Can the Bible be understood apart from interpretation?

[logical bob]

Oh Biblereader, you use up a long post to condemn lots of professing Christians as false teachers and preachers and then you close by warning against those who cause division.

 

[francisdesales]

Joseph Ratzinger is alleged to have avoided reporting child rape to the proper authorites, moved the rapists to new posts where they would have new opportunities and sought to ensure the silence of their victims. If this is true then he, personally, is an accessory after the fact to child rape.

I see. Alleged = guilty in your world...

Some anti-Catholic can allege something, and suddenly, it's true as truth can be.

If the same situation happened in a secular organisation that the chief executive of that organisation would certainly be prosecuted, as would key decision makers like Ratzinger.

yea, at least they get an opportunity to defend themselves. People like you are all to willing to throw the Church under the bus because of some guy claims he was molested 30 years ago and another claims the now-Pope knew all about it and ignored it.

Perhaps if the Church DID take this to court, they could drag the name and reputation of said allegers through the mud and question their OWN reputations, just like a secular defense attorney would likely do in such cases. But that's not how the Church operates - which, apparently, you disaprove of... I guess mud-slinging would be more to your liking in such cases?

I won't comment on your figure of 132 priests. The 132 priests aren't the issue. The issue is with the one man who now claims to be able to infallibly interpret the word of God for all mankind. He has demonstrated personal moral failings which make this claim laughable. Nobody who is personally complicit in the rape of children has any claim to moral or spiritual authority of any kind. How much biblical interpretation do you need to realise that raping children in wrong?

The claim is whether God speaks authoritatively through someone, not whether the Pope is sinless.
Does any Catholic believe "raping children" is right?

 

[francisdesales]

The church is the body of Christ...we are a priesthood of believers. We go directly to our High Priest, Jesus Christ. We are led and guided by the Holy Spirit within. We find the "fulness of Truth" through Christ...not a building made with hands but a spiritual building comprised of individual members. If we have to filter truth through men it will only come out tainted. This is why we have so much division in the body today....looking to men instead of to Christ.

Sounds good in theory, we just go to Jesus, but the Bible says otherwise, when Christians disagree...

Check out Matthew 18:16-18. Note, the final point of authority is the Church, not "going to Jesus". Practically speaking, "going to Jesus" does not work - because ANYONE can CLAIM they "went to Jesus" and "He told me you have to drink the Kool Aid"...

Please. Isn't the thousands of denominations in existence proof that this just doesn't work? Christ built a Church upon a rock that was the pillar and foundation of the Truth. He never said "when I ascend to heaven, consult me when you have issues with doctrine" or any other such worded phrase that left HIM as the point of contact in matters of what was correct in interpreting Scriptures or doctrines.

He left the Apostles to teach all that He taught, He never said "consult me".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

.

And I have always wanted to ask a Catholic this question. Given the fact that there are many Catholic doctrines that are not found in the Bible per se, but are extrapolations from certain ideas that are found in the Bible, something that is true also in the Protestant denominations; doesn’t the existence of an authoritative interpreter that has produced these extrapolations presuppose that revelation continues to the present day, that it did not stop at the New Testament writings?

JamesG

James,

Excellent question.

Catholics believe in what is called "the development of doctrine". It is the idea that as Christians meditate and reflect on Scriptures and their own daily lives and experiences in Liturgy, that the Spirit reveals more about a specific belief. The "faith once given" is not complete and even the Apostles did not plumb the depths of what Christ gave them. It is quite unlikely that they had defined the idea of "trinity" as Nicea had. Is Nicea "adding" to the Apostolic Faith? We say "no", because our formulas are drawn from what the Apostles gave us, in more precise and specific manners.

To put it in another way, we see that Jesus gave us a gold mine, and the Church in time are exploring the depths of this mine. It is the same mine, but we are learning more about it as we continue to reflect upon it. ALL of our doctrines are found explicitly or implicitly from Sacred Scriptures, dependent upon a particular way of hearing the Apostolic Tradition (oral and written).

Thus, doctrines defined by the Church, say, the Trinity, stem from the seeds once planted by the Christ and His Apostles, reflected upon through the experiences of the Church. The various Scriptures, for example, that appear to subordinate the Christ to the Father are explained to maintain the integrity of the equality of the Father and the Son in divine essence - BECAUSE the Church understands in her liturgy that Christ is God. Our experience of Christ as God leads us to DEFINE the Trinity and that Jesus indeed IS the essence of God Himself.

