Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Blessed Virgin in the History of Christianity [Ecumenical]
Insight Scoop ^ | January 1, 2009 | John A. Hardon, S.J.

Posted on 01/01/2009 3:51:01 PM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-184 next last
To: Iscool

I would answer your post if it were anywhere near related to the point I was making....alas it isn’t.


101 posted on 01/02/2009 4:58:12 AM PST by big'ol_freeper (Gen. George S. Patton to Michael Moore... American Carol: "I really like slapping you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

For a time, to make ends meet and for professional development, I worked for a protestant church as a soloist. On a personal level, I did like the majority of the people in the congregation, even if I disagreed with them on everything from religion to politics to what constitutes decent wine.

One of the sermons the pastor gave sticks with me re protestant understanding of Mary. He said of the passage from Luke below that this is Mary's song. It is not for us to understand. That struck me as rather odd. It was almost a dismissal of one of the most recited passages of the entire Bible. It's sung or said in every Office and at every vespers. Yes, according to the Evangelist she predicts her own veneration. This translation is the Douay-Rheims, one of many that was done following the protestant revolt to correct scriptural errors in the vernacular.

46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.

From the Douay Rheims commentary: 48 "Shall call me blessed"... These words are a prediction of that honour which the church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. Let Protestants examine whether they are any way concerned in this prophecy.

51 He hath showed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. 54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: 55 As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

Actually, I think the translator in the commentary asks a good question. Is there any concern for the prophesy? That's what it is.

102 posted on 01/02/2009 6:14:15 AM PST by Desdemona (Tolerance of grave evil is NOT a Christian virtue (I choose virtue. Values change too often).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
O.K., then, genoito moi kata to rhma sou.
103 posted on 01/02/2009 7:41:08 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse (TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary - recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Nope, born and raised a sixth-generation nosebleed high Episcopalian, more Roman than Rome . . . .

. . . and lots of Catholics on FR talk about accepting Christ as their Saviour, you just were too busy looking for symptoms of Mariolatry to notice. . . .

104 posted on 01/02/2009 7:43:14 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse (TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary - recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I saw “speciosior sole” and figured it was Rev. 12:1 without reading further — thanks for the translation and the cite!


105 posted on 01/02/2009 7:49:08 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse (TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary - recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; big'ol_freeper

You wrote:

“You’re wrong, of course...Jesus told the apostles NOT to preach to Gentiles...There wasn’t a Gentile in the bunch when Jesus made the reference to Gentiles...Hence, no Catholic church...”

Your comment makes no sense. Jesus was speaking to Jewish Apostles. It was perfectly appropriate to use a reference to Gentiles as an example of how to avoid people since every Jew would know what Jesus meant. The existence of the Catholic Church, however, is not dependent upon the participation, membership or even the existence of Gentiles. If Christ had founded a Church that was NEVER to seek out Gentile converts it would still be the Catholic Church in that it would be the true Church. It just wouldn’t be exactly as we know it today.

Also your point that “Jesus told the apostles NOT to preach to Gentiles...” is nonsensical in the way you appear to be using it. Yes, Jesus told the Apostles not to preach to the Gentiles in Matthew 10. But that was to fulfill prophecy.

Acts 13:40-42 “Beware therefore, lest that come on you which is spoken in the prophets: ‘Behold, you scoffers, and wonder, and perish; for I work a work in your days, a work which you will in no way believe, if one declares it to you.’ “ So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.”

It was only after the Resurrection that the Apostles were sent to the Gentiles as well by Jesus’ command: Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:16.

The Catholic Church has always known this, of course, and teaches it:

CCC 543 Everyone is called to enter the kingdom. First announced to the children of Israel, this messianic kingdom is intended to accept men of all nations.251 To enter it, one must first accept Jesus’ word: “The word of the Lord is compared to a seed which is sown in a field; those who hear it with faith and are numbered among the little flock of Christ have truly received the kingdom. Then, by its own power, the seed sprouts and grows until the harvest.” 252
(252 LG 5; cf. Mk 4:14, 26-29; Lk 12:32.)


106 posted on 01/02/2009 8:33:18 AM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Trying to use Holy Scripture to disprove the existence of the Church established by Christ, given to the Apostles and their successors to lead, and protected by the Holy Spirit, becomes a messy business, which relies on wild interpretations and abridgments of Holy Scripture....just the way the deceiver would want it.


107 posted on 01/02/2009 8:39:12 AM PST by big'ol_freeper (Gen. George S. Patton to Michael Moore... American Carol: "I really like slapping you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
Trying to use Holy Scripture to disprove the existence of the Church established by Christ, given to the Apostles and their successors to lead, and protected by the Holy Spirit, becomes a messy business, which relies on wild interpretations and abridgments of Holy Scripture....just the way the deceiver would want it.

Making Peter the foundation of the church instead of the gospel of Jesus is what is messy business.

108 posted on 01/02/2009 9:09:46 AM PST by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

***Making Peter the foundation of the church instead of the gospel of Jesus is what is messy business.***

Peter was made the steward. Notice the symbolism of the keys. That is what the caretaker of the kingdom was given when the King departed in Biblical times throughout the Middle East (and later in Europe).


109 posted on 01/02/2009 9:20:38 AM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

If Jesus was a child, he was a child. That means he was—literally—a normal human being. That means he learned his language from her. That means he playd with other children. Furthermore if she was a pious woman from, as the story goes, a priestly family, she was the one who taught him his prayers. He grew up as a Jew among Jews, was from a family of Judeans who probably had settled in Galilee during the time after the Macabees had won independence from the Syrians. It goes without saying that he had resources that no other child had, but he definitely was not a superman.


110 posted on 01/02/2009 10:03:47 AM PST by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Well, she may have spoken Greek.


111 posted on 01/02/2009 10:05:12 AM PST by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; Iscool

112 posted on 01/02/2009 2:31:28 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (Gen. George S. Patton to Michael Moore... American Carol: "I really like slapping you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Your comment makes no sense. Jesus was speaking to Jewish Apostles. It was perfectly appropriate to use a reference to Gentiles as an example of how to avoid people since every Jew would know what Jesus meant. The existence of the Catholic Church, however, is not dependent upon the participation, membership or even the existence of Gentiles. If Christ had founded a Church that was NEVER to seek out Gentile converts it would still be the Catholic Church in that it would be the true Church. It just wouldn’t be exactly as we know it today.

You sure have to twist some scripture to get to there...In fact, scripture will never take you there...The Catholic church didn't exist until 400 A.D....It's the (c)atholic church you are referring to and it had nothing to do with your church...And still doesn't...

Peter's ministry to the Jew (and Jews only) was a doctrine of faith, and works...That's what the first three Gospels teach...

