Catholicism
#41
(04-22-2020, 08:08 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 07:56 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Answers:

1) Your accusation is baseless, unwarranted and presumptuous. I am a person under the authority of Christ, the living Word of God, who is revealed in the Bible, the written Word of God. Locally, I fall under the authority of the elders of my church and am subject to church discipline if I go astray. As a Christian what is expected of me? To follow God's will, to take up my cross and follow Jesus, walking in obedience to God, repenting of sin. Clear enough? 

Okay but who has the authority over what the Scriptures mean?  I am presuming your church elders are then.  So you agree then with what the Christian & Missionary Alliance teach then?


Btw, when you post with quotes, try ensuring the quote is enclosed in the quote tags and your comments follow after.


Answer:

Yes, I agree with what the Christian & Missionary Alliance Church teaches. Also, someone commented earlier that I left one denomination to join another because of some kind of scandal. That isn't true. My family and I switched denominations because of a move to another city and our kids made some really good connections with other kids so that is where we went. There was no clash of distinctives between the denominations so it was an easy switch. He was right about one thing, though. We did do some "church shopping". 
Reply
#42
(04-22-2020, 08:17 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Answer: I am not my own authority. My beliefs are not my own but are based on Jesus' teaching in the Gospels. It may very well be that this isn't Catholic enough for you but being Catholic isn't necessary for salvation. Salvation comes only from the Saviour, not church membership. 

[/quote]

Okay so when Jesus said "This is my Body, This is my Blood." and you say that Transubstantiation is not what Christ meant, by what authority are you appealing to?
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
#43
(04-22-2020, 08:17 PM)Wingfold Wrote: I am not my own authority. My beliefs are not my own but are based on Jesus' teaching in the Gospels.

Who is the authority then that tells you what the Gospels teach on points like John 6 where clearly you and I disagree on the meaning?

To whom do we go in such a situation to find the answer if I think Jesus is speaking of his real Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist and you think this somehow more a metaphor?

Who is the authority which can tell us who is right?

Are you not setting yourself up as the judge of what that passage means without an external authority?

As proof of this, I will also use Patrick Madrid :

He speaks in that same video of writing on a napkin "I never said you stole money". He asks his Protestant friends who say they know exactly what Scripture says if they can tell him what he means. They say, of course, and then he asks which of the five possible meanings did he mean?

Did he mean "I never said you stole money" but someone else said it? "I never said you stole money" but I did think it? "I never said you stole money" but someone else did? "I never said you stole money" but it's certainly missing? "I never said you stole money" but that gold watch isn't yours?

When we have that question about what was meant we go to the source or an authority who can speak for the source to find out what was meant? So when Scripture is not clear (Cf. Acts 8), who is the authority to whom you go?
Reply
#44
(04-22-2020, 08:42 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 08:17 PM)Wingfold Wrote: I am not my own authority. My beliefs are not my own but are based on Jesus' teaching in the Gospels.

Who is the authority then that tells you what the Gospels teach on points like John 6 where clearly you and I disagree on the meaning?

To whom do we go in such a situation to find the answer if I think Jesus is speaking of his real Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist and you think this somehow more a metaphor?

Who is the authority which can tell us who is right?

Are you not setting yourself up as the judge of what that passage means without an external authority?

As proof of this, I will also use Patrick Madrid :

He speaks in that same video of writing on a napkin "I never said you stole money". He asks his Protestant friends who say they know exactly what Scripture says if they can tell him what he means. They say, of course, and then he asks which of the five possible meanings did he mean?

Did he mean "I never said you stole money" but someone else said it? "I never said you stole money" but I did think it? "I never said you stole money" but someone else did? "I never said you stole money" but it's certainly missing? "I never said you stole money" but that gold watch isn't yours?

When we have that question about what was meant we go to the source or an authority who can speak for the source to find out what was meant? So when Scripture is not clear (Cf. Acts 8), who is the authority to whom you go?


Answer:

Fair question. If there is something in the Bible that I don't understand, I would appeal more learned works such as my pastor, Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary, the Westminster Shorter Catechism or the Heidelberg Catechism. All of these works were compiled by well schooled people. The notes in Study Bibles are also very helpful sometimes. This isn't that different from the upper echelons you would seek out if you needed clarification on something. You would probably contact your pastor or bishop or maybe consult with the Catholic Catechism.
Reply
#45
(04-22-2020, 09:08 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Fair question. If there is something in the Bible that I don't understand, I would appeal more learned works such as my pastor, Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary, the Westminster Shorter Catechism or the Heidelberg Catechism. All of these works were compiled by well schooled people. The notes in Study Bibles are also very helpful sometimes. This isn't that different from the upper echelons you would seek out if you needed clarification on something. You would probably contact your pastor or bishop or maybe consult with the Catholic Catechism.

But the Catechism and your "more learned works" disagree.

So how do we know who is correct?

