Posted on 05/05/2011 9:38:04 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — While Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is true, one cannot take individual biblical quotes or passages and say each one is literally true, Pope Benedict XVI said.
“It is possible to perceive the sacred Scriptures as the word of God” only by looking at the Bible as a whole, “a totality in which the individual elements enlighten each other and open the way to understanding,” the Pope wrote in a message to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
“It is not possible to apply the criterion of inspiration or of absolute truth in a mechanical way, extrapolating a single phrase or expression,” the Pope wrote in the message released May 5 at the Vatican.
The commission of biblical scholars, an advisory body to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, met at the Vatican May 2-6 to continue discussions about “Inspiration and Truth in the Bible.”
In his message, the Pope said clearer explanations about the Catholic position on the divine inspiration and truth of the Bible were important because some people seem to treat the Scriptures simply as literature, while others believe that each line was dictated by the Holy Spirit and is literally true.
Neither position is Catholic, the Pope said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
And give me Biblical proof that we are not saved by Grace ALONE but by your idea of ONLY faith.
We are saved by the freely given grace of God. Jesus Himself told us that we must repent, believe, be baptised, share in His body and endure to the end. If you wish to deny what Jesus said, then God help you
Isn't Jesus pretty clear? you MUST have faith to be saved by the freely given grace of salvation, however, it is not faith ALONE
Do you believe Jesus's words or not?
This is utter proof that we are saved by GRACE alone, not by faith ALONE -- demons believe. you cannot say that this is just personally applied because then you have to reject 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? and 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds as James someone saying good for not "personally applying". You would then have to deny v 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. -- do you think James is saying the Abraham had incomplete or not "personally applied" faith?
No, what James is saying is that we are not saved by just saying Lord, Lord -- we must repent, believe, be baptised etc. --> it is not faith ALONE -- Jesus's own words deny that. If you wish to disagree with Jesus's words, that's your choice.
(Hey...I don't "acuss" anyone :); but others have "acussed" me! :) )
Imagine you're with Paul, Silas & that Philippian jailer -- Acts 16...and the jailer asks you: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30)...and before Paul & Silas could reply, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” (Acts 16:31), you whip out your "YOU MUST spiritual checklist" that you highlighted in post #267:
Cronos' post #267: ...from the moment of your acceptance of Christ's saving grace,
YOU MUST endure,
YOU MUST repent,
YOU MUST believe,
YOU MUST share in the body of the Lamb
and YOU MUST remember Matt 25:31-46
Don't you see how you've tilted the emphasis here? On the one hand, you tell me that "all salvation comes from Christ" and we are to give "100% credit" to God's grace for all He leads us to do...but your emphasis in certain posts is more on what man does [your five "YOU" list] vs. what God/Christ/Holy Spirit does!
Don't you see how what you write even sounds? You wrote five "YOU MUSTS" as if they were a new "10 Commandments' Lite" list! "YOU MUST" is just a contemporary rendering of "thou shalt!"
What always bothered me about the Baptist/fundamentalist pamphlet of "Four Spiritual Laws" is that they conveyed the Gospel as "laws." And you convey this same angle via your "YOU MUST" spiritual checklist and your usage of the word "requires" in post #250!
Cronos' post #250: A Catholic/Orthodox/Oriental would recognise this as saying Salvation (though coming FROM Christ ie through GRACE alone), also REQUIRES baptism, repentance, the Eucharist as WELL as faith.
(Instead of the word "requires" -- I love the word "receives"...we're mere recipients of what God has done for us in Christ Jesus!)
Sorry. But the literal rendering of the word "Gospel" = "Good News." This Good News is an announcement; a heralding. A headline. YOU ARE forgiven...! (It's not another legalistic spiritual "to do" checklist!)
Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying we downplay what you've highlighted. But the emphasis on what has been transacted here is greatly reversed! Wanna see how the emphasis changes?