And that's where your church is at...

After the Resurrection, Salvation was offered to the Gentiles as well...Under a different doctrine...A different Gospel...Paul called it his gospel...And if a person didn't follow Paul's gospel, it would be anathama on that person...It is a gospel of faith only...Faith without works...Jesus did this to make the Jews jealous...

And you guys are stuck in Peter's gospel...Your gospel and your church are not the church that Paul formed...That church was a mystery from times past and apparently it's still a mystery to your church...

113 posted on 01/02/2009 2:57:14 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
Trying to use Holy Scripture to disprove the existence of the Church established by Christ, given to the Apostles and their successors to lead, and protected by the Holy Spirit, becomes a messy business,

Not at all...It's the difference between studying the scripture and studying your catechism...

114 posted on 01/02/2009 3:00:04 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Luk 2:46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
Luk 2:47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

He didn't learn this stuff from Mary...

Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Luk 2:50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

115 posted on 01/02/2009 3:07:38 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

So you’d like to squash us, eh??? Lucky for us; not that many years ago, you would have burned us alive at the stake...


116 posted on 01/02/2009 3:10:50 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

You wrote:

“You sure have to twist some scripture to get to there...In fact, scripture will never take you there...The Catholic church didn’t exist until 400 A.D....”

Actually it existed since Christ founded it and that was more than 3.5 centuries before A.D. 400. It was already mentioned or discussed (by 400) by Ignatius, Ambrose, Augustine, Lactantius, the author of the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. Athanasius just to mention a few. But you say it didn’t exist until long after some of these men were dead?

“It’s the (c)atholic church you are referring to and it had nothing to do with your church...And still doesn’t...”

No, It is the Catholic Church I am referring to and it is my Church. While you are a member of a Protestant sect - which may or may not even be a century old - I am in the Catholic Church founded by Christ, led by the Holy Ghost and made great and brought to the ends of the earth by the saints and martyrs of nearly 2,000 years.

I know many Protestant anti-Catholics hate that sort of triumphalism, but too bad. The various Protestant sects out there are exactly that - sects. Here today, changed tomorrow, replaced the next day by some other sect.

“Peter’s ministry to the Jew (and Jews only) was a doctrine of faith, and works...That’s what the first three Gospels teach...”

What? 1) Peter’s ministry was to Jews and Gentiles (or have you forgotten the centurion Cornelius?). I am often surprised by how many anti-Catholics don’t remember that Peter ministered to Gentiles as well as Jews. At one moment, these same anti-Catholics throw up Paul’s rebuke of Peter at us as if it refutes papal infallibility and then moments later forget that Peter’s transgression was treating his Gentile converts differently from his Jewish ones! Peter ministered to anyone interested. St. Paul, likewise, was the Apostles to the Gentiles, yet he went to Jews first - always!

“And that’s where your church is at...”

The Word of God tells us that we are a people who in grace have faith and perform works. Hence Paul’s use of the phrase “obedience of faith”.

“After the Resurrection, Salvation was offered to the Gentiles as well...Under a different doctrine...A different Gospel...”

No. There was ONE gospel. ONLY ONE GOSPEL. It was the same gospel offered to every man, woman and child on this earth by the Apostles. Or have you forgotten “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” ( Ephesians 4:5 ). One faith would necessitate ONE GOSPEL. If there were two gospels, then there would be two faiths. Sorry, but what you’re saying makes no sense whatsoever.

“Paul called it his gospel...And if a person didn’t follow Paul’s gospel, it would be anathama on that person...It is a gospel of faith only...Faith without works...Jesus did this to make the Jews jealous...”

Paul did call it his gospel (e.g. Romans 2:16, 16:25). But it did not come from him. It came from God and His Church and all Paul did was preach it - he did not invent it nor did he teach a gospel of his own as separate from that of Christ and His Apostles. Jesus’ every act and word made His enemies jealous. The idea that He would allow two different gospels to be taught by the Apostles just to make the Jews jealous is simply wrong. There can only be ONE gospel. If there are two, then one is wrong. Paul made this clear enough in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15.

“And you guys are stuck in Peter’s gospel...Your gospel and your church are not the church that Paul formed...That church was a mystery from times past and apparently it’s still a mystery to your church...”

Paul formed no Church other than what Christ gave to him. You are actually claiming Peter opposed Paul, that Paul opposed Christ. Nonsense. Christ sent one Church and it taught one gospel through both Peter and Paul.

In the ideas you offered we see the destructive power of anti-Catholicism. Anti-Catholics are so desperate that they would even set Paul against Peter and Paul against Christ just to attack the Catholic Church. How sad.


117 posted on 01/02/2009 4:12:31 PM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Beautiful post! Thank you.


118 posted on 01/02/2009 4:36:59 PM PST by PatriotGirl827 (Pray for the United States of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

I didn’t say he did. although Luke may have learned about this from her. And One may assume that he learned about the circumstance of his birth from her and many other things, such as reverence for Torah. His humanity was no mere cloak for a god. He chose to share our weakness, to come as a babe and to become a man as we do. He was as tradition says, true God and true man.


119 posted on 01/02/2009 4:38:59 PM PST by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
What? 1) Peter’s ministry was to Jews and Gentiles (or have you forgotten the centurion Cornelius?).

Like I said, Peter's ministry during Jesus' walk on earth (the Gospels) was to the Jews only...

Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

I don't know what to tell you...God says Peter's ministry was to the Jews only...Apparently your church tradition disagrees with that...You'll have to take that up with God...

No. There was ONE gospel. ONLY ONE GOSPEL. It was the same gospel offered to every man, woman and child on this earth by the Apostles. Or have you forgotten “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” ( Ephesians 4:5 ).

But more than one Gospel...Gospel doesn't mean Lord, Faith or Baptism...

Paul's gosple was the Gospel of Grace...

I. In itself, the word Gospel means good news.

II. Four forms of the Gospel are to be distinguished:

(1) The Gospel of the kingdom. This is the good news that God purposes to set up on the earth, in fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant: (2Sa_7:16): a kingdom, political, spiritual, Israelitish, universal, over which God's Son, David's heir, shall be King, and which shall be, for one thousand years, the manifestation of the righteousness of God in human affairs.
(See) - (Mat_3:2).

Two preachings of this Gospel are mentioned, one past, beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist, continued by our Lord and His disciples, and ending with the Jewish rejection of the King. The other is yet future (Mat_24:14) during the great tribulation, and immediately preceding the coming of the King in glory.

(2) The Gospel of the grace of God. This is the good news that Jesus Christ, the rejected King, has died on the cross for the sins of the world, that He was raised from the dead for our justification, and that, by Him, all that believe are justified from all things. This form of the Gospel is described in many ways. It is the Gospel...

