Scripture: Literal versus Symbolic

[White_Squire]

How do I explain to a non-Catholic why we interpret some parts of the bible literally, and other parts symbolically?

Example: Some verses are very emphatic on the necessity of being baptized. If we take it literally, non-Christians don’t go to heaven. Yet we believe that a holy pagan can go to heaven.

Any suggestions?

 

[TOME]

Concerning discussing with your friend the Bible as to be understood as a literal text or symbolic, I would pose this questions to your friend, " When was he actually washed in Jesus’ Blood? (to be really ‘smart’ ask him “Wasn’t it sticky?”)
On a more serious note, ask this, Was Jesus speaking Literally or Symbolically in John 6: 22 - 59?

Or ask your friend this about Revelations. Revelations speaks of a place of “fire” for the fallen angles. Fire can cause great physical pain and suffering, but only if you have a body to be effected by fire. Angles are pure spirit, no body therefore they cannot feel the pain of fire so why should that be a punishment for them (see if he can explain that one with out using “Symbolism” such as “It’s not the kind of fire we think of…”)

 

[TOME]

I just had a new thought about your desire to explain why it’s taught about the use of symbolism in the bible as opposed to taking all passages literally (especially John 6, and with that Mark 14: 22 - 25; Matthew 26: 26 - 28; Luke 22: 14 - 20; 1 Cor 11:23 - 26). If these are to be taken literally (and I believe they must be) then the only way is to explain them as symbolic speach. Also, from the example of being washed in the Blood of the Lamb (Jesus) is clearly speaking symbolically.

So I would venture the real question becomes, how do we know what should be accepted as literal or symbolic. That may be a bigger problem for a couple of reasons. First, is the problem of “Sola Scripture” which I believes handcuffs people to the broader reality of how God reveals Himself through Apostolic Tradition and a particular aspect of Apostolic Tradition, namely, how has the Church’s liturgical life help us to understand revelation. For example, the development of the Doctrine of the Trinity has its roots in the Church’s Celebration of the Sacrament of Baptism.

A second difficulty I see is a kind of contradiction of “Terms in Action” that comes from Sola Scriptura. That is the rejection of the teaching authority of the Church, but in effect, most Christians who call themselves Protestant ultimately refer to an authority out side scripture, namely how an individual(s) had interperted scripture, then taught others their interpertation. People accept this not realizing it is not really coming to an understanding of Scripture through guidence of the Holy Spirit, rather, its an affirmation of someone else’s opinion that they affirm, without any real guarentee that the original interpretation was anywhere near correct, and in such a case as the Real Presence, goes against the held belief of the Church (East and West) from the time of Christ and the Apostles until sometime around 1500 AD when the acceptance of the Real Presence was challenged by John Calvin.
Having said all that, I doubt really your discussion would change your friend’s mind, but trust in the Holy Spirit, and study using good Catholic sources.

 

[Fidelis]

White Squire:

How do I explain to a non-Catholic why we interpret some parts of the bible literally, and other parts symbolically?

Example: Some verses are very emphatic on the necessity of being baptized. If we take it literally, non-Christians don’t go to heaven. Yet we believe that a holy pagan can go to heaven.

Any suggestions?

The Church has always taught that Scripture has bot a literal sense and a spiritual sense. The primary meaning to be taken is the literal one, unless the context and figure of speech make it clear that it is figurative, for example, Jesus’ injuctures to remove your eye if it causes offense.

In the case of the baptism example you gave, the issue is not the biblical passages in question, but what the Church teaches about baptism. To directly answer your question: We are commanded by God to baptize; it is the normal means of salvation he has given us. God himself, however, is not bound by the commands that he gives to us. He can save anyway he wants to, including the pagan who was not baptised.

 

[Fidelis]

White Squire:

How do I explain to a non-Catholic why we interpret some parts of the bible literally, and other parts symbolically?

Example: Some verses are very emphatic on the necessity of being baptized. If we take it literally, non-Christians don’t go to heaven. Yet we believe that a holy pagan can go to heaven.

Any suggestions?

The Church has always taught that Scripture has bot a literal sense and a spiritual sense. The primary meaning to be taken is the literal one, unless the context and figure of speech make it clear that it is figurative, for example, Jesus’ injuctures to remove your eye if it causes offense.

For more info about how the Church reads the Bible, here’s a good article:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405bt.asp

In the case of the baptism example you gave, the issue is not the biblical passages in question, but what the Church teaches about baptism. To directly answer your question: We are commanded by God to baptize; it is the normal means of salvation he has given us. God himself, however, is not bound by the commands that he gives to us. He can save anyway he wants to, including the pagan who was not baptised.

 

[TOME]

Just a quick correction to my second post, After using the refrences to the Institution of the Eucharist (and thus the Eucharist being the Real Presence of Christ is Sacramental form) I said something to the effect, “If these are to be taken literally…” Forgive me, I left out a very important word “NOT”. It should have read, “If these are Not to be taken literally…” Sorry!

 

[jaz1976]

White Squire:

How do I explain to a non-Catholic why we interpret some parts of the bible literally, and other parts symbolically?

Example: Some verses are very emphatic on the necessity of being baptized. If we take it literally, non-Christians don’t go to heaven. Yet we believe that a holy pagan can go to heaven.

Any suggestions?

How I would explain this is very simple: The Church gave us the Bible so She has the right and the duty to interpret it. Plain and simple.