Baptism: YOU ARE forgiven in passively being baptized! “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." (Acts 2:38) [That's good news! Not a new NT commandment list! Emphasis: Being baptized is a passive action on our part...the emphasis is being the SUBJECT of baptism "in the name of Jesus"...any newborn can be baptized without having to have a "YOU MUST...requirement" checklist handed to them]
The Lord's Supper: YOU ARE forgiven in drinking the blood of the covenant: "Drink from it, all of you. This is the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:28) [Emphasis: HE forgives us via the shedding of His blood; ...now I'm not advocating communion for babes here, but if you want to get down to brass tacks how the emphasis is NOT on what humans do, hey, ANY multi-month baby can drink without them having to attend a 5-week "You MUST...requirement" Inquirers Sunday School class! Yeah, they do indeed swallow; but it's hardly like they had anything to do in the production of what they receive drinking-wise!]
How about repentance? Is the emphasis on us or on GOD granting us repentance? Why it's on Jesus! (Acts 5:31)...It's on the Father (Acts 11:18)...And again, the promise of repentance includes "your children" (Acts 2:38-39)! The promise was made before any child could even respond!
What's funny, is that there actually is one "YOU MUST" that Jesus relayed in John 3:7 "You MUST be born from above"
Yet what baby chooses to be born? Likewise...
...the apostle John says that this born-againness is "not of...human decision...but born of God" (John 1:13)...
...James 1:18 says "He chose to give us birth..."...
...Jesus says "You did not choose me, but I chose you..." (John 15:16)...and added that NO ONE comes to the Father unless drawn by Him (John 6:44)...
...and Paul highlighted that NO ONE can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3).
Does even being born from above -- one thing Jesus says we MUST be -- sound like some spiritual checklist WE do based upon these verses??? (Not on your born-again life!)
Please. Just, please. Drop this YOU MUST/Requirement law-ridden sounding language as if you're the Village Law-Giver. These things are not NT laws to replace the old ones. The Gospel is a pure announcement of Good News in the Calvary of the Past, the Holy Spirit new-birth of the Present, and the forever eternal relationship with the True Father and His Son both now and forever!
To package it as a spiritual to-do checklist...
...(a) does a disservice to what the Gospel is;
...(b) places the emphasis on man's synergistic cooperation with God vs. what God grants, what God gives, etc.
...& (c) conveys to the world that Paul and Silas' response to the jailer in Acts 16:31 was somehow incomplete of your "faith-plus" dog&pony show list and whew! were it not for the likes of you being around to "correct" or "complete" Paul and Silas "shriveled" response, well, that "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" crowd that keeps runnin' around would ne'er be properly squelched on the likes of Free Republic!
Over bread? Is Jesus not the "bread of heaven"?
Why sidestep the actual point for disputations about the Eucharist? Most Protestants differ from Catholics in how literally we believe the Lord intended his words referencing the bread during the Last Supper to be understood, and that is the issue.
Sorry. Not so. A high % of Christians do not try to "symbolize" or "spiritualize" away the reality of John 6.
No, this is incorrect. I actually said that what the Holy Father is talking about as quoted in the article is what 99% of people do, meaning reason about whether any particular statement in scripture is meant to be seen as literally true " or not. But, I never implied that any particular percentage of people have any particular view of John 6. I also didn't suggest that anybody "spiritualizes" or "symbolizes" anything. I don't believe I ever used any such words and so it intrigues me how much time you spend debating with things I didn't say. What I actually said was that many people do not see it as a literal truth. The other side of literal truth is not necessarily "spiritualizing," whatever that may be. As the spirit and Spirit are literal truths I am a little confused by your strange choice of opposition here.
Well, you just "shot" yourself in the foot here. First... ...you condemn Protestants for not reading John 6 as "real."
Condemn? That is patently untrue. I never even so much as hinted at condemnation.
So Jesus' words in John were "controversy-free," eh?
No, I was not referring there to the Lord's words, but those of the pope as referenced in the article. His statements about not trying to make every single utterance of scripture "literally true" is not controversial. We all do it all the time. Some sentences of scripture are literally true, some figuratively true, some theologically true, some spiritually true, and on and on. We have to use context to come to an informed conclusion regarding which applies. The only way his comments are controversial is if somebody believes that no word of scripture, from front to back, was ever meant to be seen as figurative in meaning. I find that extremely hard to believe, and so see nothing controversial here (from the Holy Father) except what people want to assume and imply.
I am saddened that you chose to ignore the points here to argue things that I never said or what you assume I must really mean by using the word "literal." You falsely say I condemned others, which would be a serious sin on my part. And, in your haste to judge me for my ignorance, which you only infer entirely from your assumptions of what I really mean rather than what I actually say, you entirely ignore the fact that you were entirely, not partially, ignorant regarding how the Church and Catholics view the authority of the pope. Unfortunate that you have taken the approach you did.
Let's read what happened in Acts 16:30 TO 33
30And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?So, isn't this as Jesus said "repent (here washed of their stripes)", "believe" and be baptised. Baptism was an integral part of this, also and washed their stripes -- repented for his sins and was baptised in the Blood of the Lamb -- as Jesus said31And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Of course, you can't baptise yourself, sheesh
the emphasis is being the SUBJECT of baptism "in the name of Jesus"...any newborn can be baptized without having to have a "YOU MUST...requirement" checklist handed to them --> yet, Jesus said He who believes and is baptized will be saved. (Mk 16:16) -- believes and is baptised --> now, I believe in what Jesus said in the Bible. Why don't you?
might bring Israel TO repentance. And remember what Jesus Himself said [U]nless you repent you will all likewise perish. (Lk 13:3) -- Note, Jesus said this and quite clearly too.
Isn't Jesus pretty clear? He says that you MUST have faith to be saved by the freely given grace of salvation, however, it is not faith ALONE but accompanied with repentance, baptism, etc.
Do you believe Jesus's words or not? Isn't Jesus pretty clear?
Do you believe Jesus's words or not? If you want to disregard His Word in the Bible, that's your free choice.
Who says I militate vs. grace alone? (Not me) Grace is an unearned, undeserved, unmerited gift!
#1 8 For it is BY GRACE you have been saved, THROUGH FAITH—and this is NOT FROM YOURSELVES, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. (Eph. 2:8-9)
#2 Works nullify grace! ...at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. (Romans 11:5-6; cf. Gal. 2:15-16 -- justified by faith in Christ; not works of the law)
#3 We didn't qualify for eternal life; No, He qualified us: ...giving joyful thanks to the Father, who HAS qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. (Col. 1:12) [Do you see the PAST tense there -- "HAS qualified you" -- you seem to neglect too much of God's past tense actions & lean too heavily ONLY on a present tense focus].
#4 Even considering future tense...what does Paul say? ...being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Phil. 1:6)
Go ahead. Cite the rest: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)
Is it because you don't like that Mark doesn't say, "whoever does not believe AND IS NOT BAPTIZED will be condemned." ????
Good, then you agree with me -- we are saved by GRACE ALONE, we are not saved by faith ALONE
Tell us, oh learned one...when Eph. 2 says "by grace" and "through faith"...what is your big distinction between "by" and "through?"
And secondly, when Paul emphasizes "NOT from yourselves," do you realize that good works cropping up from "ourselves" don't count, either? Do you realize that God only accepts a 100% perfect righteousness, and that Christ IS our Very Righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30)?
Remember -- we are saved by GRACE ALONE, grace freely given to us by God.
Jesus Christ Himself said
Now these are Jesus's own words, put very clearly. Paul understood this
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12). He never says that our righteousness comes from faith alone—only that it comes from faith apart from works. The Bible does not contradict itself, so Paul agrees with James who says "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Paul elaborates in Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; and Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law Paul is talking about the OT Law
We are not justificed by works OF THE LAW, this is emphasised in Galatians 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. -- Paul is combating Judaizers who said you had to follow OT law to be saved, hence he says you are saved through faith not the law and this is in agreement with James who says that faith without works is dead because James is NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME 'Works' as Paul -- Paul is talking of "works of the OT Law" and he says we must show the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal 5:16–26) and Gal 6:2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. That’s why Paul says in Philippians 2:12 "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
Then please apply consistently for us these other "literal truths" Jesus spoke of -- and apply them, please, if you would, in the same way you apply "bread of life."
How is Jesus literally the Water of life (John 4:14) -- and how would a "literal" rendering of this from a RC perspective be distinct from a Protestant one?
Likewise, how would a literal "Light of the world" interpretation (John 8:12) be distinct from a less "literal" perspective?