"of God" (Rom_1:1) because it originates in His love;
"of Christ" (2Co_10:14) because it flows from His sacrifice, and because He is the alone Object of Gospel faith;
of the "grace of God" (Act_20:24) because it saves those whom the law curses;
of "the glory"; (1Ti_1:11); (2Co_4:4) because it concerns Him who is in the glory, and who is bringing the many sons to glory; (Heb_2:10);
of "our salvation" (Eph_1:13) because it is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth"; (Rom_1:16);
of "the uncircumcision" (Gal_2:7) because it saves wholly apart from forms and ordinances of "peace"
(Eph_6:15) because through Christ it makes peace between the sinner and God, and imparts inward peace.

(3) The everlasting Gospel. (Rev_14:6). This is to be preached to the earth-dwellers at the very end of the great tribulation and immediately preceding the judgment of the nations (Mat_15:31). It is neither the Gospel of the kingdom, nor of grace. Though its burden is judgment, not salvation, it is good news to Israel and to those who, during the tribulation, have been saved; (Rev_7:9-14); (Luk_21:28); (Psa_96:11-13); (Isa_35:4-10).

(4) That which Paul calls, "my Gospel" (Rom_2:16). This is the Gospel of the grace of God in its fullest development, but includes the revelation of the result of that Gospel in the outcalling of the church, her relationships, position, privileges, and responsibility. It is the distinctive truth of Ephesians and Colossians, but interpenetrates all of Paul's writings.

III. There is "another Gospel" (Gal_1:6); (2Co_11:4) "which is not another," but a perversion of the Gospel of the grace of God, against which we are warned. It has many seductive forms, but the test is one -- it invariably denies the sufficiency of grace alone to save, keep, and perfect, and mingles with grace some kind of human merit. In Galatia it was law, in Colosse fanaticism (Col_2:18); etc. In any form, its teachers lie under the awful anathema of God.

120 posted on 01/02/2009 8:19:34 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

You wrote:

“Like I said, Peter’s ministry during Jesus’ walk on earth (the Gospels) was to the Jews only...”

And your comment has no bearing on the reality of the Catholic Church - in the first century or now.

“I don’t know what to tell you...God says Peter’s ministry was to the Jews only...Apparently your church tradition disagrees with that...You’ll have to take that up with God...”

No, you’re simply wrong. You’re even contradicting yourself, but apparently can’t see something that obvious. 1) Jesus’ ministry was to Jews while He walked the Earth, but He dealt with Gentiles and Samaritans as well at times. 2) matthew 10 is BEFORE the Great Commission. 3) The Great Commission was from CHRIST HIMSELF to ALL the Apostles. 4) All the Apostles would therefore have a ministry to all people even if their primary ministry was to Jews or Gentiles. 5) In any case, Peter ministered to Gentiles and taught that it was good to do so.

“But more than one Gospel...Gospel doesn’t mean Lord, Faith or Baptism...”

There was only one Gospel. Others were false gospels - like what Protestants preach.

“Paul’s gosple was the Gospel of Grace...”

Christ’s gospel was the gospel of grace. Paul merely followed Christ.

There are not four forms of the Gospel. That would mean four gospels. There is ONE gospel, only one.

“II. Four forms of the Gospel are to be distinguished:”

Great - you can rip off the Scofield Bible. Why not cite it if you believe it?

As often happened with Schofield, he was wrong. There is ONLY one Gospel. There are many false gospels - like Protestantism - but only one Gospel.


121 posted on 01/02/2009 8:46:12 PM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
There is ONLY one Gospel. There are many false gospels - like Protestantism - but only one Gospel.

That's not what the scriptures say...Why don't you believe the scriptures???

The first one for example...The Gospel of the Kindgom of Heaven...Jesus never mentioned to these people the death, buriel and Resurrection of Himself...That gospel had nothing to do with the Crucifixion...

And in that gospel Jesus certainly did not teach the gospel of Grace...

Those people were still under the Law...And Paul say whosoever will live by the law, ARE NOT UNDER GRACE, but will ultimately be judged by the Law...And that's where you guys are at...

However, you make the claim of having Grace but Paul says there is no Grace when you live under the Law...

You guys are all waiting for the judgement to see if you were good enough for Heaven...That puts you under the Law...You think YOU can do something to merit Heaven...Like getting baptized...Like eating Jesus' flesh...Like doing the sacraments...That's all under the Law...And if you insist on claiming salvation on any other thing than faith (alone), you will be judged by faith in Jesus (NOT your church) and your good works...

Christians under the Gospel of Grace have already been judged and found to be Righteous...

122 posted on 01/02/2009 10:42:18 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

You wrote:

“That’s not what the scriptures say...Why don’t you believe the scriptures???”

I do believe the scriptures. You’ll prove it for me when you fail to answer this question: Where in scripture does it say that there are two Christian gospels taught by Christ?

The answer of course is that scripture nowhere teaches that there are two Christian gospels taught by Christ. NOWHERE. There is THE Gospel and false gospels - like Protestantism.

“The first one for example...The Gospel of the Kindgom of Heaven...Jesus never mentioned to these people the death, buriel and Resurrection of Himself...That gospel had nothing to do with the Crucifixion...”

That is not a separate Gospel, but merely part of the Gospel.

“And in that gospel Jesus certainly did not teach the gospel of Grace...”

He did not teach that aspect of it at that time and in that place. That doesn’t make a separate Gospel. That is merely another aspect of the ONE Gospel. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.

“Those people were still under the Law...And Paul say whosoever will live by the law, ARE NOT UNDER GRACE, but will ultimately be judged by the Law...And that’s where you guys are at...”

No. We are the people Christ and the Church gave the Gospel too, while you’re just a sectarian following a gospel created by a constipated German monk in the 16th century. The truth hurts doesn’t it?

“However, you make the claim of having Grace but Paul says there is no Grace when you live under the Law...”

We don’t live under the Mosaic Law. We’re Christians, not Jews before Christ.

“You guys are all waiting for the judgement to see if you were good enough for Heaven...That puts you under the Law...”

No. Only Jews and Judaizers are under the Law. We are orthodox Christians. We obey God and yes it matters for as Paul says we must remember obedience in faith.

“You think YOU can do something to merit Heaven...”

No, actually we don’t. Unless you can produce evidence to the contrary I suggest you don’t bear false witness like that.

“Like getting baptized...Like eating Jesus’ flesh...Like doing the sacraments...That’s all under the Law...And if you insist on claiming salvation on any other thing than faith (alone), you will be judged by faith in Jesus (NOT your church) and your good works...”

One Lord, One Faith, AND ONE BAPTISM. The sacraments are gifts from God. You hate those gifts, obviously. Pity.

