Under whose authority do you say you have the correct interpretation of the Bible?

[Jonaitis]

I guess I am missing the point of that. Yes, they do, although both of them qualify their belief in some way or other.

Well, the point you're probably missing is that Spiritual Presence denies Real Presence, if you are familiar with these two groups beliefs on the matter. I don't know what Anglicans hold, tbh. Christ is not at all corporeally and substantially in any way, hidden or next to or under, to the sacrament. I am convinced, though, that it is more than a symbol, but a very means of grace.

 

[Albion]

Well, the point you're probably missing is that Spiritual Presence denies Real Presence, if you are familiar with these two groups beliefs on the matter.

No. It doesn't.

I don't know what Anglicans hold, tbh.

We hold that Christ is truly present in the elements of bread and wine but only in an heavenly and spiritual manner. It is a belief in the Real Presence, but not Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation.

The standard Reformed view, by the way, is defended by many Presbyterians and Reformed as Real Presence also, although I personally have doubts about that. Calvin did not believe in only a symbolic definition of the sacrament, though.

 

[Jonaitis]

Calvin's (and mainstream Reformed) view was and has always been just Spiritual Presence...Zwingli's symbolism is not the same as Calvin's spiritual view, I think that's where part of the miscommunication lies...

We are off-topic, Abion. If you want to discuss this more, I think we should take it somewhere else.

 

[Albion]

Calvin's (and mainstream Reformed) view was and has always been just Spiritual Presence...

That's correct. And many Calvinists -- the ones who go in for theological intricacies -- will insist that this is a variety of Real Presence.

Critics, however, will say that it is not a presence IN the elements of bread and wine, however, so that disqualifies it from being Real Presence.

 

[Jonaitis]

That's correct. And many Calvinists -- the ones who go in for theological intricacies -- will insist that this is a variety of Real Presence. Critics, however, will say that it is not a presence IN the elements of bread and wine, however, so that disqualifies it from being Real Presence.

The Reformed don't deny that Christ's presence is in some way in the sacraments, but instead is the denial of Christ's actual body and blood (corporeal substance) being at all united or transformed out of the elements. Grace is conveyed spiritually through the sacrament.

Btw, Calvinism is only part of Reformed doctrine...

 

[Cis.jd]

It's often been said that pride is at the root of all the divisions in the Church. I've also heard from people on these forums that they decide what church they go to, based on whether or not a church follows the Bible.

The natural issue here is, every church claims to follow the Bible! But people think that their interpretation is the most important, so they go to a church that agrees with them (not all Christians, but a lot).

Why do you think you have the correct interpretation? Even if you don't think the Pope's office is Biblical, does that mean it isn't? If you think that the Trinity isn't Biblical, does that mean it isn't? Neither issue here is particularly obvious, if you look through Scripture, trying to find it. But Church councils have agreed that both of these are very much Biblical!

As we learn more about the Bible, our answer to different issues tends to change. You may think the death penalty is okay, with Bible verses on justice to support it; but as you read more about mercy, and the dignity of every life, you may decide that the death penalty really isn't okay.

So whose authority to you say you have the correct Bible interpretation? And if you say "The Holy Spirit", keep in mind that people who wildly disagree with you will say the same thing, as does the Catholic Church.

Christ founded a church 2,000 years ago; that means there's been 2,000 years of scholars, councils, debates, and many ways of defining what the Bible is teaching. While the official teachings in the Catechism will sometimes change to meet the changing times, issues like the Trinity, works & faith salvation, the Sacrements, what books belong in the Bible, and many other unchanging issues go back early in Church history.

I cannot say that I have a proper interpretation of the Bible; it's far too complex. But I side with the authority of the Catholic Church, with the teachings of the Catechism, with a development of doctrine as people graced by wisdom & understanding further refine just what God wants us to do.

But if you just use your own Bible, disregarding issues already settled by people much more educated than you, who lived much closer to Christ's time, before denominations were a thing (just the Church & heresies), if you think you have more wisdom than the Church fathers, and the teaching authority of the Church that is only logical that Christ would leave with us...

Then why do you think your interpretation is correct?

View attachment 249739

To me Orthodox and RCC have the better theological views, apologetics, and over all scripture. Regardless, I don't have full confidence in the validity of certain things.. it doesn't involve "well i just don't see it in scripture" but just the demand for some evidence or realism.

I think RCC, EO, Lutherans and Anglicans are the ones with the best wisdom and academical arguments. Non-Denoms have a nice realistic view of things (or at least some do, because others sound like Baptists) and I sort of enjoy/relate more to their views on certain theological talks because it seems more down to earth on some points.

 

[Albion]

The Reformed don't deny that Christ's presence is in some way in the sacraments, but instead is the denial of Christ's actual body and blood (corporeal substance) being at all united or transformed out of the elements.

Your stumbling block appears to be thinking that Real Presence means or requires a literal, carnal, physical presence. It doesn't. That was a Medieval modification of the Apostolic teaching.

 

[Halbhh]

It's often been said that pride is at the root of all the divisions in the Church. I've also heard from people on these forums that they decide what church they go to, based on whether or not a church follows the Bible.

