📖 Series: Responding to Ferris (How to Be Christian)

🥖 Part 1 – The Bread of Life & John 6

1. Metaphorical Musings: Analyzing Ferris’ Approach to John 6 in “How to Be Christian”
   An introduction to Ferris’s Eucharistic claims and flawed metaphoric reasoning.
2. The Logic of Life: Faith, Not Flesh, in John 6
   Why John 6 centers on believing, not consuming—a breakdown of the internal logic.
3. Why Eating Jesus Means Believing: A Biblical Answer to Ferris
   Biblical metaphors explained and applied to the Bread of Life discourse.
4. Spirit Gives Life, Flesh Counts for Nothing: Ferris Misreads John 6
   Exegetical refutation of Ferris’s claim that John 6 affirms transubstantiation.
5. Unraveling Ferris: The Structure of John 6 in the Greater Narrative of the Gospel of John
   A narrative-critical analysis that undermines Eucharistic literalism.
6. Spirit Gives Life, Flesh Counts for Nothing (Part 2): Ferris Misreads John 6 Again
   Additional theological and lexical critiques of Ferris’s misreadings.
7. Analysis of Ferris’s Eucharistic Interpretation: Challenges and Inconsistencies
   Final installment on doctrinal problems and exegetical breakdowns in Ferris’s interpretation.

---

📜 Part 2 – Romans and the Doctrine of Justification

8. Responding to How2BeChristian on Romans 4
   A defense of sola fide and imputed righteousness against Ferris’s anti-Protestant reading.
9. How Not to Read Romans: A Response to Ferris (“How to Be Christian”)
   A systematic rebuttal to Ferris’s handling of Pauline theology and justification.

Ferris responded to Todd Shannon by suggesting that some elements of John 6, such as the metaphorical expressions about never being thirsty or hungry again, might indeed be metaphoric Inconsistency in Ferris’s Application of Metaphorical and Literal Language

Ferris’s interpretation of John 6, particularly Jesus’s discourse on eating his flesh and drinking his blood, hinges on a selective application of metaphorical and literal readings. He posits that terms like “thirst” and “hunger” are metaphorical, representing spiritual longing, while associated actions—eating flesh and drinking blood—are to be understood literally. This selective hermeneutic, however, introduces significant challenges to the coherence and credibility of his argument.

The primary issue lies in the arbitrariness of Ferris’s distinctions. Without a clear and consistent criterion for determining which elements of Jesus’s discourse are metaphorical and which are literal, his interpretation appears subjective. For instance, if “thirst” and “hunger” are metaphorical because they align with spiritual themes prevalent in Johannine literature (e.g., John 4:13–14, where Jesus speaks of “living water”), why should the related actions of eating and drinking not also carry metaphorical weight? The Gospel of John frequently employs layered language, where physical imagery points to spiritual realities (e.g., “light” in John 8:12, “bread” in John 6:35). Ferris’s failure to extend this metaphorical framework to the act of eating and drinking raises questions about the internal logic of his approach.

This inconsistency invites several critical questions. First, what textual or contextual basis does Ferris use to differentiate between metaphorical and literal language within the same discourse? The absence of a systematic methodology undermines the persuasiveness of his interpretation, as it risks being perceived as driven by theological preconceptions rather than rigorous exegesis. For example, the broader context of John 6, particularly Jesus’s clarification in verse 63 (“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing”), suggests a spiritual rather than physical interpretation of his words, challenging Ferris’s literalism.

Second, the selective application of metaphor weakens the overall coherence of Ferris’s argument. A robust hermeneutic requires a consistent framework for interpreting figurative and literal language, especially in a text as symbolically rich as John’s Gospel. Without such a framework, Ferris’s position is vulnerable to critiques of cherry-picking, where interpretations are tailored to fit preconceived doctrinal commitments rather than emerging organically from the text. This methodological flaw invites further scrutiny and diminishes the reliability of his conclusions about Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.

To strengthen his case, Ferris must provide a justifiable and textually grounded framework for distinguishing between metaphorical and literal elements in John 6. This could involve analyzing linguistic cues, such as Johannine motifs of spiritual nourishment, or engaging with historical interpretations from early church fathers, many of whom viewed the passage symbolically (e.g., Origen’s emphasis on spiritual participation). Without such rigor, Ferris’s interpretation remains open to charges of inconsistency and subjectivity, undermining its theological and scholarly credibility.

Contradiction Between Literal Presence and Non-Local Presence

Doctrinal Context

The doctrine of Transubstantiation, formalized at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), asserts that Christ is “corporeally” present in the Eucharist but not “locally” (Canon 1). This distinction implies a bodily presence that transcends physical locality, aligning with medieval scholastic attempts to reconcile Christ’s real presence with his ascended state. However, this formulation introduces a significant philosophical and theological tension that challenges Ferris’s literalist interpretation.

Inherent Tension

The concept of a corporeal yet non-local presence is inherently problematic. In metaphysical terms, a body is a discrete entity defined by its spatial and temporal location. A literal, corporeal presence presupposes that Christ’s body is physically present in the Eucharistic elements, which logically entails spatial locatability. However, the doctrine’s insistence on non-local presence contradicts this, as it denies that Christ’s body occupies a specific place in the way ordinary bodies do. This creates a paradox: how can a body be literally present without being spatially locatable?