“Christians under the Gospel of Grace have already been judged and found to be Righteous...”

We were redeemed. You were too. Clearly, however, you are not living a life of grace for you deny God’s gifts. Too bad. I’ll pray for you. As long as you’re alive there’s still hope for you.

You need to study the scriptures. Even Paul points out that there are different aspects to the ONE Gospel. Look at 2 Tim 1:10-2:8

“but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”

Notice Paul said mentions that Christ was the Savior who brings immortality to people?

“And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher.”

Notice how in the very next verse Paul says that this is the gospel was to preach?

“Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God’s word is not chained.”

And a few verses later, Paul mentions that Jesus was descendent from a man and was raised from the dead.

In just a few verses Paul sums up much of the gospel message: Jesus is the Christ, the Savior, who died and was resurected and through Him we can be immortal.

You really need to study scripture and give up these fantasies about multiple Gospels from God. There’s one Lord, and ONE Gospel.


123 posted on 01/02/2009 11:36:27 PM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
He did not teach that aspect of it at that time and in that place. That doesn’t make a separate Gospel. That is merely another aspect of the ONE Gospel.Ha!...Under one aspect of the gospel then, people come to Jesus from signs and miracles, if they do good works...Under another aspect of the gospel, a later group of people come to Jesus thru faith by grace...

Sorry, it's the same Jesus but a different gospel...

In the first gospel. there is no plan for the Curcifixion...Jesus came to the Jews as the Messiah to set up a physical Kindgom on earth...

In the second gospel, Jesus was Crucified and Grace was given that ALL could be saved, thru faith into a Spiritual Kingdom...

No. Only Jews and Judaizers are under the Law.

Not correct...Any one who choses to live under the law, is under the law...Includes Gentiles as well...

Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

If you are doing ANYTHING to get to Heaven, you are under the law...And if you're under the law, that's how you will be judged...

Not all are saved the save way...Not all are judged the same way...

124 posted on 01/03/2009 6:23:39 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

You wrote:

“Sorry, it’s the same Jesus but a different gospel...”

Nope. It’s one gospel. That’s why the same things were taught to all people whether Gentile or Jew. We know that both groups were taught that Jesus was the Son of God, the Savior, who died and was resurrected and who gave grace for salvation and sanctification. Every Christian learned those things whether he was a Gentile or a Jew. One aspect or another of that Gospel may have been emphasized with one group or another, but all of it was taught to everyone willing to listen. There’s ONE Lord, ONE faith, and ONE Baptism.

“In the first gospel. there is no plan for the Curcifixion...Jesus came to the Jews as the Messiah to set up a physical Kindgom on earth...”

No. The death of Christ was part of the Gospel plan from the beginning, but Christ did not reveal it to everyone at all times for few would have understood. That’s why Paul says the crucifixion was a stumbling block for Jews while the resurrection was a stumbling block for Gentiles. They were all still taught all of the truth when the time was right for it formed ONE Gospel. When you read Luke’s account - and Luke was a follower of St. Paul don’t forget - he tells us that Mary was told that Jesus would be pierced. The crucifixion was part of the plan from the beginning. It just wasn’t revealed to everyone from the beginning.

“In the second gospel, Jesus was Crucified and Grace was given that ALL could be saved, thru faith into a Spiritual Kingdom...”

Nope. Again, all of that was part of the ONE and only Gospel. There was never more than one from Christ and there never will be.

“Not correct...Any one who choses to live under the law, is under the law...Includes Gentiles as well...”

Nope. Gentiles today realistically couldn’t live under the Mosaic Law even if they had a passing desire to because they have no experience with it and don’t see it. St. Paul - as scholars easily admit - generally was talking about the Mosaic Law. As Paul said in Romans 3:27-31:

“28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”

Notice verse 28? Observing the law is the Mosaic Law. Notice that?

“Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.”

Yes, the Mosaic Law. I do not observe the Mosaic Law. I don’t worry about kosher foods for instance. I never will.

“If you are doing ANYTHING to get to Heaven, you are under the law...And if you’re under the law, that’s how you will be judged...”

We must cooperate with God to be saved. If we resist God we are damned. God does not save people against their own will. We are free to choose. This is exactly why the Apostle Paul tells us: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you” (Phil. 2:12-13). St. Paul’s comment makes no sense if we are not to cooperate with God. Protestants, when pushed into a corner, usually admit that, yes, we must cooperate with God to be saved. Do you deny that? Do you believe a man can be saved even if he lives a sinful lifewithout repentance, remorse or redress?

“Not all are saved the save way...Not all are judged the same way...”

All are saved by Christ and His grace. No one gets to heaven without Christ. All are judged by God Who knows the hearts of all men.


125 posted on 01/03/2009 7:06:02 AM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
“28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.”

The Mosaic law is all inclusive...It is not just the ceremonial law...It includes the Moral law (10 Commandments) as well as the social law...

This is proven by multitudes of scripture including:

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Of course, one of the Ten Commandments...So if you live by any one of the Ten Commandments thinking this will get you salvation, you are condemned to live by and be judged of all the Commandments...

We must cooperate with God to be saved.

Wrong...This puts you under the Mosaic law...

We are free to choose.

True...But that is not the same as cooperating with God...

This is exactly why the Apostle Paul tells us: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

You mis-interpret the verse...The verse DOES NOT SAY to work for your own salvation...It says be sure you have salvation...It says God is within you...I'm (Paul) not here to guide you so study the scripture, lead Holy lives in my absence... St. Paul’s comment makes no sense if we are not to cooperate with God. Protestants, when pushed into a corner, usually admit that, yes, we must cooperate with God to be saved. Do you deny that?

Cooperate is such a vague word, you can use it to identify most anything...But no, you don't cooperate with God...You believe in Him...You accept Him as your Saviour...

126 posted on 01/03/2009 9:20:22 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

You wrote:

“The Mosaic law is all inclusive...It is not just the ceremonial law...It includes the Moral law (10 Commandments) as well as the social law...”

Not in the way St. Paul is using it in Romans 3. He clearly refers to circumcision. Circumcision was a ceremonial law and not one of the Ten Commandments. Christ Himself said we must keep the commandments of His Father. I trust Christ and Paul more than I trust you.

“This is proven by multitudes of scripture including:
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”

As is typical, you misunderstand. I am not surprised that a Protestant wouldn’t understand the Bible. That’s to be expected. No one can earn righteousness through obeying God. That is essentially what many Jews believed. Nonetheless we must obey the Natural Law and that includes the Ten Commandments. Even you believe that you must not murder people, right? Even you believe you must not steal, right? Or do you believe it is okay to murder or steal or worship false gods or commit adultery?

