Posted on 04/12/2013 5:10:48 PM PDT by markomalley
In his speech to members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Pope Francis said “the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot be only an individual scientific effort, but must always confront itself with, be inserted within and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church”
The speech given by Francis to members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission this morning followed faithfully in the footsteps of his predecessor Benedict XVI teaching. Members of the Commission – scholars and theologians from all over the world gathered under the leadership of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mgr. Gerhard Müller - concluded a period of reflection on the theme: the inspiration and truth of the Bible. Benedict XVI had drawn attention to this during the 2008 Synod on Sacred Scripture.
The bottom line question revolves around the role of modern disciplines and scientific techniques – textual analysis, palaeographical analysis of texts, archaeological and historical discoveries, philological work on sources and so on – in the Church's interpretation of the Bible. The path outlined by Ratzinger, whilst not underestimating the value of scientific findings, reaffirmed the fact that one cannot truly “understand” the Bible and its texts unless it is through the eyes of faith, in the light of the Church's thousand-year-old history, whilst always taking into account the organic relationship between each of the Bible's books and the Bible as a whole and the message Christians find in it.
Francis clearly echoes this line of thought: “The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot be only an individual scientific effort, but must always confront itself with, be inserted within and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church. This norm is essential to specify the correct relationship between exegesis and the Magisterium of the Church,” Francis said during today's audience.
Francis believes the Second Vatican Council reiterated with “great clarity” that there is an unbreakable unity between Scripture and Tradition, as both come from the same source... and are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.”
This is why, according to the Pope, every subjective interpretation is insufficient “as simply limited to an analysis incapable of embracing the global meaning that has constituted the Tradition of the entire People of God.” “The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot be only an individual scientific effort, but must always confront itself with, be inserted within and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church. This norm is essential to specify the correct relationship between exegesis and the Magisterium of the Church,” Francis added.
At the same time, the Pope guarded against a literal reading of the sacred text, recalling that the Bible “the testimony in written form of God's Word” whereas the “Word of God precedes and exceeds the Bible.” Hence the Christian faith has at its centre not just a book “but a history of salvation and especially a Person, Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh.”
That’s almost like believing in nothing.
So, you refuse to answer the question. When I was a Baptist, I was taught that "in obedience to His command and in imitation of His example..."
Other Christians do it differently. There are some who flat out reject any form of baptism.
Why would you not supply that small piece of information about your belief?
It’s an example of how different belief systems come forth from supposedly the same basis.
And here lies so much of our disagreement regarding Christianity. We regard all four Gospels as the pinnacle of God's revelation to man.
Which denomination would that be? I am not aware of *any* protestant/evangelical/pentecostal assembly that rejects baptism. And I am fairly conversant with hard core dispensationalists and pentecostals ... what I assume you mean by 'ultra-dispensational'...
There IS a difference in emphasis - The 'baptism of fire', the baptism of the Spirit, being the efficacious part, is thought to be more important as signatory, but I know of *no church* that doesn't practice water baptism.
Nice seeing how, under pressure, you turn to accusations and claims of anti-Catholic bigotry, even when you don’t dispute the details of the statements given.
Don't wish to give us your former screen name?
“Only if you persist in that belief. At the hour of your death, that is what God will take and Judge you with.”
Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
I’ll be confident that what God has begun in me, He will finish. The faith that I have, as has been related over and over again, is not my own work, but God who revealed Himself to me, as He does all believers.
Confidence, hope, perseverance. Not surety. Run the race until the end. Remember the parable of the fig tree. If it produces no fruit, it will be cut down.
What need I to fear, I who loves God, by the grace of God, and loves man, by the working of God? Faith and works, inevitably, must bow to grace. These works are a reality, but they are only the fruit of what God has begun. Salvation, therefore, is by grace alone, by faith alone, without the working of the law.
Nowhere in Scripture does it say 'faith alone'. That was an invention of Martin Luther.
Who cares about world views? I don’t care about the Catholic view, or of your confused views of grace. I don’t care that they merely exist. I care about Christ’s view. Make an argument, don’t just tell me you have an opinion. Use the scripture, be serious, show me how A leads to B. Defend yourself, don’t just attack me.
I don't need to defend myself. I am serious and use Scripture in context. I don't just trot out unconnected snippets and point to them as proofs without any connection to the arguments that I am making.<
You may wish to switch to Christianity at some point.”
Says the guy who has not yet made one argument using the scripture.
Interesting. The words of Jesus and Paul are not Scripture. May I enquire what your scripture consists of?