I actually said that what the Holy Father is talking about as quoted in the article is what 99% of people do, meaning reason about whether any particular statement in scripture is meant to be seen as literally true " or not...you entirely ignore the fact that you were entirely, not partially, ignorant regarding how the Church and Catholics view the authority of the pope.
"the Holy Father" -- somebody other than our Father in Heaven? We have...
...each an earthly daddy...
...but only ONE Holy Father: 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have ONE Father, and he is in heaven. (Jesus, Matthew 23:9)
(And I guess your emphasis on RC "literalness" of interpreting certain Scripture passings suddenly becomes "less literal" in interpreting passages like Matt. 23:9?)
"entirely...ignorant regarding how the Church and Catholics view the authority of the pope?" We hear...
...many godly voices...
...but only ONE purely DIVINE Source in these latter days: In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son... (Heb. 1:1-2)
And I suppose your emphasis on RC "literalness" of interpretation might be a bit "less" literal than the singularity of Hebrews 1?
And the RC expansion goes on: We have...
...many earth-based intercessors prompted by the Holy Spirit...
...but ONLY ONE Heavenly Mediator (vs. the endless number of run-arounds to Christ many entertain): For there is one God and ONE MEDIATOR between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus... (1 Tim. 2:5)
And the "literalness" of RC Biblical interpretation...what happened to that literal "ONE MEDIATOR" understanding of 1 Tim. 2:5?
Beyond that, I confess I misunderstood your earlier statement of: ...most of the people shouting that Catholics deny the Bible in believing that not every sentence of the Bible must be "literally true," would say this single sentence is actually not literally true. What the Holy Father is talking about here is actually what 99% of Christians do every time they read the Bible -- and confess that even after you followed up, I still don't get the point you were trying to make here.
Why do you like to chop Biblical thoughts in half?
You've done it FREQUENTLY on this thread re: Mark 16:16.
Now you do it with Phil 2:12-13...why did you leave off v. 13?
12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.
ALL: Cronos would NEVER be a good replacement for Paul Harvey...He seems to crave leaving off "the rest of the story!"
really? Let's review what I actually said
Colofornian Works nullify grace --> biblical proof for this instead of wild speculation? James 2:17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. -- scripture contradicts your wordNow, you want Phil 2:12 12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, Of course, Works of obedience which contribute to our sanctification are as much the result of grace as is our faith.Remember -- we are saved by GRACE ALONE, grace freely given to us by God.
Jesus Christ Himself said
- He who believes and is baptized will be saved. (Mk 16:16)
- [U]nless you repent you will all likewise perish. (Lk 13:3
- [H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:54)
- 13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. (Matt. 24:13 )
- Matt 25:31-46 34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Now these are Jesus's own words, put very clearly. Paul understood this
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12). He never says that our righteousness comes from faith alone—only that it comes from faith apart from works. The Bible does not contradict itself, so Paul agrees with James who says "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Paul elaborates in Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; and Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law Paul is talking about the OT Law
We are not justificed by works OF THE LAW, this is emphasised in Galatians 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. -- Paul is combating Judaizers who said you had to follow OT law to be saved, hence he says you are saved through faith not the law and this is in agreement with James who says that faith without works is dead because James is NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME 'Works' as Paul -- Paul is talking of "works of the OT Law" and he says we must show the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal 5:16–26) and Gal 6:2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. That’s why Paul says in Philippians 2:12 "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
Paul said, "God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work" (Phil. 2:13). John explained that "the way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his commandments. Whoever says, ‘I know him,’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:3–4,
24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us. 1 John 3:19–24
We are saved by GRACE ALONE -- that is why we read in Rom 11:22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
we can either accept or reject the grace of Salvation.
And, Colo, I have no idea who Paul Harvey is/was, but you will never be a good replacement for Paul Reubens... funny, and silly statements and actions, but silly not funny in comparison to Paul Reubens which was funny.
Well; yeah; but I am hung up on the MUST word here:
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
I also stumble of the REQUIREMENTS found here:
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’[b]—
18 things known from long ago.[c]
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
I have no idea who Paul Harvey is/was, but you will never be a good replacement for Paul Reubens...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.