“Of course, one of the Ten Commandments...So if you live by any one of the Ten Commandments thinking this will get you salvation, you are condemned to live by and be judged of all the Commandments...”

Thankfully that is not what Catholics believe or do. We believe you must obey the Ten Commandments, but that we can not earn anything by obeying them. We are saved by grace, but sin (such as violating the Commandments) separates us from God and His grace.

“Wrong...This puts you under the Mosaic law...”

No. Cooperation is essential. Are you honestly saying that a man can resist God but will be saved against his will? That would be moronic on your part to assert that. God does not save ANYONE against his will. Only those whose will is attuned to God’s own will will be saved. It’s just that simple.

“True...But that is not the same as cooperating with God...”

Of course it is. Did you choose God? You did if you honestly consider yourself to be “born-again” as Protestants commonly claim. If you chose Him, then rationally you must be trying to cooperate with Him and His grace in your life. Otherwise you are a rebel and are resisting God. Which is it? There are no other alternatives. Either you cooperate with God or you rebel and resist Him. Make your choice and be intellectually honest from now on. Those who wish to be saved cooperate with God. They do not resist Him.

“You mis-interpret the verse...The verse DOES NOT SAY to work for your own salvation...”

I didn’t misrepresent the verse in the least. That’s how it reads in the PROTESTANT ESV, and in the PROTESTANT KJV, and in the PROTESTANT ASV, and in the PROTESTANT Darby Translation, and in the PROTESTANT NKJV, and in the PROTESTANT 21st Century KJV, and in the PROTESTANT Young’s Literal Translation (slightly different word order but exact same words and meaning), and in the PROTESTANT Holman Christian Standard Bible.

Now, if you think all of those Protestant scholars were wrong, too bad. They’re all in your camp, you deal with them.

“It says be sure you have salvation...It says God is within you...I’m (Paul) not here to guide you so study the scripture, lead Holy lives in my absence...”

No. The verse means what it says. It always amazes me when Protestants thump their chests about sola scriptura and then run from the Bible when actual verses come out against their peculiar Protestant views.

“Cooperate is such a vague word, you can use it to identify most anything...”

No, actually you can’t. But what you can do - and what you are doing - is trying to dismiss the idea of cooperation by insisting it can be too vague an idea rather than demonstrating from scripture that cooperation is wrong. Gee, why is that?

“But no, you don’t cooperate with God...You believe in Him...You accept Him as your Saviour...”

Accepting Him would be COOPERATION there, bud.

Also, you need to remember the rest of that verse:

12Therefore, 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, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

So, God works in us so that we can cooperate with His will to accomplish His good purpose.

God calls us to cooperation all the time:

“We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28)

And how do you explain away this verse:

“Working together with him [Christ], then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.” (2 Corinthians 6:1)

Sure sounds like cooperation with God to me. What’s it sound like to you when we are called to be “working together with” God?

Case Closed.


127 posted on 01/03/2009 10:10:47 AM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Not in the way St. Paul is using it in Romans 3. He clearly refers to circumcision. Circumcision was a ceremonial law and not one of the Ten Commandments. Christ Himself said we must keep the commandments of His Father. I trust Christ and Paul more than I trust you.

You trust Paul in Chap three but NOT in chapter seven??? In seven he says the law is the moral law...The Ten Commandments...And here is clarification...

Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

The WHOLE law, inclusive...If you think you are justified by doing something, you are fallen from grace...Simple as that...

You pick a single verse out of one chapter...And try to use that for your doctrine and dogma

That's not the way you study scripture...Compare scripture with scripture and you will get God's interpretation...

Hey, I just noticed something very telling, maybe...Look at dogma spelled backwards...AM GOD...Very interesting...

128 posted on 01/03/2009 4:27:15 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

You wrote:

“You trust Paul in Chap three but NOT in chapter seven???”

I trust him in both chapter and all chapters. I agree with him on all doctrinal points. You don’t. He taught that we cooperate with God. Do you agree with him or not? Let me guess. You’re not going to even touch on that subject, right? You’re going to skip over it like you never lost on that point even though you did.

“In seven he says the law is the moral law...The Ten Commandments...And here is clarification...”

And he only supports what I have been saying all along:

“Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”

See? Those who participate in the ceremonial law - that’s the body of Mosaic Law in question.

“Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”

And no one here - not you, nor me - is claiming to be justified by the law, any law.

I was right all along and everything St. Paul said just backs up everything I’ve said on this issue. The Mosaic Law is of no avail in salvation for a Christian. And I know of no Catholic who claims otherwise. You’ll probably ignore that AGAIN. Just like you ignored the FACT that the Bible says - more than once - that we must cooperate with God.

“The WHOLE law, inclusive...If you think you are justified by doing something, you are fallen from grace...Simple as that...”

And who here thinks they are justified by anything they do? Not me. Are you claiming that you believe that? I certainly have never believed it. Of course, like so many anti-Catholics, you’ll probably just ignore the fact I said that and blithely go one claiming or insinuating otherwise. That’s what you’ve done so far.

“You pick a single verse out of one chapter...And try to use that for your doctrine and dogma”

No. I focused on a verse that destroyed your claims and arguments. You can’t do that to me or my arguments because I agree entirely with the Bible whereas you apparently don’t.

“That’s not the way you study scripture...Compare scripture with scripture and you will get God’s interpretation...”

Which you apparently can’t get because you ignore those verses that disagree with your sectarian views. A great example of that is where you say the Bible doesn’t teach me must cooperate with God, when in fact the Bible says the exact opposite in 1 Cor. 3:9 and 2 Cor. 6:1.

“Hey, I just noticed something very telling, maybe...Look at dogma spelled backwards...AM GOD...Very interesting...”

What is very interesting is how you studiously avoided the verses that prove we must cooperate with God.


129 posted on 01/03/2009 4:48:09 PM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
What is very interesting is how you studiously avoided the verses that prove we must cooperate with God.

Use a bible word and I can discuss it...COOPERATE is not in my NT and it occurs only once in the Catholic DR NT...

My text says I 'labor' with God (not cooperate) as an already saved Christian...I don't take it out of context to mean I labor or 'cooperate' with God in attaining salvation...Again, you misinterpret the scripture and you change words to achieve that goal...

Like right now, I labor with God to lead you to the truth...And it ain't easy...

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Gal 5:15 But if you bite and devour one another: take heed you be not consumed one of another.
Gal 5:16 I say then: Walk in the spirit: and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh: For these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would.
Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest: which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects,
Gal 5:21 Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

These have to do with Morality...THE MORAL LAW...

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity,
Gal 5:23 Mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. Against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences.

Moral, Ceremonial and Social laws combined...