Yes. The two greatest Apostles were less than exemplary. One was a rabble rouser; the other denied Christ three times even after Christ told him that he would. Yet they are the humans on which Christ depended most to begin His Church.
Very good.
The word “seal” indicates security (Matt. 27:66; Eph. 4:30), authentication and approval (John 6:27), certification of genuineness (John 3:33), and identification of ownership (2 Cor. 1:22; Rev. 7:2; 9:4). God is the One who seals, Christ is the sphere in which the seal is done, and the Holy Spirit is the instrument of the seal.
Agreed; but on the part of the one doing the sealing (God). This is the mark of God put upon individual men. The men may remove that mark - it is not indelible.
The Holy Spirit who seals is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance. The “deposit” is more than a pledge which could be returned; it is a down payment with a guarantee of more to come (cf. “the firstfruits of the Spirit,” Rom. 8:23). “A deposit guaranteeing” translates the Greek arrabōn (used elsewhere in the NT only in 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5). It guarantees believers’ “inheritance” of salvation and heaven (cf. 1 Peter 1:4). (See comments on “inheritance” in Eph. 1:18.) In essence, the “deposit” of the Holy Spirit is a little bit of heaven in believers’ lives with a guarantee of much more yet to come.
1:14b. The believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit until the redemption (apolytrōsin; of those who are God’s possession. This redemption is not release from the guilt of sin; that was spoken of in Ephesians 1:7 and the believer is already “God’s possession.” Instead, this is the believer’s ultimate, final release from the presence of sin (cf. Rom. 8:23b; Phil. 3:20–21). The Greek word for “possession” (peripoiēsis) is also used in 1 Thessalonians 5:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:14; Hebrews 10:39 (see comments there); and 1 Peter 2:9. Again the doxological refrain, to the praise of His glory, is repeated here as it was after the description of the work of the Father (Eph. 1:6) and of the Son (v. 12).
Unless the believer rejects that seal at some point, effectively removing it.
I have a couple of individuals in mind.
God is faithful to us; it is we men that may be unfaithful to God. Remember that even St Paul was concerned about losing his salvation.
Not sealed because of anything we have done, but because HE has paid the penalty for each and every sin for us. It is based entirely on His righteousness and not our own. I am betting His blood is sufficient payment, His righteousness will not fail. If His sinless life sacrificed through shed blood, death and His resurrection are not sufficient, there is no hope for anyone.
Agreed with the caveat that it is possible to lose one's salvation by rejecting God.
JESUS shed ALL His Blood and has a spiritual body now which has no blood. So it is NOT Christ who is present in the CC - take it as a clue as why so many have left.
The deceived still have HIM on the Cross - Christians KNOW HE IS RISEN and they rebuke the deception of those who still have HIM on the Cross. Only satan/deception/the counterfeit wants JESUS still on the Cross.
As Christianity is ALL about The Risen Christ!
although some would argue also in the Lutheran Church, but the Lutherans are a little bit different
Only catholics argue about denominations. Born again CHRISTIANS know It's ALL ABOUT JESUS The Word Who became flesh, died for our sins and ROSE again to be with HIS FATHER and HIS Spirit lives within 'His Own' now and forever! Praise GOD for HE is the ONLY ONE worthy of praise!
http://new.bereanbiblesociety.org/bullingerism-or-ultradispensationalism/
. I believe that Israel was set aside as a nation, after Acts 28, and that they ceased then to have priority rights. As the Jews required a sign, signs ceased at the close of Acts. And as water baptism that Christ might be made manifest to Israel, I believe that water baptism ceased the close of Acts with the sign gifts.
It's more like you refuse to seek the God's Word for the answer. The same place where Christians seek for TRUTH.
Why would you not supply that small piece of information about your belief?
What part of my belief that it is in JESUS ALONE - HIS WORD ALONE is so difficult to grasp? Has man made teachings so brain washed the mind that it is no longer able to understand and believe what Jesus says 'I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, THE LIFE" No one comes to The Father except through ME.'?
It is true that many have left, but many more have joined and the Catholic Church continues to grow.
Not everyone who cries Lord, Lord will see the Kingdom of God. Of His chosen Apostles one betrayed Him, one persecuted Him, one doubted Him and one denied Him, but He forgave all of those who repented and sought His forgiveness.
I had a Theology professor who said; 'We are at all times surrounded by a spiritual battle between good and evil. If you do not believe this you are on the wrong side'. Take as you allies in this battle those of us who love God with all of our hearts, all of our souls and all of our minds. Do not look for the small errors in doctrine or in the capacity for reason and understanding to erase Christian unity. Look past those and instead for the Fruits of the Holy Spirit.