The natural issue here is, every church claims to follow the Bible! But people think that their interpretation is the most important, so they go to a church that agrees with them (not all Christians, but a lot).

Why do you think you have the correct interpretation? Even if you don't think the Pope's office is Biblical, does that mean it isn't? If you think that the Trinity isn't Biblical, does that mean it isn't? Neither issue here is particularly obvious, if you look through Scripture, trying to find it. But Church councils have agreed that both of these are very much Biblical!

As we learn more about the Bible, our answer to different issues tends to change. You may think the death penalty is okay, with Bible verses on justice to support it; but as you read more about mercy, and the dignity of every life, you may decide that the death penalty really isn't okay.

So whose authority to you say you have the correct Bible interpretation? And if you say "The Holy Spirit", keep in mind that people who wildly disagree with you will say the same thing, as does the Catholic Church.

Christ founded a church 2,000 years ago; that means there's been 2,000 years of scholars, councils, debates, and many ways of defining what the Bible is teaching. While the official teachings in the Catechism will sometimes change to meet the changing times, issues like the Trinity, works & faith salvation, the Sacrements, what books belong in the Bible, and many other unchanging issues go back early in Church history.

I cannot say that I have a proper interpretation of the Bible; it's far too complex. But I side with the authority of the Catholic Church, with the teachings of the Catechism, with a development of doctrine as people graced by wisdom & understanding further refine just what God wants us to do.

But if you just use your own Bible, disregarding issues already settled by people much more educated than you, who lived much closer to Christ's time, before denominations were a thing (just the Church & heresies), if you think you have more wisdom than the Church fathers, and the teaching authority of the Church that is only logical that Christ would leave with us...

Then why do you think your interpretation is correct?

View attachment 249739

It's not humble to imagine one knows better than others (whoever, church 'fathers' etc., nor to overly elevate them, either). God resists the proud we know. I don't know any way to view 'interpretations' in the sense of doctrines taught as a way to understand scripture to ever be...crucial. They are the understandings of some few, and some help some at some times (or not), variously.

We are to listen, and hear, and we won't ever all understand all smaller (non crucial) details just the same, because we are every one unique to begin with, by His design. So, I don't think any divisions, including all the ones inside any church, including the divisions in the modern Catholic church also, are valid. The divisions between 'traditionalists' and other Catholics: invalid. Etc. All these divisions are invalid, and none matter, because they are superficial. Either you believe, or you don't. Either you listen to Him, or you don't, individually.

To do as we should, we need to listen, hear His words (see the 3 gospel accounts of this below).

Those are very clear words. We don't ever need an interpretation to hear and do crucial things He said. Just humility.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor i and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?"


We hear the very words of God --

Luke 9:35 And a voice came from the cloud, saying, "This is My Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him!"
Matthew 17:5 While Peter was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Listen to Him!"
Mark 9:7 Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is My beloved Son. Listen to Him!"

God says we are to listen to Christ Jesus, to His words. If we believe, and listen, and do as He said, this is clearly God's will.

So, you are already in my Church, if you listen and believe and do as He said (however imperfectly, just to be essentially listening and believing and doing). I don't believe in whatever distinctions of divisions (those are not in the instructions from Him).

Put another way, many members of your own congregation would be 100% comfortable in my church, and also the other way, because we are following Him, not men, already. We didn't need all the members of our congregations to be all understanding all things the same (and that's never been in any church anywhere down here except for just the few crucial things, faith, listening, doing).

 

[Not David]

The Orthodox Church which was founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[rockytopva]

There are two trumpets!

1. The Spirit of God - The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: - Romans 8:16
2. The Word of God - Christ Jesus- And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us... John 1:14

And the Spirit and the Word are not arrogance! The Holy Spirit and Christ Jesus himself are my authority.

And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. - 1 Corinthians 2:4-5

 

[Zetetica]

It's often been said that pride is at the root of all the divisions in the Church. I've also heard from people on these forums that they decide what church they go to, based on whether or not a church follows the Bible.

The natural issue here is, every church claims to follow the Bible! But people think that their interpretation is the most important, so they go to a church that agrees with them (not all Christians, but a lot).

Why do you think you have the correct interpretation? Even if you don't think the Pope's office is Biblical, does that mean it isn't? If you think that the Trinity isn't Biblical, does that mean it isn't? Neither issue here is particularly obvious, if you look through Scripture, trying to find it. But Church councils have agreed that both of these are very much Biblical!

As we learn more about the Bible, our answer to different issues tends to change. You may think the death penalty is okay, with Bible verses on justice to support it; but as you read more about mercy, and the dignity of every life, you may decide that the death penalty really isn't okay.

So whose authority to you say you have the correct Bible interpretation? And if you say "The Holy Spirit", keep in mind that people who wildly disagree with you will say the same thing, as does the Catholic Church.

Christ founded a church 2,000 years ago; that means there's been 2,000 years of scholars, councils, debates, and many ways of defining what the Bible is teaching. While the official teachings in the Catechism will sometimes change to meet the changing times, issues like the Trinity, works & faith salvation, the Sacrements, what books belong in the Bible, and many other unchanging issues go back early in Church history.