Who do we appeal to when the "more learned" disagree, since we cannot then appeal to the Bible itself, as it's precisely what's not being understood and is the point of debate?
Reply
#46
(04-22-2020, 09:10 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 09:08 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Fair question. If there is something in the Bible that I don't understand, I would appeal more learned works such as my pastor, Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary, the Westminster Shorter Catechism or the Heidelberg Catechism. All of these works were compiled by well schooled people. The notes in Study Bibles are also very helpful sometimes. This isn't that different from the upper echelons you would seek out if you needed clarification on something. You would probably contact your pastor or bishop or maybe consult with the Catholic Catechism.

But the Catechism and your "more learned works" disagree.

So how do we know who is correct?

Who do we appeal to when the "more learned" disagree, since we cannot then appeal to the Bible itself, as it's precisely what's not being understood and is the point of debate?


Answer:

Well, how does anyone know anything? That said, it's not unreasonable to look to another portion of Scripture to find a way forward. For example, if I'm having trouble with John 6's Eucharist interpretation, I can look to the account of the Last Supper itself where the sacrament of communion was instituted in the first place. Jesus took bread and said, "This is my body which is being given up for you. Take it and eat it. do this is remembrance of me." Same thing with the wine; His blood shed for us. Eat, drink and remember. This is what you do, this is what I do. You believe the host becomes a part of the mystical body of Christ and I see it as a symbol of His body and blood sacrifice. I don't know if transubstantiation is right but as I said earlier, I believe that Christ is present during the sacrament because He said at the end of Matthew's gospel, "I am with you always." Since I can't figure everything out, I'll settle for that. Best I can do under the circumstances.

Now, let me ask you a question: by what authority have you determined that your understanding of it is right and mine isn't?
Reply
#47
(04-22-2020, 09:25 PM)Wingfold Wrote: .

If you want to quote people it goes like this ignoring the * [*QUOTE]Quoted Text[*/QUOTE] You type here.

To quote someone specific it goes like this ignoring the * [*QUOTE='Mr A']Quoted Text[*/QUOTE] You type here.

To quote multiple people, It goes like this ignoring the * [*QUOTE='Mr A']Quoted Text [*QUOTE='Mr B']Quoted Text [*/QUOTE] You type here.

If you don't want yours in quotes, make sure you don't have an end quote ignoring the * [*/QUOTE] at the end of your reply. You can also easily quote small sections of one post multiple times by just copying and pasting the [*QUOTE='Mr A'] to put at the start and then just end it with [*/QUOTE] ignoring the *, caps or lower case for quote doesn't matter, I just find it easier to see and organize in caps.

God Bless
[-] The following 2 users Like josh987654321's post:
  • Fionnchu, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#48
(04-22-2020, 09:25 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Well, how does anyone know anything? That said, it's not unreasonable to look to another portion of Scripture to find a way forward. For example, if I'm having trouble with John 6's Eucharist interpretation, I can look to the account of the Last Supper itself where the sacrament of communion was instituted in the first place. Jesus took bread and said, "This is my body which is being given up for you. Take it and eat it. do this is remembrance of me." Same thing with the wine; His blood shed for us. Eat, drink and remember. This is what you do, this is what I do. You believe the host becomes a part of the mystical body of Christ and I see it as a symbol of His body and blood sacrifice. I don't know if transubstantiation is right but as I said earlier, I believe that Christ is present during the sacrament because He said at the end of Matthew's gospel, "I am with you always." Since I can't figure everything out, I'll settle for that. Best I can do under the circumstances.

So, in other words, while we can cross reference things to try to understand what Jesus is saying or wanting us to do/believe, we cannot know for certain what he wants us to believe?

So in the case where the "learned sources" disagree, we have to go with our own opinion?

Is that a fair assessment?

If not, could you explain, since I see in this a real problem, and I'd hate to get it wrong.

Two further questions :

If we are unsure about the contemporary sources, ought we look to the early Church and see what they did or thought as an example? And what happens when the early sources conflict with the contemporary ones?

(04-22-2020, 09:25 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Now, let me ask you a question: by what authority have you determined that your understanding of it is right and mine isn't?

Fair question.

I believe that Christ founded a Church, which can speak for Him with the help of the Holy Ghost and that it can, because it has this authority from God, define what Christ taught, and defend it from errors.

I believe that that Church compiled the New Testament and with the help of the Holy Ghost determined it was inspired and inerrant and was one of the main sources of revelation (i.e. Divine Tradition—what God has handed on).

Effectively, I think that the Church founded by Christ on St Peter and his successors is the principle authority, and Scripture is a secondary, but the best secondary authority because the Church's authority has established what the Holy Ghost wanted to communicate through it.

Secondarily when the Church herself has not spoken on a matter, I look to the Early Church Fathers to see whether they say that a passage has a particular meaning, since they are the witnesses of the Faith in its earliest days and can give us the best view of what Christ actually taught without any additions. When a large number agree on something, and none disagree, I take it as a true witness of the universally accepted Faith of the Early Church, and so that I must believe it.