"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. - 1 Corinthians 13:1-13
Remember that when we gather in this forum in His name he is here with us.
Peace be with you
What does the Bible tell you about water baptism?
I will not deny you the privilege and honor of opening God’s Word and seeking for yourself as you were commanded to do! Be thankful we have THE WORD OF GOD and able to learn TRUTH for ourselves and not by man but by The Spirit of God!
Ahh. Bullingerism. it seems your ‘some’ is a tempest in a teapot.
Should not those who hold to that belief own up to it?
I HAVE JESUS and HE trumps man EVERY time, ALL the time. So I listen to Jesus ALONE ALL the time.
But it is amusing to see catholics scrambling about picking and chosen Scripture from God's Word 'trying' to give the counterfeit credibility. It's no surprise you don't post from the counterfeit catechism which is the authority of Rome that catholics submit to - they are ashamed of it themselves!
“Yes. Unlike some of our antagonists, I think that we understand that there are requirements given to Christians and that they are required to follow them.”
These “requirements,” of course, in you view, aren’t REALLY the following:
Joh 6:28-29 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Mar 12:30-31 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. (31) And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Gal_5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Jas_2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Because the actual charge is, “you do not do what is required... which is being in the Roman Catholic Church and obeying it.” If you were truly a great moralizer, calling people to the requirements of religion, there would be no conlict here with he Romans being so outraged. You would instead ask us to have faith in God, and “love your neighbour as yourself,” for in these things one fulfills the royal law, according to Christ and all of the Apostles. No mention here of bowing and scraping for the scraps offered by the Roman pontiff. And, certainly not any indication that one’s imperfections or perfections have in any effect on salvation.
Galatians 3:3
Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Works are certainly the fruit of the spirit, but they cannot save a man, as has been shown over and over again.
You might say, “Well, you have to attend Papist Mass to be saved!” Oh, have to? Can’t I eat and drink Christ through faith, as Augustine argued? Isn’t that how the Thief was saved, by faith alone on the cross? He knew nothing of any of the rites of the Papists, yet was saved by the perfect power of God. And what does the scripture actually say about the Lord’s supper?
Luke 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Do this in remembrance of me, not “resacrifice me and eat this bread so that you may be saved.” In fact, do you have any evidence that the Lord’s supper, from the scipture, isn’t always an actual supper of believers? Such is the way I’ve practiced it.
You say I only bring snippets out of context, but never so much as provide any data that actually shows why those quotes, and lots of them, are false. Thou Pharisee, are you not just too lazy to explain what those scriptures mean and how you reconcile them with you Romanist views, because the fact of the matter is you are more concerned with what is handed down to you from Rome than what is handed us by the Apostles?
Better yet, isn’t it your duty to explain why I ought to even believe in the Romans who, evidently, do all your thinking for you? Can you show me the infallible magisterium of the church, the unstoppable and always existent primacy of Rome, in the words of your “Pope” Gregoy, who declares that that the throne of Peter is held by three separate Bishops?
“Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. — In the Eulogy’ to the Bishop of Alexandria
Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
I’ve asked you to address this multiple times, but you have not.
Why should I believe in Roman pretensions and arguments when 1) They provide no arguments, just assertions 2) They have no continuous tradition on the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, only a developing tradition that took centuries to even develop to something close to what Romanists hold today. And not only on this matter, but on many matters which are utterly absent from the historical record.
So, tell me again, why I should accept your false premise, and tolerate your put-downs and your assertions, which ignore everything given to you and does not even attempt to explain the scriptures?
“Confidence, hope, perseverance. Not surety.”
Hell hound, address the scripture. Don’t just ignore it. What God has started, does he finish it, yes or no? By grace are ye saved, not of works, yes or no? Just because you will not read, and cannot make logical deductions unless approved by Rome, doesn’t mean you can get away with that in an actual debate.
“Interesting. The words of Jesus and Paul are not Scripture”
They are the scripture. Not once have you addressed any of the words of Paul or Jesus, which I have provided. Do you really seriously think that by saying something like “Look at the feg tree! I’m CATHLUCK, tarefore, it disproofs u!@#$” is an argument? How about you show us how the fig tree isn’t a metaphore for Israel, how the gentiles are not grafted in, and how people aren’t really saved by grace through faith, or how any of the scriptures I have provided don’t mean what they directly say, based on the context you affirm clearly disproves it?
Get to work, Sir Lazy.
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.