I cannot say that I have a proper interpretation of the Bible; it's far too complex. But I side with the authority of the Catholic Church, with the teachings of the Catechism, with a development of doctrine as people graced by wisdom & understanding further refine just what God wants us to do.

But if you just use your own Bible, disregarding issues already settled by people much more educated than you, who lived much closer to Christ's time, before denominations were a thing (just the Church & heresies), if you think you have more wisdom than the Church fathers, and the teaching authority of the Church that is only logical that Christ would leave with us...

Then why do you think your interpretation is correct?

View attachment 249739

I don’t accept an appeal to authority of man as any sort of acceptable debate. While I respect the authority of the original apostles, I don’t recognize anything of the Roman Catholic Church, be that its writings, its saints, its priests, and popes.

 

[Zetetica]

If all interpretations can be said to be wrong, why not have them at all?

I think best way is to not make interpretations, but to understand Bible directly as it says things.

I could not possibly agree more! Bravo!

 

[_Dave_]

What came to my mind when I read the OP was one word: Hermeneutics.

Hermeneutics is the theory of interpretation, and I think it has everything to do with what the OP was posing in his comment.

If you strip away all the influences of the writings of the early church fathers, and if you strip away all of the different statements of belief, faith and doctrines of the denominational churches, and if you strip away all of the traditions, liturgies and orders of service in those churches and have nothing but God's word in a book on your lap you might still be in disagreement about interpretation of the same passage with the guy sitting right next to you.

If I had a dime for every time I've seen someone in a forum earnestly declare that his wrong-headed doctrinal theology was correct because he rightly divides the word, using only the word, I'd be retired as a rich man.

Where a person lands on the hermeneutics scale determines how he or she interprets Scripture. And in some 40 years of being a Christian I have never witnessed anybody with a solid hermeneutic, on either end of the scale, budging from his or her interpretation.

Now, I'm not trying light a fire here ... but, for example, the great debate over the interpretation of Jesus' words in Matt 24:34 can NEVER be resolved because the interpretation is fully informed by a person's hermeneutics. There is simply no common ground for agreement when two people adamantly view the same passage and get opposite meanings.

 

[redleghunter]

Why do you think you have the correct interpretation?

How much of the Holy Scriptures has the Roman Catholic church infallibly interpreted? Let's start there before making this about 'interpretation..'

 

[Yekcidmij]

So whose authority to you say you have the correct Bible interpretation?

It almost sounds as if you're arguing against there being any objective interpretation at all since we would all be forced to say that nobody has the "correct" interpretation. There are really only two options for people. Either you believe that the interpretation to which you subscribe is correct or you don't know. Believing the interpretation to which you subscribe to be incorrect and believing it anyway would be irrational. So either a person subscribes to an interpretation they believe to be correct or they remain agnostic.

People subscribe to interpretations for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps someone (be it the Bishop of Rome or their local pastor) tells them what the interpretation is and they subscribe. In other cases they apply some sort of other methodology with some set of axioms and rules and come up with an interpretation. You believe you have the interpretation correct insofar as you are confident that your methodology is correct and you remain consistent to that method's rules and application.

 

[redleghunter]

If I had a dime for every time I've seen someone in a forum earnestly declare that his wrong-headed doctrinal theology was correct because he rightly divides the word, using only the word, I'd be retired as a rich man.

That's because such 'interpretations' always lack a systematic theology. The error comes from taking an idea and applying it to Scriptures (eisegesis) instead of drawing the truth out of the text (exegesis).

Why I asked above if the Roman Catholic church even has an infallible interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. What is their systematic approach?

 

[Not David]

That's because such 'interpretations' always lack a systematic theology. The error comes from taking an idea and applying it to Scriptures (eisegesis) instead of drawing the truth out of the text (exegesis).

Why I asked above if the Roman Catholic church even has an infallible interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. What is their systematic approach?

Apostolic sucesssion, the writings of the Saints, Councils, the Liturgy, prayers, and being founded in Jesus Christ?

 

[redleghunter]

Apostolic sucesssion, the writings of the Saints, Councils, the Liturgy, prayers, and being founded in Jesus Christ?

Then there should be an infallible interpretation of each verse, chapter and book of the Bible by now. There is not. In fact not all the saints agree on many doctrines.

 

[Not David]

Then there should be an infallible interpretation of each verse, chapter and book of the Bible by now. There is not. In fact not all the saints agree on many doctrines.

Everything that was considered important for one salvation has been address or simply there was no controversy about it. The Orthodox Church never needed a Council to clarify the nature of the Eucharist because there was never an opposition to it, like in the Catholic Church.

 

[redleghunter]

Everything that was considered important for one salvation has been address or simply there was no controversy about it. The Orthodox Church never needed a Council to clarify the nature of the Eucharist because there was never an opposition to it, like in the Catholic Church.

So for the Orthodox it is tradition which interprets the Scriptures but not always infallibly?