Regards

 

[chestertonrules]

[



Joseph Ratzinger is alleged to have avoided reporting child rape to the proper authorites, moved the rapists to new posts where they would have new opportunities and sought to ensure the silence of their victims. If this is true then he, personally, is an accessory after the fact to child rape.

rl]

It is not true. It is left wing media slander.

It is spread by pro abortion and pro gay marriage activists.

 

[logical bob]

I see. Alleged = guilty in your world...

Some anti-Catholic can allege something, and suddenly, it's true as truth can be.

There's a case to answer. It would be great to see that case tested in court.

People like you are all to willing to throw the Church under the bus because of some guy claims he was molested 30 years ago and another claims the now-Pope knew all about it and ignored it.

People like me would certainly throw the church under the bus if it did indeed circulate a written policy saying abuse should be covered up and kept from the authorities.

Perhaps if the Church DID take this to court, they could drag the name and reputation of said allegers through the mud and question their OWN reputations, just like a secular defense attorney would likely do in such cases.

The allegation is that this policy exists and that the church's actions were based on it. If that can be proved, the church is guilty. If it can't, then it isn't. Slinging mud at other people has no bearing on this.

But that's not how the Church operates - which, apparently, you disaprove of... I guess mud-slinging would be more to your liking in such cases?

If the church doesn't operate by slinging mud at its detractors then why are you taking it upon yourself to do precisely that?

Does any Catholic believe "raping children" is right?

I don't know. The question is, do the most senior Catholics believe it to be wrong enough that those who do it should be punished?

 

[Drew]

I do, indeed, stand by every word I've posted. You are preaching a "works based salvation". That's simply error,.....

You misrepresent me.

First of all, it is not me but Paul who asserts that final salvation is based on the good works that the Spirit has produced in our lives. So the real issue is not my "error" but rather your lack of willingness to take Paul at his word.

In any event, I have posted nothing that denies that our salvation is by grace through faith. Unlike you, I follow Paul's actual argument which is basically this:

1. In the present, God gives the Spirit as a pure act of grace based on the faith of the believer.
2. In the future, God will give eternal life just a Paul says - based on the good works that the Spirit has produced in the life of the believer.

 

[logical bob]

Joseph Ratzinger is alleged to have avoided reporting child rape to the proper authorites, moved the rapists to new posts where they would have new opportunities and sought to ensure the silence of their victims. If this is true then he, personally, is an accessory after the fact to child rape.

It is not true. It is left wing media slander.

It is spread by pro abortion and pro gay marriage activists.

Just to clarify what you're saying. When the BBC presents evidence of this, and shows us the Vatican's policy document Crimen Solicitationis, you say this is a lie told because the BBC are pro abortion and pro gay marriage activists.

 

[chestertonrules]

[quote="logical bob":7pb1onlu]Joseph Ratzinger is alleged to have avoided reporting child rape to the proper authorites, moved the rapists to new posts where they would have new opportunities and sought to ensure the silence of their victims. If this is true then he, personally, is an accessory after the fact to child rape.

It is not true. It is left wing media slander.

It is spread by pro abortion and pro gay marriage activists.

Just to clarify what you're saying. When the BBC presents evidence of this, and shows us the Vatican's policy document Crimen Solicitationis, you say this is a lie told because the BBC are pro abortion and pro gay marriage activists.[/quote:7pb1onlu]


I'm telling you that the reporting is biased and inaccurate.

My words were clear.

 

[Drew]

Thus, as Romans 2 states, our works, IN CHRIST'S Spirit, will allow us to receive the gift of eternal life. Not because we did it alone.

Exactly. The real issue is that gd has no argument - no actual case as to why Paul does not means what he writes in Romans 2.

It is possible that Paul could have chosen to describe a path to salvation that no persons can actually successfully take. This is what many do with Romans 2 - they say that Paul is saying "here is how you would be saved by works if it were possible to be saved by works. But, it isn't".

Well the problem, of course, is that there is simply no actual evidence - no argument - that Paul is speaking hypothetically. And that should send up all sort of red flags.

Imagine if every exegete exercized the right to arbitrarily decide that certain statements are not actually true, but rather express what could be true, but, in fact, is not.

We would get nowhere.

 

[Drew]

This thread has turned into a thread about salvation and whether or not it can be lost.

I agree that the thread has strayed off course, and I have participated in that. I plan to start another thread to deal with the dance so many do to avoid Romans 2:7 (and Romans 8).

