Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Buggman; netmilsmom
Re: My supposed heresy, you might try arguing from a source of authority that I actually recognize, like the Bible. Can you show that anything I've said is Biblically or logically inaccurate?

I will answer your question further if and only if you will demonstrate to me where in the Bible the Canon is defined. Since you want to "sola scriptura" for the duration, find the books of the Canon first since that is your sole appeal to Authority (which is not biblical itself).

Further, can you answer my charge that by making Mary the mother of the Messiah's God-nature, you make her a goddess and He no longer Eternal?

If the answer to both questions is wrong, then it is you, not I, who are in a state of heresy.

As for Nestorianism, I do not claim that Yeshua was two persons, but that He had two natures, or essences--which you yourself admit. The human nature, the mortal body, had a point of origin in time and space, that being the womb of Mary. The God nature, which I would generally associate with His Mind (Soul) and Spirit, is Eternal, having neither beginning nor end, and did not come from Mary. Thus, Mary is the mother of the Messiah, the living, visible embodiment of the invisible God, but not the mother of God.

This was answered in the long post preceding which was posted above. The same comments were made in the post from New Advent. This is a more direct answer relating to your Protestantism.

Frank

66 posted on 12/27/2005 7:29:31 PM PST by Frank Sheed ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." ~GK Chesterton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: Frank Sheed
I will answer your question further if and only if you will demonstrate to me where in the Bible the Canon is defined.

Nope, I'm not playing that game. What you fail to realize is that even if the Roman Catholic institution were the definer rather than merely a recognizer of the canon, you still lose since even in the canon that you supposedly selected your practices are condemned.

But moreover, the RCC is not the arbiter of the canon. To swipe a page from Geisler and Nix's A General Introduction to the Bible (page 221, to be exact):

The Incorrect View

The Correct View

The Church is Determiner of Canon

The Church is Discoverer of Canon

The Church is Mother of Canon

The Church is Child of Canon

The Church is Magistrate of Canon

The Church is Minister of Canon

The Church is Regulator of Canon

The Church is Recognizer of Canon

The Church is Judge of Canon

The Church is Witness of Canon

The Church is Master of Canon

The Church is Servant of Canon

As I've explained on other threads and on my blog, I have no trouble with tradition, and in fact spend much of my time studying everything from the ECF to the Talmud. However, all tradition, all councils, and all rulings are subordinate to the written Word of God.

73 posted on 12/27/2005 9:14:19 PM PST by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson