An Unrealisitc Request about Jesus and Paul

[ralphinal]

Well they are good questions that I have not received satisfactory answers to.

However, I do not think that it necessarily follows from these questions that the solution is the existence of an interpretor of the Bible that is incapable of being incorrect.

Why not? Is it impossible for God to send the Holy Spirit to guide us to all Truth?

 

[With_Questions]

Why not? Is it impossible for God to send the Holy Spirit to guide us to all Truth?

I don’t think questions concerning possibility or impossibility in respect to God are all that relevant. With God all things are possible of course.

To me the only questions that are really relevant are questions pertaining to what God actually does, not could possibly do.

Catholicism claims that what God does is to provide an infallible interpreter of God’s Word.

Of course that is something that God could do, but I would kind of like to have a very good reason to believe that is actually something that God does.

My only point is that it does not necessarily follow from the phenomenon of Protestant disagreements over what the Bible teaches, that providing an infallible interpreter of God’s Word is something that God actually does.

However, I do think this phenomenon suggests that perhaps some claims of some Protestants concerning the Bible might be somewhat overstated.

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t think questions concerning possibility or impossibility in respect to God are all that relevant. With God all things are possible of course.

To me the only questions that are really relevant are questions pertaining to what God actually does, not could possibly do.

Catholicism claims that what God does is to provide an infallible interpreter of God’s Word.

Of course that is something that God could do, but I would kind of like to have a very good reason to believe that is actually something that God does.

My only point is that it does not necessarily follow from the phenomenon of Protestant disagreements over what the Bible teaches, that providing an infallible interpreter of God’s Word is something that God actually does.

However, I do think this phenomenon suggests that perhaps some claims of some Protestants concerning the Bible might be somewhat overstated.

So what is the answer? Where is the correct understanding of the authority of the Bible?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Interpretation of verses for one.

As if anytime something is written in requires an infallible interpretation? Are the verses coded in some form of mystical language that no one but a select few can properly understand?

Another would be practices for services. Would it be logical that the early Church would have a ritual (name removed by moderator)lace for all services to be the same? SHow me the service guide in scripture.

Which is why one particular form of worship cannot be mandated beyond what we do have as examples of the worship God requires. If you want a service guide, try the Old Testament, it’s chock full of 'em. The early church developed a liturgy based on apostolic practice, but that isn’t the same as saying you MUST do it this way.

 

[ralphinal]

As if anytime something is written in requires an infallible interpretation? Are the verses coded in some form of mystical language that no one but a select few can properly understand?

Seems like it. Why else do we have so many different opinions on what the Bible says. Not all verses are like that, but there are some that need explaining.

Which is why one particular form of worship cannot be mandated beyond what we do have as examples of the worship God requires. If you want a service guide, try the Old Testament, it’s chock full of 'em. The early church developed a liturgy based on apostolic practice, but that isn’t the same as saying you MUST do it this way.

Really? Jesus did say to “do this” so that says to me it is to be done.

 

[With_Questions]

So what is the answer? Where is the correct understanding of the authority of the Bible?

Not sure what you are asking here.

But for me, I’m better at asking questions than giving answers anyway.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Seems like it. Why else do we have so many different opinions on what the Bible says. Not all verses are like that, but there are some that need explaining.

Again, this is a demonstration that to the Roman Catholic Church, God hasn’t spoken clearly about anything. Yes, some verses need explaining; that doesn’t necessitate an infallible guide to doing so.

Really? Jesus did say to “do this” so that says to me it is to be done.

The Eucharist? I was talking about the form of worship. I don’t know of any orthodox Protestant bodies that don’t celebrate communion.

 

[ralphinal]

Not sure what you are asking here.

But for me, I’m better at asking questions than giving answers anyway.

If the Catholic position is wrong and the classic definition is off, I wonder what the correct position is

 

[ralphinal]

Again, this is a demonstration that to the Roman Catholic Church, God hasn’t spoken clearly about anything. Yes, some verses need explaining; that doesn’t necessitate an infallible guide to doing so.

Why not? Willy-nilly translations are an issue

The Eucharist? I was talking about the form of worship. I don’t know of any orthodox Protestant bodies that don’t celebrate communion.

I should have anticipated this. Catholics see the Eucharist AS the ultimate form of worship. In fact, it is the only required form in the Universal Church. THere are a good number of non-Catholic groups that do not have it, and some that do do not accept the Real Presence (another postion defended by Sola Scriptura). If our position is correct, one form of worship is mandated. Logically, if there is a Real Presence, it should be.

 

[With_Questions]

If the Catholic position is wrong and the classic definition is off, I wonder what the correct position is

OK. That’s what I thought you were asking.

I’m not totally sure. But if those two premises are correct, it has to be somewhere in the middle.

Again, I’m better at asking questions than giving answers.

But one thing that sort of made sense to me was reading about Prima Scriptura and John Wesey. But I might have a Methodist upbringing bias here.

 

[ralphinal]

OK. That’s what I thought you were asking.