This is just a little more evidence the the Law is all encompassing...How many scriptures do you want???

130 posted on 01/03/2009 5:51:56 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

You wrote:

“Use a bible word and I can discuss it...COOPERATE is not in my NT and it occurs only once in the Catholic DR NT...”

“Working together” appears in 2 Cor. 6:1 as I mentioned way back in post # 127. Here it is again since you have apparently been avoiding it ever since: “Working together with him [Christ], then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.” (2 Corinthians 6:1)

“My text says I ‘labor’ with God (not cooperate) as an already saved Christian...”

If you say you’re working WITH someone then you are cooperating with him.

“I don’t take it out of context to mean I labor or ‘cooperate’ with God in attaining salvation...”

There you go again insinuating something that I nor any other Catholic believes. We do not attain salvation by our actions. We cannot become saved, however, when resisting God. Somewhere in your brain - in the brain of every average Protestant - there must be the ability to see that a person cannot attain his own salvation through his own works, yet he must not resist God and His grace for he would be lost if he did so. This is not a difficult concept and it is absolutely correct and irrefutable.

I can do exactly nothing that makes my salvation happen. Yet I can do much to resist God’s grace and lose my soul. I cannot see how you cannot see those simple truths. Yet, clearly, you must not be able to see them because you state such things as this: “...I labor or ‘cooperate’ with God in attaining salvation...”

You can’t attain your own salvation. Neither can I - and I know that’s what you were saying for yourself either. Don’t claim that’s what I believe. I’ll tell you again: I do not believe there is anything I can do that makes my salvation happen. At the same time, I must cooperate with God or I will not be saved because to resist God is to be lost forever.

“Again, you misinterpret the scripture and you change words to achieve that goal...”

I change nothing. “Working together” means “cooperation”. By the way, “cooperation” is from French. Look up 2 Cor. 6:1 in a French Catholic Bible and what do you see? “Et puisque nous sommes ses cooperateurs, nous vous exhortons encore a ne pas recevoir en vain la grace de Dieu.”

You have made false claims about me misinterpreting the scriptures or changing words at least twice now and you’ve been wrong all along. In post #127 you made a bizarre claim that I said we work for our own salvation as a way - apparently - to deny (on your part) exactly what the Bible said when the Apostle Paul tells us: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you” (Phil. 2:12-13). You apparently did not know, and have avoided commenting upon the fact, that that is EXACTLY how the verse is rendered in the following PROTESTANT translations: ESV, KJV, ASV, Darby Translation, NKJV, 21st Century KJV, Young’s Literal Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible.

Your own sectarian Bibles prove you wrong.

“Like right now, I labor with God to lead you to the truth...And it ain’t easy...”

I already know the Truth. The reason why you find your task difficult is that you are working AGAINST God while I am COOPERATING with God. I don’t find my task of leading you to the truth difficult at all. God is doing all the hard work. The ease with which the truth is being shown to you is demonstrated by the fact that you avoided for so long the verses I posted.

“These have to do with Morality...THE MORAL LAW...”

Nothing in Galatians goes against ANYTHING I have said. NOTHING.

“Moral, Ceremonial and Social laws combined...”

Again, nothing in Galatians goes against ANYTHING I have said.

“This is just a little more evidence the the Law is all encompassing...How many scriptures do you want???”

Post all you like. They all agree with what I am saying. Nothing you posted in any way goes against anything I said. We must all obey God’s commandments. I asked you if that was true and you, of course, avoided that question. You can continue to create straw man arguments all you like, but it won’t work. As I already said: “We believe you must obey the Ten Commandments, but that we can not earn anything by obeying them. We are saved by grace, but sin (such as violating the Commandments) separates us from God and His grace.” That point completely destroys the straw man you’ve been wasting your time building in several posts even though your efforts were hopeless from the start. Laboring as you are - against God - rather than cooperating with Him isn’t getting you anywhere is it?

This is easy for me. I am cooperating with God. You find this difficult - and you don’t believe in cooperating with God. I don’t believe you can even “labor with” God because you don’t seem to understand what those words mean: cooperation. As long as a man resists cooperating with God and His grace, such difficulty will be his lot.


131 posted on 01/03/2009 7:13:58 PM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Typo:

Should read “Neither can I - and I know that’s NOT what you were saying for yourself either.”


132 posted on 01/03/2009 7:17:08 PM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
You can’t attain your own salvation. Neither can I - and I know that’s what you were saying for yourself either

You just posted a verse that you claim says you have to work for your salvation:

Php 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

You guys claim that you must eat the flesh of Jesus to get eternal salvation...Well, if that's not doing works, what is???

Forgetting that Jesus NEVER told anyone how to go about changing flesh into broken bread, and forgetting that Jesus said, do this (in memory of Me) every time you eat broken bread, Jesus is telling folks to do something for eternal security, according to you guys...

Just like baptism...You MUST be baptized to get the Holy Spirit, or Salvation, depending on which Catholic source you are reading...You must perform a work to get salvation...

And then there is Grace...Does Grace come freely??? Not if you're a Catholic...You can pray to Mary and ask her to dispense some Grace to you...Or you can perform the works of the sacraments and earn some Grace...

But yet you do nothing for salvation...They call that double-speak...

133 posted on 01/03/2009 9:54:40 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

you wrote:

“You just posted a verse that you claim says you have to work for your salvation:”

No, I did not. The verse says nothing about working FOR your salvation. It says “work OUT your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Out. Not “for.” Working “for” something means you pursue the actual accomplishment of that thing. Working something “out” means you try to figure out how what it takes for it to happen. Those are two different processes.

“You guys claim that you must eat the flesh of Jesus to get eternal salvation...Well, if that’s not doing works, what is???”

Again, we see that you create straw men. It is not we who do the work of the sacraments. It is God. We merely cooperate with God in the reception of the sacrament. Through the sacrament, God gives us grace. He accomplished the work for the grace (on the Cross). We merely receive it through our cooperation. How is that any different than what Evangelicals believe about “Committing themselves to Christ”? Isn’t that a work? Even if only a work of the will? Yes, it’s a work, but only of a sort. You receive no grace whatsoever for doing it in itself. You only make yourself open for God’s grace. You make yourself disposed to receiving His grace. In other words, you cooperate with God. You lost this debate a long, long time ago.

“Forgetting that Jesus NEVER told anyone how to go about changing flesh into broken bread,...”

He did at the Last Supper and His actions and words were copied exactly. Haven’t you ever thought about that?

“... and forgetting that Jesus said, do this (in memory of Me) every time you eat broken bread, Jesus is telling folks to do something for eternal security, according to you guys...”

Why would you forget - ever - God’s words as if they are meaningless? Once again, we see what Protestants really think of the Word of God they claim to honor.