This tension is particularly acute for Ferris’s interpretation, which emphasizes a literal understanding of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. If Christ’s body is physically present in each Eucharistic host, as Ferris’s literalism suggests, it should be possible to locate it spatially, contradicting the church’s teaching on non-local presence. This inconsistency demands resolution, as it places Ferris’s view at odds with established doctrine.

Implications for Ferris’s Argument

Ferris’s literalist approach fails to address this contradiction, weakening its theological coherence. To align with the doctrine of Transubstantiation, Ferris would need to clarify how a literal, corporeal presence can be non-local, perhaps by engaging with scholastic distinctions like Thomas Aquinas’s concept of “sacramental presence” (Summa Theologiae, III, q. 76). Aquinas argues that Christ’s presence is real but not circumscribed by physical space, a nuance Ferris’s interpretation lacks. Without such clarification, Ferris’s position risks oversimplifying the doctrine and inviting critique for its philosophical naivety.

The Philosophical Problem of Accidents Without a Substance

Aristotelian Framework

In Aristotelian philosophy, “accidents” refer to non-essential properties of an object (e.g., color, taste, texture), which inhere in a “substance,” the essential reality that defines the object’s identity. In the doctrine of Transubstantiation, articulated at the Council of Trent (Session XIII, Canon 2), the substance of bread and wine is transformed into Christ’s body and blood, while the accidents (appearance, taste, etc.) remain those of bread and wine. This formulation, however, presents a significant philosophical challenge.

Logical Anomaly

According to Aristotelian metaphysics, accidents cannot exist independently of a substance. If the substance of bread and wine is entirely replaced by Christ’s body and blood, the persistence of bread-like and wine-like accidents is logically anomalous. Empirically, the Eucharistic elements retain the sensory properties of bread and wine, yet doctrinally, their substance is no longer that of bread and wine. This creates a philosophical conundrum: how can accidents exist without a corresponding substance to sustain them?

This issue is particularly problematic for Ferris’s literalist interpretation. If the substance of the Eucharistic elements is literally Christ’s body and blood, the continued presence of bread-like and wine-like accidents defies Aristotelian logic, which underpins the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Ferris’s approach does not engage with this philosophical tension, leaving a significant gap in his argument.

Scholastic Responses and Ferris’s Oversight

Medieval theologians like Aquinas attempted to resolve this issue by positing that the accidents are sustained by divine power, independent of a natural substance (Summa Theologiae, III, q. 77, a. 1). However, Ferris’s interpretation does not incorporate or address such explanations, rendering it philosophically incomplete. By failing to reconcile the logical anomaly of accidents without substance, Ferris’s literalism risks appearing incoherent in the face of both philosophical scrutiny and empirical observation.

Theological Implications of a Literal Interpretation

Impact on Core Christian Doctrines

Ferris’s literal interpretation of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist has far-reaching implications for several core Christian doctrines, including the incarnation, the hypostatic union, and Christ’s ascension. According to Christian theology, Christ’s human nature is united to his divine nature in the hypostatic union, and this unified person ascended into heaven, where he is seated at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 9:24). The doctrine of the ascension emphasizes that Christ’s physical presence is no longer on earth, awaiting his return at the eschaton (Acts 1:11).

Ferris’s view, which posits a literal, physical presence of Christ’s body and blood in every Eucharistic celebration, conflicts with this framework. If Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, it suggests a multiplication of his human nature across countless locations, challenging the doctrine of the ascension and raising questions about the unity of Christ’s person. Furthermore, it risks undermining the eschatological expectation of Christ’s return, as his physical presence would already be manifest in the Eucharist.

Christological Consistency and Symbolic Alternatives

A metaphorical or symbolic interpretation of John 6 offers a more coherent alignment with established Christian doctrines. In John 6:63, Jesus emphasizes that “the Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing,” suggesting that his words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood are to be understood spiritually rather than physically. This reading aligns with the Johannine emphasis on spiritual participation in Christ (e.g., John 15:4–5, “remain in me”) and avoids the theological complications of a literal interpretation.

For example, a symbolic interpretation views the Eucharist as a sacramental sign of Christ’s presence, where believers participate in his sacrifice and grace without requiring a physical transformation of the elements. This approach is consistent with early church interpretations, such as Augustine’s view that the Eucharist is a “visible sign of an invisible grace” (Sermon 272), and it harmonizes with doctrines of Christ’s ascension and eschatological return.

Conclusion

Ferris’s literalist interpretation of John 6 faces significant challenges that undermine its theological and philosophical coherence. The arbitrary distinction between metaphorical and literal language lacks methodological rigor, rendering his argument vulnerable to charges of subjectivity. The contradiction between a literal, corporeal presence and the doctrine of non-local presence highlights a metaphysical tension that Ferris fails to resolve. Similarly, the philosophical problem of accidents without substance exposes a logical anomaly that his approach does not address. Finally, the theological implications of a literal interpretation conflict with core Christian doctrines, particularly the ascension and eschatological return of Christ.

For Ferris’s interpretation to be persuasive, it must engage with these challenges through a consistent hermeneutic, a robust philosophical framework, and a careful alignment with established theology. In contrast, a metaphorical or symbolic reading of John 6 offers a more coherent and doctrinally consistent understanding of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, aligning with the spiritual emphasis of Johannine theology and the broader Christian tradition.