Christ in the gospel, is to be taken with a remembrance of him, and yet is not a remembrance only, but is his body and blood, so the sacrifice is to be performed with a remembrance of his benefits and sufferings, by his priests and ministers, but at the same time is a true and propitiatory sacrifice, the priests daily sacrifice, and offer up the same sacrifice, the manner only being different. The sacrifice and mass offered by Peter, is not different in the notion of a sacrifice or oblation from that of Paul, though the priests and their particular actions be different: the same sacrifice was offered by the apostles, and in all Christian ages; and the same sacrifice, according to the prophecy of Malachias, (chap. i. ver. 11.) shall be offered in all nations to the end of the world. This doctrine and practice is not only witnessed by St. Chrysostom but generally by the ancient Fathers and interpreters, as we have taken notice in short in the annotations on St. Matthew. See St. Ignatius, in his epistle to the people of Smyrna; St. Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Tryphon; St. Irenæus, lib. 4. chap. xxxii. and xxxiv.; Tertullian, lib. de Velandis Virg.; Eusebius lib. 1. de demonst. Evang. chap. ult.[last]; St. Jerome, ep. ad Evangelu,; St. Ambrose, in Psalm xxxviii. and on 1 chap. of St. Luke; St. Augustine, lib. 16. de civ. Dei. chap. xxii. lib. cont. Advers. legis chap. 22. and lib. ix. Confess. chap. xii.; St. Chrysostom, hom. lx. ad Pop. Antiochenum. et hom. lxxii. in Matt.; The first general council of Nice[Nicaea].

But from this one oblation on the cross and remission of sins, obtained by our Saviour Christ, will our adversaries pretend insisting on the bare letter, that Christ has done all for us, and that we need do nothing, unless perhaps endeavour to catch hold of the justifying cloak of Christ’s justice by faith only? At this rate the love of God and of our neighbour, a life of self-denials, such as Christ preached to every one in the gospel, the practices of prayer, fastings, almsdeeds, and all good works, the sacraments instituted by our Saviour Christ may be all safely laid aside; and we may conclude from hence, that all men’s sins are remitted before they are committed. Into what extravagances do men run, when their private spirit pretends to follow the letter of the Holy Scriptures, and when they make their private judgment the supreme guide in matter of divine faith? It is very true, that Christ hath paid the ransom of all our sins, and his satisfactions are infinite; but to partake of the benefit of this general redemption, the merits and satisfaction of Christ are to be applied to our souls, and this by the order of Providence is to be done not only by faith but by other virtues, by good works, by the sacraments, and by repeating the oblation and the same sacrifice, the manner only being different, according to the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church form the apostle’s time.

In short, in the first part of 10:14 the author of Hebrews is talking about redemption, not the application of redemption. The “being sanctified” part of the verse is the application of Christ’s redemptive work.

from http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/05/the-witness-of-the-lost-christianities/#comment-116050

You assert,

The first three big mistakes of the early church that were later developed into full blown false doctrines:
1. The language of sacrifice for the Eucharist/Lord’s supper.
2. Baptismal regeneration.
3. Exalting one of the presbyter-overseers out from the college of presbyters and making him a mono-episcopate.

…but such assertions ought not come out of nowhere. They ought to be demonstrated to be consistent with early evidence.

Now when it comes to the Early Church encountering new ideas which alter or reverse the teachings they’d learned from the apostles, we observe regular pattern of behavior: A huge uproar of denunciations typically resulted, complete with name-calling. What we might now call “letter writing campaigns” would emerge, in which outraged partisans of one view would argue their cases to anyone they could contact by letter. (I believe it was the heretic Marcion who was called “firstborn of Satan” by Polycarp, wasn’t it?) I suppose St. Paul’s remark about the Judaizers (that he wished they’d “go the whole way and cut the whole thing off”) kind of set the tone.