“Just like baptism...You MUST be baptized to get the Holy Spirit, or Salvation, depending on which Catholic source you are reading...You must perform a work to get salvation...”

Again, no. God performed the work on the cross. We merely cooperate with God. Also, God Himself told us that the grace of baptism is for salvation. That is, if you actually believe Mark 16:16. Since you’re Protestant, you probably will not believe that verse either. Again, will we see that Protestant Anti-Catholics only pay lip service to honoring the scriptures?

“And then there is Grace...Does Grace come freely??? Not if you’re a Catholic...You can pray to Mary and ask her to dispense some Grace to you...Or you can perform the works of the sacraments and earn some Grace...”

Wrong again. Grace is a freely given gift, but God does not save people against their will. If a man never prays, will he be saved? I’m willing to bet you believe that those who pray sincerely in their lives are much more likely to receive grace then those who never prayed at all, right? So, is prayer working for grace? If you pray for grace itself, are you working for it? Do you have the courage to even attempt an answer to those questions?

Here are the answers in any case: A man who sincerely prays will be saved before a man who never does. Period. It is not because he is working in sense. It is because he is conforming - sincerely - to God’s will for God commands us to pray unceasingly and he thus renders himself more disposed to God’s grace thereby. He is able to more fully cooperate with God than the man who never prays.

Now, “is prayer working for grace?” No. But it does make you more disposed to receive grace. That isn’t working for grace. That is making yourself more open to grace. If you can’t see the difference then you have a greater problem. You have been praying for God’s help for years and yet you believe (according to your rejection of what I say, if that’s the case) that you’re working to get something from God. Shame on you for “working” for grace and violating your own conscience!

“If you pray for grace itself, are you working for it?”

No. God is still the gift giver. He gives His gifts freely. All your prayer does is prepare you for the gift. It does not accpmplish the gift, nor produce the grace, nor anything else.

“But yet you do nothing for salvation...They call that double-speak...”

I use no double-speak at all. Protestants are often unable to think clearly. They often make the mistaking everything as an either/or situation. I do not make that mistake. Let me demonstrate this. Do you believe praying for grace is working for grace? I doubt you do. What if you pray aloud, pray on your knees, pray while reading the Psalms, recite the psalms, sing the psalms, etc.? Is any of that working for grace on your part? I am sure you will deny that it is. How is that any different than receiving the Eucharist? How is that any different than being baptized? Is having another person pouring water over you “more work” for you than you yourself kneeling in prayer with a Bible in your hand reading aloud the psalms? If baptism is “work” for you - the person being baptized - then how is prayer, as I described it, not work?

You need to rethink your theology. The hypocritical stand of Protestantism - that baptism is a work but prayer is not, that sacraments are works but committing yourself to Christ is not - simply makes no sense. What makes much more sense is the simple and clear idea that the work is all God’s. We do nothing in the sacraments but cooperate with God by making ourselves more open to HIS WORK IN US. Again, as I’ve said before, and you have assiduously avoided commenting on probably because you know it destroys your argument, God saves no one against his own will. No one is forced into heaven. Nobody.

Knowing that is true - and I think you believe that as well - then it must be true that we must want to be saved in order to be saved. And God, having constructed us with a desire to know Him and to be saved, built in us the need and the capacity to render ourselves more open to Him through prayer, fasting, and avoiding sin. That’s not working for salvation. That’s blotting out noise to more clearly hear and see God in our lives. Doing such things makes God’s will for us more understandable and allows us to be more open to God’s gifts of grace.

If you believe otherwise, then you are wasting your time praying...or fasting...or avoiding sin. You are wasting your time because you - according to your own standard - are working for your salvation (which would not only be ineffective, but would be hypocritical to say the least). God’s gifts are freely given. But we must be open to them. God saves no one against his will.

Will you post again to me without dealing with more than 80% or what I say? Notice, I deal with every paragraph you write. It’s easy - because I cooperate with God. You find this hard - as you admitted - and you’re not even dealing with most of what I write because you are resisting God. How sad.


134 posted on 01/04/2009 6:17:11 AM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
I believe I addressed everything you mention...Even this:

We do nothing in the sacraments but cooperate with God by making ourselves more open to HIS WORK IN US.

Like I said, cooperate is not a bible word...The word is labor...You took verses that say labor and twist them into saying cooperate...WE DO NOT COOPERATE...

You are not a cooperator with God any more than Mary is a co-redeemer...

Cooperate is a weak word...It suggests that you do as you are told, or you share in an operation...

1Co 3:9 For we are laborers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

2Co 6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

And this in no way applies to receiving our salvation...In that process, God is the sole 'operator'...We do not labor...We do not co-operate...We do nothing but believe...

It's easy to see that your Catholic word cooperate covers a lot of area and is meant to deceive...You showed us cooperate means to labor...But yet in the course of receiving Jesus as your Saviour, it merely means to believe, if that conversation surfaces...Otherwise it means to labor; to take the Eucharist, or baptism, or,,,...

In one spot you use cooperate to mean labor...In another, you use it to mean faith...

But just so some will understand, God made it clear:

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

The operation is strictly from God...He didn't ask for a cooperator...

And NO, Christians don't cooperate with God for their salvation...They REPENT, turn to God...

And after, they labor with HIM...

Did you ever Repent??? Did God do the WORK in you or do you help Him by cooperating???

135 posted on 01/04/2009 9:36:59 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

You wrote:

“I believe I addressed everything you mention...”

That’s not even remotely true. If it were true, then your posts would be as long and detailed as mine. But they’re not.

“Even this:...Like I said, cooperate is not a bible word...”

Trinity is not a Bible word. Come to think of it, are you sure that “Bible” is a Bible word? Where in the Bible does the word Bible appear? Right, nowhere. And, as I already pointed out, and you keep avoiding, “Working together” is cooperation.

“The word is labor...You took verses that say labor and twist them into saying cooperate...WE DO NOT COOPERATE...”

Then you resist God. Either you cooperate or you resist. There is no middle ground here. To protect your Protestant beliefs you’re willing to proclaim that you openly resist God? How sad. That just proves that Protestant Anti-Catholics are opposed to Christ as much as they claim to be opposed to His Church.

If you do not cooperate with God, then you must be resisiting Him. There is no third way.

“You are not a cooperator with God any more than Mary is a co-redeemer...”

Incorrect. I do most certainly cooperate with God by not resisting Him, by praying, by fasting, by trying understand His word with the help of the Holy Spirit, His grace and the Church. Again, if you do not cooperate with God, then you oppose Him. Make your choice.

“Cooperate is a weak word...It suggests that you do as you are told, or you share in an operation...”

