Peter the Rock / Protestant and Catholic

[Concord1968]

I have always wondered why the reverse of that is not the truth as well.

Something I've noticed of late. The "bashing" cry goes up every time there's disagreement with Catholic doctrine, even when no bashing is occurring at all. It's crying wolf, pure and simple, in an effort to squash discussion and suppress dissent.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Surely you are being (trying to be) funny. I am in no way arguing over such a simple thing. I am simply stating what is known and accepted.

With only a little effort anyone can understand, if they want to that,
"Is given by inspiration of God" - All this is expressed in the original by one Greek word - Θεόπνευστος Theopneustos.

This word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means, God-inspired - from Θεός Theos“God,” and πνέω pneō“to breathe, to breathe out.” The idea of “breathing upon, or breathing into the soul,” is that which the word naturally conveys.
2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture... - Verse-by-Verse Commentary

Therefore we understand it to mean "INSPIRED by God". which then means that there can not be any errors in the Word of God.

I submit to you that the only reason you are not accepting this is because you are choosing to accept the teaching of the RCC over the written Word of God.

That is of course your choice to do you.

Ok I apologize perhaps I misunderstood your position. I thought you were saying that the scriptures were not by divine revelation but instead breathed of God. After reviewing what was said I think what you intended was that not only some of scripture was by divine revelation aka divine inspiration but all of it was. The reason I said much of scripture is from divine revelation is because much of it is also from remembering the events that took place and the words Jesus spoke which I would agree this could also be considered divine revelation in a manner of speaking. Typically when I think of divine revelation it is something that is revealed by God by means of a vision or a dream. So please forgive my misunderstanding it was not intended to speak untruthfully about you brother in an effort to discredit you by means of intentional deception. I know this kind of behavior is sadly all to common here on CF but I assure you that was not my intention at all.

So since we agree that the scriptures were given by divine revelation/inspiration I guess the real difference is that you believe this has ceased and I do not. I honestly think that the scriptures you quoted to support your idea that prophecy has ceased is about as inconclusive as the RCC’s claim that 1 Corinthians 3:15 supports the doctrine of purgatory. There’s simply not enough evidence there to support that claim.

 

[Albion]

Ok I apologize perhaps I misunderstood your position. I thought you were saying that the scriptures were not by divine revelation but instead breathed of God. After reviewing what was said I think what you intended was that not only some of scripture was by divine revelation aka divine inspiration but all of it was. The reason I said much of scripture is from divine revelation is because much of it is also from remembering the events that took place and the words Jesus spoke which I would agree this could also be considered divine revelation in a manner of speaking.

It seems odd to me that someone who thinks that God keeps the institutional church from error and assumes that He is also revealing new doctrine through "traditions," would NOT also think that the books of the Bible which we all say are divine revelation would be preserved from error by Him as well.

 

[BNR32FAN]

With all due respect.....I ask you to do the same thing.

I do not believe that you have posted one single Bible Scripture to support anything you have said to this point.

I pointed out that the scriptures were the result of divine revelation just as the traditions of the church. This person is referring to specific quotes in Luther’s writings that I’m not inclined to read thru all of these writings to find specific quotes to support his position. That would be like someone telling me that salvation is not conditional then posting a link to the Bible and telling me to read it and find the evidence to support his beliefs. What he considers to support his position may not even exist in the scriptures and I may not agree that anything in the Bible supports his position. So I could end up wasting time looking for something that isn’t even there.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It seems odd to me that someone who thinks that God keeps the institutional church from error and assumes that He is also revealing new doctrine through "traditions," would NOT also think that the books of the Bible which we all say are divine revelation would be preserved from error by Him as well.

I believe the original texts were free from error but I’ve also seen some errors in different translations of them. Not to mention the gender neutral bibles.

 

[Albion]

I believe the original texts were free from error but I’ve also seen some errors in different translations of them. Not to mention the gender neutral bibles.

Well, that is a different issue, isn't it?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, that is a different issue, isn't it?

I don’t quite understand your meaning or how this pertains to the idea that God may have revealed more information after the scriptures were written and may intend to reveal more in the future. Is this beyond God’s authority or power to do so?

 

[Albion]

It's beyond his intentions. What's more it conflicts with the testimony of the Bible which we all say we consider to be divine revelation.