If the Church and Fathers are not clear on something, I go to the theologians and learned men, but I do not think these infallible, but just good guides.

If after all of that a belief or passage of Scripture is not clear, then so long as I don't make it contradictory to the Faith or the rest of Scripture, I let myself reason through the most reasonable opinions, but always thinking this my own opinion, and not the Faith.

So, for me to interpret Scripture, or to understand what I must believe I go in this order to : the Church, the Fathers, learned men, my best guess. I stop as soon as possible on that line.

Does that make sense?
Reply
#49
(04-22-2020, 09:25 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 09:10 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [quote='Wingfold' pid='1418793' dateline='1587604090']
Fair question. If there is something in the Bible that I don't understand, I would appeal more learned works such as my pastor, Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary, the Westminster Shorter Catechism or the Heidelberg Catechism. All of these works were compiled by well schooled people. The notes in Study Bibles are also very helpful sometimes. This isn't that different from the upper echelons you would seek out if you needed clarification on something. You would probably contact your pastor or bishop or maybe consult with the Catholic Catechism.

But the Catechism and your "more learned works" disagree.

So how do we know who is correct?

Who do we appeal to when the "more learned" disagree, since we cannot then appeal to the Bible itself, as it's precisely what's not being understood and is the point of debate?


Answer:

Well, how does anyone know anything? That said, it's not unreasonable to look to another portion of Scripture to find a way forward. For example, if I'm having trouble with John 6's Eucharist interpretation, I can look to the account of the Last Supper itself where the sacrament of communion was instituted in the first place. Jesus took bread and said, "This is my body which is being given up for you. Take it and eat it. do this is remembrance of me." Same thing with the wine; His blood shed for us. Eat, drink and remember. This is what you do, this is what I do. You believe the host becomes a part of the mystical body of Christ and I see it as a symbol of His body and blood sacrifice. I don't know if transubstantiation is right but as I said earlier, I believe that Christ is present during the sacrament because He said at the end of Matthew's gospel, "I am with you always." Since I can't figure everything out, I'll settle for that. Best I can do under the circumstances.

Now, let me ask you a question: by what authority have you determined that your understanding of it is right and mine isn't?

The authority that Jesus Christ commissioned to His Church.  The Catholics can trace their Church to the 1st Century, but no Protestant can trace theirs past the 16th-Century.  You say you appeal to catechisms of Reformed Men, but where did they get their authority?  Catholics and Eastern Orthodox can claim Apostolic Succession. What makes the Heidlberg Catechism right and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or Luther's Small Catechism wrong?

What authority does the Westminster and Heidlberg catechisms claim that the other's don't?
Reply
#50
(04-22-2020, 08:27 PM)Wingfold Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 08:08 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(04-22-2020, 07:56 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Answers:

1) Your accusation is baseless, unwarranted and presumptuous. I am a person under the authority of Christ, the living Word of God, who is revealed in the Bible, the written Word of God. Locally, I fall under the authority of the elders of my church and am subject to church discipline if I go astray. As a Christian what is expected of me? To follow God's will, to take up my cross and follow Jesus, walking in obedience to God, repenting of sin. Clear enough? 

Okay but who has the authority over what the Scriptures mean?  I am presuming your church elders are then.  So you agree then with what the Christian & Missionary Alliance teach then?


Btw, when you post with quotes, try ensuring the quote is enclosed in the quote tags and your comments follow after.


Answer:

Yes, I agree with what the Christian & Missionary Alliance Church teaches. Also, someone commented earlier that I left one denomination to join another because of some kind of scandal. That isn't true. My family and I switched denominations because of a move to another city and our kids made some really good connections with other kids so that is where we went. There was no clash of distinctives between the denominations so it was an easy switch. He was right about one thing, though. We did do some "church shopping". 

In your post on 4/23/2020 you state

"For openers, I'm not a Wesleyan. Wesleyans tend to be Arminian and Reformers tend to be Calvinistic - not always, but for the most part. Just wanted to clear that up."

Yet above you state the agree with C&MA. For the record I am a Catholic revert that left the Church and attended a C&MA church for 7 years before reverting. The C&MA Church I attended was heavily plugged into The Alliance Seminary in Nyack and I'm pretty sure the pastor that started the Church I attended has moved on to become and author and a teaching position at the Alliance Seminary in Nyack.

The C&MA is was founded by Simpson and is heavily influenced by Wesleyan theology.

Just want to clarify.
"There is nothing more pleasing to God, than to see a soul who patiently and serenely bears whatever crosses it is sent; this is how love is made, by putting lover and loved one on the same level. . . A soul who loves Jesus Christ desires to be treated the way Christ was treated-desires to be poor, despised and humiliated."

St Alphonsus Ligouri
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)