That's the ultimate narcissism (self-love), arrogance and pride, FK, because then one appoints himself as the sole arbiter of what is true and what is false.
AAaaaarghhhhh! But this is what you do! :) You openly default to whatever the Church says as your "official" position, but in your heart you have honest disagreements on the truth of some scripture. From my statement, your "belief in the interpretation" is the Church's. However it disagrees in some cases with "your own belief about its correctness". The Church does not say that Paul was wrong, instead it says that he did not mean what he said. At least your approach is the more honest. :) (And just to be clear, I don't think of you as any of those things from your statement. :)
Also, think about it: if the Bible has more than one interpretation then it has more than one truth. And that is a slippery slope.
I don't look at it that way. The reason for more than one interpretation is that no one is right about everything, EVEN GIVEN that all believers are individually led by the Spirit. God's timetable is God's timetable, and we will know what He wants us to know, when He wants us to know it. Otherwise, sanctification would not be a lifelong process, and I think we all agree that it is.
You responded: AAaaaarghhhhh! But this is what you do! :) You openly default to whatever the Church says as your "official" position, but in your heart you have honest disagreements on the truth of some scripture.
AAaaaaarghhhh! No we don't! WE default to the Church's dogmatic teachings - but it doesn't follow that the Church is monolithic and narrow on all of its teachings. ALL of the Church's teachings are not dogmatice, FK!
In our discussion on grace and free will, I (Joe) told you that the Church ALLOWS several stances regarding predestination of the elect and so forth (Augustinianism, Thomism, Molinism, and so forth). I (Joe), as a Catholic, can decide for myself ANY of these stances. The Church is broad in its view on this question! We have discussed this and other things over and over again. I have ALSO told you that the Church does not define the entire meaning of the Scriptures. There are only a dozen or so verses that the Church says "this is what it means, and nothing else". The Church allows SOME freedom, as long as our view does not interfere with the body of teachings given to us as a whole.
Kosta wrote: Also, think about it: if the Bible has more than one interpretation then it has more than one truth. And that is a slippery slope.
FK replied: I don't look at it that way. The reason for more than one interpretation is that no one is right about everything, EVEN GIVEN that all believers are individually led by the Spirit. God's timetable is God's timetable, and we will know what He wants us to know, when He wants us to know it. Otherwise, sanctification would not be a lifelong process, and I think we all agree that it is.
I will agree with FK on this one, Kosta. I don't think you meant to write that, because you are certainly well-versed on the Church Fathers and that they had various interpretations (spiritual) regarding the Scriptures. Catholics have been taught that we can derive several meanings from a verse - not that they contradict - but at different levels. You certainly are familiar with the Alexandrian vs. the Antioch schools of Scriptural interpretation back in the day. Neither was wrong, just a different view of God's Word.
Regards
divine I submit to Church dogma. The Orthodox Church has three dogmas in short : (1) Triune God, (2) dual nature of Christ in one person, (3) Theotokos the Mother of our Lord and God jesus Christ, our Savior. These dogmas are immutable and those who reject them are not Christians.
I accept (submit) to those dogmas on faith, as they are illogical and reason alone cannot explain them. They are derived from the Scriptures, which I accept as the source ofm God's truth eve if mixed with myths and cultural biases.
Outside of those three dogmas and scriptures, the Orthodox Church teaches patristic doctrines. These teaching are based on consensus patrum and not on the teaching of any one individual father. While they can become more detailed as new understanding develops, they are not dogmatic in nature; individual fathers have been wrong.
An example of that is +Gregory of Nyssa, a Cappadocian Father and among the most prominent patristics. For a while he was a student of Origen and shared with Origen his belief in universal salvation (a heretical belief that everyone will eventually be glorified, including satan). Today, practically all groups who call themselves Christian reject that as false. So, we are under no obligation to "believe" any Chruch Father individually. However, I believe that the doctrines to which the Fathers mutually agreed (consensus patrum) is wiser and more knowledgeable than I am. ut I do not necessarily agree with individual fathers whose doctrines were accepted locally.
I believe that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the TRUE Church within which one can find the fullness of the Orthodox Faith; that it is the Church Christ commissioned; that its sacraments are real.
Everything else is my opinion. My faith and my opinion are not one and the same. :)
No, the consensus patrum reads +Paul differently then I or the Protestants. I know what my impressions are, but I defer to the consensus.
There is One truth, FK. There is one true God. There is one true faith. There is one true Church. How do we know our God is a true God and not an idol? How do we know we have the true Church?
If no Church knows the truth fully, then there is no true Church. If you are church shopping then you can't believe your church is a true church but a man-made institution.