 

[tz620q]

It's beyond his intentions. What's more it conflicts with the testimony of the Bible which we all say we consider to be divine revelation.

That seems a little odd for you to say you know God's intentions. Would you say that God sent the Holy Spirit to run a printing press? Or did He send the Holy Spirit to help illuminate our minds to deeper and deeper understanding of Him? I don't think BNR32FAN is advocating adding to the Bible as a book. Perhaps you can help by clarifying what you see as revelations in the modern age.

 

[Albion]

That seems a little odd for you to say you know God's intentions.

In all these Q&A things online, my position is to go by the standards of the Christian faith. Other people go by their hunches sometimes or what seems reasonable or something else like that. My POV is that if we have an answer, such as the explicit testimony of the Bible, then that IS the answer.

Anyone can raise the issue of proper interpretation of the Bible, of course, but not "I kinda think that God would do it this way, just because" or anything else in that vein. Not unless they are simply stating their own personal belief and not trying to say that anyone else should agree with them.

 

[Concord1968]

There are no revelations in the modern age: The door of revelation closed with the death of the last apostle.

 

[tz620q]

There are no revelations in the modern age: The door of revelation closed with the death of the last apostle.

Perhaps you should discuss with us how you view the early ecumenical councils. Were these helped by the Holy Spirit to further the understanding of Scripture or were they new revelation? There is a fine line between deeper knowledge and new knowledge.

 

[Albion]

Something I've noticed of late. The "bashing" cry goes up every time there's disagreement with Catholic doctrine, even when no bashing is occurring at all. It's crying wolf, pure and simple, in an effort to squash discussion and suppress dissent.

It's true, although it is not done by everybody; but Major1 is correct to have noted that there doesn't appear to be a lot of reciprocity when it comes to the churches that other members here belong to.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There are no revelations in the modern age: The door of revelation closed with the death of the last apostle.

Says who?

 

[tz620q]

In all these Q&A things online, my position is to go by the standards of the Christian faith. Other people go by their hunches sometimes or what seems reasonable or something else like that. My POV is that if we have an answer, such as the explicit testimony of the Bible, then that IS the answer.

Anyone can raise the issue of proper interpretation of the Bible, of course, but not "I kinda think that God would do it this way, just because" or anything else in that vein. Not unless they are simply stating their own personal belief and not trying to say that anyone else should agree with them.

Perhaps we should state this as the corollary that is "If something is explicitly prohibited in the Bible, then it should not be part of the Christian's life." Even then I can see a lot of difference between how a Jew of Christ's time would have read and interpreted the Bible and how we interpret it today. Is it right to hold to the older interpretation over the newer one?

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's beyond his intentions

That’s a bold statement.

 

[Albion]

Perhaps you should discuss with us how you view the early ecumenical councils. Were these helped by the Holy Spirit to further the understanding of Scripture or were they new revelation? There is a fine line between deeper knowledge and new knowledge.

The Ecumenical Councils have nothing to do with this. They did not aspire to create new truth and there haven't been any of them for well over a thousand years.

It seemed clear to me that it was being said that new revelations were to be expected and were coming on a continuing basis.

 

[Albion]

Says who?

What evidence is there that continuing revelation is true? Unless there is a good reason for subscribing to this notion which would appeal to a Pentecostal or a Mormon, there is no basis for us to buy into it.

 

[tz620q]

The Ecumenical Councils have nothing to do with this. They did not aspire to create new truth and there haven't been any of them for well over a thousand years.

It seemed clear to me that it was being said that new revelations were to be expected and were coming on a continuing basis.

Why not acknowledge that that is your viewpoint of revelation, instead of stating it as fact? Then we can have others state their opinions without feeling like they have to debate you on this. Within Catholicism we differentiate between personal revelation and general revelation. We state that God has closed general revelation that must be accepted by all. That does not negate the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives to give us personal revelation. Of course, we agree with you that if this personal revelation contradicts the general revelation it should be held suspect. That does not discount all personal revelation though.

 

[Albion]

Why not acknowledge that that is your viewpoint of revelation, instead of stating it as fact?

Quite obviously, I am referring the reader to something everyone here allegedly agrees upon--the Bible, our common guide to God's will and intentions.

If I were staking out some highly personal theory like I have been reading here, then I think you would have a point. Interestingly enough, your question is essentially the one I have been asking those folks who say that their hunches or speculations are what we should go by.