 

[glorydaz]

Thus, as Romans 2 states, our works, IN CHRIST'S Spirit, will allow us to receive the gift of eternal life. Not because we did it alone.

Exactly. The real issue is that gd has no argument - no actual case as to why Paul does not means what he writes in Romans 2.

It is possible that Paul could have chosen to describe a path to salvation that no persons can actually successfully take. This is what many do with Romans 2 - they say that Paul is saying "here is how you would be saved by works if it were possible to be saved by works. But, it isn't".

Well the problem, of course, is that there is simply no actual evidence - no argument - that Paul is speaking hypothetically. And that should send up all sort of red flags.

Imagine if every exegete exercized the right to arbitrarily decide that certain statements are not actually true, but rather express what could be true, but, in fact, is not.

We would get nowhere.

I suppose you don't know of any who seek after eternal life by doing good works, do you? The world is full of liberal humanists who do that very thing. Unfortunately for them, without faith in Jesus Christ, their good works will not get them saved. For all have sinned...and one single sin brings down the judgment of God. Which is why Paul makes it clear that we can only be justified by faith. You can't take a verse out of the middle of a chapter and form a doctrine around it. Well, you can...and you have, but that doesn't make it a fact.

 

[Free]

Sadly truth is one of the most relative thing there is.

Truth should not be a doctrine, Christianity has made it so for the last 2000 years and hence the divisions of many denominations, and many ministries today.

Let's make truth a person shall we, let's call truth Jesus.

That if we sincerely believe in Jesus, then even if we don't have all the interpretations then at least we have Jesus.

And who do you say that Jesus is?

You can't take a verse out of the middle of a chapter and form a doctrine around it. Well, you can...and you have, but that doesn't make it a fact.

And conversely, you can't ignore one verse in the middle and form doctrine without it.

 

[chestertonrules]

[

I suppose you don't know of any who seek after eternal life by doing good works, do you? The world is full of liberal humanists who do that very thing. Unfortunately for them, without faith in Jesus Christ, their good works will not get them saved. For all have sinned...and one single sin brings down the judgment of God. Which is why Paul makes it clear that we can only be justified by faith. You can't take a verse out of the middle of a chapter and form a doctrine around it. Well, you can...and you have, but that doesn't make it a fact.

You seem to be making two compatible facts compete with the other. That is unnecessary.

It is absolutely true that we will be judged according to our works, AND, it is absolutely true that we can please God ONLY as a result of his grace.

Without God, we can't. Without us, God won't. -St. Augustine

 

[glorydaz]

Sadly truth is one of the most relative thing there is.

Truth should not be a doctrine, Christianity has made it so for the last 2000 years and hence the divisions of many denominations, and many ministries today.

Let's make truth a person shall we, let's call truth Jesus.

That if we sincerely believe in Jesus, then even if we don't have all the interpretations then at least we have Jesus.

And who do you say that Jesus is?

You can't take a verse out of the middle of a chapter and form a doctrine around it. Well, you can...and you have, but that doesn't make it a fact.

And conversely, you can't ignore one verse in the middle and form doctrine without it.

I don't ignore it...it's quite plain what Paul is saying. He is not saying we are saved by our good works. He is saying those who seek after eternal life by doing good works must have faith in order to be justified before God. He makes it plain in Romans 1,2,3,4,5 and 8. We are saved by grace through faith...not by works lest any man should boast. It's made clear throughout scripture.

 

[seekandlisten]

I suppose you don't know of any who seek after eternal life by doing good works, do you? The world is full of liberal humanists who do that very thing. Unfortunately for them, without faith in Jesus Christ, their good works will not get them saved. For all have sinned...and one single sin brings down the judgment of God. Which is why Paul makes it clear that we can only be justified by faith. You can't take a verse out of the middle of a chapter and form a doctrine around it. Well, you can...and you have, but that doesn't make it a fact.

Just a thought to ponder in this whole works vs faith/grace debate people seem to like to discuss, take a moment and think about this.

Which is easier(wide path vs narrow path)

1. Works (action)
2. Faith (believing enough)

If you are doing works in order to receive something you are in a works based salvation plan. If you are doing works as a natural end result of your faith/beliefs it is because, if you grow in love as the bible teaches, you automatically love those around you and wish to help them. You cannot have love 'within' until you can love that which is 'without'.