My point is: When, in the Early Church, a controversy arose, it was not the habit of the early Christians to shrug it off and stay mum about it. They did not, as a rule, react to alterations of the apostles’ doctrines with a genteel smile and a vague hope that the truth would win out. Quite the contrary: Verbal and Written (and sometimes Physical) combat was waged. And this naturally produced documentary evidence of the conflicts. We have copies of some such documents; of others, we have only reports and references from later authors who were aware of them.

So…,

If you believe that Jesus taught the Apostles, and the Apostles taught their successors, that the Eucharist was NOT a Sacrifice, and that later on, some other Christians changed this and began saying that the Eucharist WAS a Sacrifice, it follows from historical precedent that we should expect such a reversal, on such a central matter, to have produced a truly explosive controversy.

So where is it? Where is the documentary evidence that one would expect, showing the proponents of these two ideas clashing, with (in your view) the wrong side eventually winning out?

I don’t think there is any. There should be, but there isn’t.

Likewise, you hold that Jesus taught the Apostles, and the Apostles their successors, that baptism was merely symbolical, not sacramentally regenerative. Now the Biblical evidence can go both ways — personally I think it’s far stronger on the regenerative side — but let’s assume you’re correct for the sake of argument. But then suddenly Christians were teaching baptismal regeneration. In both the East and the West. So, if your view is right, then — for some reason — a change was introduced, quite early, in different geographical locations.

Where is the outraged reaction? Where is the evidence that the orthodox Christians (who, in your view, did NOT believe in baptismal regeneration) encountered this new teaching and began their usual practice of denouncing the heretics and defending what they’d learned from the Apostles?

And, again, where is the outraged reaction about some presbyters asserting a higher degree of authority or ordination than others? If, as you believe, this is a change from what the Apostles themselves taught, then it is a change which happened very early: John the Apostle could not have been in his grave for more than 15 years when Ignatius of Antioch wrote as if it were the accepted and uncontroversial norm. And of course Clement of Rome was sending legates to Corinth to see that his instructions (!) to the church in Corinth (!!) were being followed, even while John the Apostle yet lived.

If the assumptions behind such assertions of episcopal authority or bishop-of-Rome authority were new, we can assume they would be hotly challenged. The (in your view) orthodox Christians would have railed against such new innovations in doctrine.

So, surely, Ignatius of Antioch, in spite of his martyrdom, became a suspicious or derided figure among the early Christians on account of his heretical innovations…right? Surely the Church at Corinth rejected the words of Clement, tossed his letter unceremoniously in the wastepaper basket, and called him out for being a pushy busybody from the distant city of Rome who was interfering unasked in the internal affairs of their church, which was none of his business.

Surely that’s how it went down…isn’t it?

If it isn’t, then we have another case of “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time,” as in the old Conan Doyle story:

Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

If these three items you list — which everyone agrees are taught very early, within the lifetime of the Apostles or of their immediate successors, or their successors’ successors — are indeed reversals of the real Christian doctrine delivered by Jesus to the Apostles, and by the Apostles to those first successors, we would expect a record of the controversy. But the “dog did nothing.”

Instead, it seems the whole Christian world was nodding at these “innovations” as if they were old news. The persons saying them seem not to be arguing them but mentioning them as things the readers (if they are Christians) already know, or ought to.

What’s your solution to this, Ken?

Do you believe that the very persons whom we trust to transmit the books of the New Testament canon to us, cannot be trusted to transmit basic doctrines also?

To me, it seems more likely that the correct interpretation of Scriptures which can be read two ways is the interpretation which is taken by those readers who are closest to the original authors in time and culture and geography…especially when (a.) these readers report that this interpretation is an unbroken tradition coming to them from the preaching of the original authors of the text; and (b.) I am forced, anyway, to rely upon these same readers to even obtain the text itself.

And when I find that there are passages which can be viewed one of two ways, but no early witness seems to support one of those views, or to bother contradicting the other view when it is widely taught? In such cases, it seems to me more probable that the other view was, among those early witnesses, the only known view.