I’m not totally sure. But if those two premises are correct, it has to be somewhere in the middle.

Again, I’m better at asking questions than giving answers.

But one thing that sort of made sense to me was reading about Prima Scriptura and John Wesey. But I might have a Methodist upbringing bias here.

Maybe not. Prima Scriptura is a more moderate position as it allows for authority in the church and tradition. The question on that is how much is allowed and how do you know that they are correct.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Why not? Willy-nilly translations are an issue

And willy-nilly translations can be seen for what they are.
A good example of that is Mary being the “new Eve”

I should have anticipated this. Catholics see the Eucharist AS the ultimate form of worship. In fact, it is the only required form in the Universal Church. THere are a good number of non-Catholic groups that do not have it, and some that do do not accept the Real Presence (another postion defended by Sola Scriptura). If our position is correct, one form of worship is mandated. Logically, if there is a Real Presence, it should be.

I wouldn’t disagree with you about the Supper being the central aspect of worship. I wasn’t talking about that, though, I was talking about styles of liturgy.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Maybe not. Prima Scriptura is a more moderate position as it allows for authority in the church and tradition. The question on that is how much is allowed and how do you know that they are correct.

Can you define Prima Scriptura?

 

[ralphinal]

Can you define Prima Scriptura?

Here you go. INterestingly, many Protestants who think they are sola are prima

Prima scriptura is a doctrine that says canonized scripture is “first” or “above all” sources of divine revelation.

Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from canonized scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures.

 

[jmcrae]

And willy-nilly translations can be seen for what they are.
A good example of that is Mary being the “new Eve”

So, you feel that St. Ignatius of Antioch, scribe to the Apostle John and responsible for much of the Book of Revelation, was just blowing smoke, as he was being carted off to the lions in 110 AD, when he wrote that to the Smyrnians?

I wouldn’t disagree with you about the Supper being the central aspect of worship. I wasn’t talking about that, though, I was talking about styles of liturgy.

There are a lot of aspects of the liturgy that are considered disciplinary in nature, and subject to change when there are reasons for doing so. The only essential is the act of Consecration itself, which goes back to Apostolic times - the wording is the same wording that St. Paul records in I Corinthians 11.

 

[With_Questions]

More from the same Wiki concerning John Wesley and the Methodists:

Another version of the prima scriptura approach may be the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which maintains that Scripture is to be the primary authority for the Church. Nonetheless, it is best interpreted through the lenses of reason, personal experience, and Church tradition, although the Bible remains the crucial and normative authority for Christians. According to the United Methodist Church, which adheres to this notion:

“ Scripture is considered the primary source and standard for Christian doctrine. Tradition is experience and the witness of development and growth of the faith through the past centuries and in many nations and cultures. Experience is the individual’s understanding and appropriating of the faith in the light of his or her own life. Through reason the individual Christian brings to bear on the Christian faith discerning and cogent thought. These four elements taken together bring the individual Christian to a mature and fulfilling understanding of the Christian faith and the required response of worship and service.[3]

 

[TriuneUnity]

Here you go. INterestingly, many Protestants who think they are sola are prima

Prima scriptura is a doctrine that says canonized scripture is “first” or “above all” sources of divine revelation.

Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from canonized scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures.

I wouldn’t disagree much with this, and I am not sure it is terribly different than Luther’s view. I would disagree that Scripture is one source of revelation. I believe Scripture to be the only form of revelation the Church has access to.

 

[ralphinal]

And willy-nilly translations can be seen for what they are.
A good example of that is Mary being the “new Eve”

Mary as the new Eve is another topic. I wish everyone could tell when the interpretation was bunk. We would not have issues with homosexual marriage and all the other heresies.

I wouldn’t disagree with you about the Supper being the central aspect of worship. I wasn’t talking about that, though, I was talking about styles of liturgy.

Styles are not as important as content. Styles can vary with time and location. Content should not.

 

[TriuneUnity]

So, you feel that St. Ignatius of Antioch, scribe to the Apostle John and responsible for much of the Book of Revelation, was just blowing smoke, as he was being carted off to the lions in 110 AD, when he wrote that to the Smyrnians?

Could you reference where in that epistle Ignatius mentions this?

There are a lot of aspects of the liturgy that are considered disciplinary in nature, and subject to change when there are reasons for doing so. The only essential is the act of Consecration itself, which goes back to Apostolic times - the wording is the same wording that St. Paul records in I Corinthians 11.

No disagreement here.

 

[ralphinal]

I wouldn’t disagree much with this, and I am not sure it is terribly different than Luther’s view. I would disagree that Scripture is one source of revelation. I believe Scripture to be the only form of revelation the Church has access to.

And the Catholic Church holds that Scripture is public revelation and only public revelation is binding on everyone. Jesus may tell you something but I do not have to listen. What is recorded in Scripture, I do, and so do you.

If prima scritura is closer to Luther’s position, where the heck did sola (in the sctrict understanding) come from?