'Faith without works is dead' is pretty straightforward no? If you feel the need to justify why one is save by grace alone and works are not part of the equation is this not the easy way out? No one has the right to 'choose' their salvation plain and simple as that is not our decision to make if one follows the teaching of the Bible. If you disagree explain to me how one chooses to be 'born from above' without God's say so?

cheers

 

[Ahuli]

Sadly truth is one of the most relative thing there is.

Truth should not be a doctrine, Christianity has made it so for the last 2000 years and hence the divisions of many denominations, and many ministries today.

Let's make truth a person shall we, let's call truth Jesus.

That if we sincerely believe in Jesus, then even if we don't have all the interpretations then at least we have Jesus.

And who do you say that Jesus is?

You can't take a verse out of the middle of a chapter and form a doctrine around it. Well, you can...and you have, but that doesn't make it a fact.

And conversely, you can't ignore one verse in the middle and form doctrine without it.

I don't ignore it...it's quite plain what Paul is saying. He is not saying we are saved by our good works. He is saying those who seek after eternal life by doing good works must have faith in order to be justified before God. He makes it plain in Romans 1,2,3,4,5 and 8. We are saved by grace through faith...not by works lest any man should boast. It's made clear throughout scripture.

Faith is an action word. You are doing something. Doing something is a work. Can you think of other action words that are required of us?

 

[chestertonrules]

[qu

Just a thought to ponder in this whole works vs faith/grace debate people seem to like to discuss, take a moment and think about this.

Which is easier(wide path vs narrow path)

1. Works (action)
2. Faith (believing enough)

If you are doing works in order to receive something you are in a works based salvation plan. If you are doing works as a natural end result of your faith/beliefs it is because, if you grow in love as the bible teaches, you automatically love those around you and wish to help them. You cannot have love 'within' until you can love that which is 'without'.

'Faith without works is dead' is pretty straightforward no? If you feel the need to justify why one is save by grace alone and works are not part of the equation is this not the easy way out? No one has the right to 'choose' their salvation plain and simple as that is not our decision to make if one follows the teaching of the Bible. If you disagree explain to me how one chooses to be 'born from above' without God's say so?

cheers

Grace through faith and works.

Works, not as in works of the Law, but as in striving to follow the commandments of Jesus by loving God and neighbor and avoiding sin.

Sin can destroy our faith.

 

[seekandlisten]

Grace through faith and works.

Works, not as in works of the Law, but as in striving to follow the commandments of Jesus by loving God and neighbor and avoiding sin.

Sin can destroy our faith.

Oh I understand how the 'works' part works but I all I ever hear from the Christian perspective is to forget works and concentrate on faith because we are 'saved' by grace not works.

Aside from that I'm unsure of your point here.

cheers

 

[glorydaz]

I suppose you don't know of any who seek after eternal life by doing good works, do you? The world is full of liberal humanists who do that very thing. Unfortunately for them, without faith in Jesus Christ, their good works will not get them saved. For all have sinned...and one single sin brings down the judgment of God. Which is why Paul makes it clear that we can only be justified by faith. You can't take a verse out of the middle of a chapter and form a doctrine around it. Well, you can...and you have, but that doesn't make it a fact.

Just a thought to ponder in this whole works vs faith/grace debate people seem to like to discuss, take a moment and think about this.

Which is easier(wide path vs narrow path)

1. Works (action)
2. Faith (believing enough)

If you are doing works in order to receive something you are in a works based salvation plan. If you are doing works as a natural end result of your faith/beliefs it is because, if you grow in love as the bible teaches, you automatically love those around you and wish to help them. You cannot have love 'within' until you can love that which is 'without'.

'Faith without works is dead' is pretty straightforward no? If you feel the need to justify why one is save by grace alone and works are not part of the equation is this not the easy way out? No one has the right to 'choose' their salvation plain and simple as that is not our decision to make if one follows the teaching of the Bible. If you disagree explain to me how one chooses to be 'born from above' without God's say so?

cheers

Good works are a consequence of our salvation. They do not, and never will save us. When we are born again our hearts are circumsized by God. When we are filled with the Spirit, God's love is shed abroad in our hearts and the fruit of the Holy Spirit is manifested in our loving others as God loves us. Those with a "dead faith" do not show forth the fruit of the Spirit...that is how we know them.

We don't "choose" to be born again. We "choose" to look unto Jesus or reject Him. When we look unto Jesus we are born again. God does all the work...He provides the grace, and the faith, and prepares our heart. We merely reject or accept His free gift.