Your dismissal is weak...It suggests that you do not have a real response, or have any idea of what to say...

“And this in no way applies to receiving our salvation...”

Who said it did? Not me. Again, now, I have stated and restated this obvious point. Yet, as an anti-Catholic you apparently feel the need to make up straw men. No where have I ever said that we make our own salvation. At the same time, however, I have pointed out - REPEATEDLY - what you apparently have no response to: God does not save us against our will. If we are not open to Him, we are doomed. If we resist Him and His grace, we are doomed. Instead, we must cooperate to be saved.

I have made that point numerous times, and yet you have avoided commenting upon it even once as far as I can recall. Yet you say things like, “I believe I addressed everything you mention...”

This is easy for me. You are having difficulties and cannot even respond to points I make. Wonder why?

“In that process, God is the sole ‘operator’...”

Salvation is a process? Pray tell, when did Protestants come to believe that little gem about sanctification and justification?

“We do not labor...We do not co-operate...We do nothing but believe...”

So you don’t “accept”? You don’t “commit”? You don’t “repent”? You see, believing something doesn’t necessarily entail doing any of the things I just mentioned. Now, you’ll say, “Of course believing in Christ means accepting Him, repenting of our sins, and committing to Him,” right? Strange how your story keeps adding more and more “work” and “cooperation” all the time.

“It’s easy to see that your Catholic word cooperate covers a lot of area and is meant to deceive...”

The Catholic word “cooperate”? So now it is a Catholic word? You mean no Protestants ever use it? LOL! That’s rich. Rather than actually deal with the verses I posted or refute the ideas I posted or even answer the many questions I ask, you must attempt to denigrate the very word “cooperate” by saying it is as loathesome a thing in your estimation as God’s Church?

“You showed us cooperate means to labor...”

No. I showed you that to cooperate means “working together” and I pointed out that that labor was different for those involved. Remember how I repeatedly mentioned prayer - every mention of which you have avoided commenting upon - and fasting - every mention of which you have avoided commenting upon - and avoiding sin - every mention of which you have avoided commenting upon? Remember all that? We should do all of those things. None of the make our salvation happen. But no man can be saved who revels in sin, never prays, etc. for he would be saved against his free will - and God doesn’t do that. If a man doesn’t truly turn his life over to Christ, then he won’t be open to grace. He will be resisting God.

God saves us. But we cannot resist Him and be saved. He does the saving work. With His grace we turn over our lives to Him. That is the extent of our “work” and it doesn’t save us, but it means we do cooperate.

“But yet in the course of receiving Jesus as your Saviour, it merely means to believe, if that conversation surfaces...Otherwise it means to labor; to take the Eucharist, or baptism, or,,,...”

No. You cannot keep contradicting yourself like that. If it meant merely to believe, then where is the repentence? Where is the committment? To accept Christ means more than believing. I know of people who believe Christ is the Savior - and they don’t accept Him. Again, to be consistent, something which no one will accuse you of being in theology, you must have faith (which is more than belief by the way), and acceptance and repentance and committment. Gee, sounds like a lot of work!

“In one spot you use cooperate to mean labor...In another, you use it to mean faith...”

No, never. I use cooperation to mean cooperation. God does all the saving “labor”. We cooperate with Him. I have been consistent all along, while you continue to avoid issues, my questions, statements, say I said things I never said, create straw men, etc.

This is easy for me. You are having difficulties and cannot even respond to points I make. Wonder why yet?

“But just so some will understand, God made it clear:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”

We must be baptized? Is that what you’re saying? Whose work is that? Paul clearly preached the greatness and importance of baptism. Why?

“The operation is strictly from God...He didn’t ask for a cooperator...”

Clearly He did and does. God saves no one against his will. Again, you keep avoiding that fact. “Working together with him [Christ], then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.” (2 Corinthians 6:1)

Working together with Christ...

“And NO, Christians don’t cooperate with God for their salvation...They REPENT, turn to God...”

God saves us, but not against our will. If we do not open ourselves to His grace we will not be saved. God does the saving work. We open ourselves to that work through our cooperation.

And again, the point you have avoided now many times: God doesn’t save us against our will.

“And after, they labor with HIM...”

Cooperation. Now you’re saying we cooperate with God after all? ROFLOL! That’s great. More “consistent” theologizing from a Protestant anti-Catholic. We don’t cooperate with God, but we do cooperate with God. The end result is the same: God saves us, and we must not resist Him or we are doomed. Would you refute that? Would you agree with that? Not resisting Him is cooperating with Him. That’s all there is.

“Did you ever Repent???”

Yes. Notice that? You asked a question, and I answered it. You can’t seem to do the same with my questions. This is easy for me. You are having difficulties and cannot even respond to points I make. Wonder why yet?

“Did God do the WORK in you or do you help Him by cooperating???”

God does the work in me and I cooperate with it. If I don’t, I am damned. If I resist Him, I am damned. God will not save me against my will.

You’ll avoid these points probably. That’s okay. I understand why.


136 posted on 01/04/2009 11:03:16 AM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
I have made that point numerous times, and yet you have avoided commenting upon it even once as far as I can recall.

Again, I will repeat what I said...This covers it all...

And NO, Christians don't cooperate with God for their salvation...They REPENT, turn to God...

Clearly He did and does. God saves no one against his will. Again, you keep avoiding that fact. “Working together with him [Christ], then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.” (2 Corinthians 6:1)

You keep changing to your Catholic word, cooperate...It doesn't say cooperate...It says work...It says labor...And that is only AFTER you have salvation...

Again, to be consistent, something which no one will accuse you of being in theology, you must have faith (which is more than belief by the way), and acceptance and repentance and committment. Gee, sounds like a lot of work!

Yes, it is faith as well...Faith that God can and will save you...

No. You cannot keep contradicting yourself like that. If it meant merely to believe, then where is the repentence? Where is the committment? To accept Christ means more than believing. I know of people who believe Christ is the Savior - and they don’t accept Him.

I see what your problem is...You don't know what Repent means...You think it means penance...Pay your debt and you can be saved...

G3340


μετανοέω
metanoeō
met-an-o-eh'-o
From G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction): - repent.

Repent is NOT turning from sin...It IS turning your mind and heart to God...You can not turn from sin until God is within you...

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:

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

There is nothing you can do to get saved other than believe and have faith...

Now maybe you think that takes some cooperation (works) on your part, but Jesus is crystal clear that if you do anything to earn or cooperate for salvation, you have fallen from grace...

And since you guys won't know til you face the White Throne Judgement whether or not you are saved, you have to keep cooperating (working) thru out your life to attain salvation at the end...Endure to the end...

The big difference between you guys and us is:
You work (cooperate) to gain salvation...
We work because we HAVE salvation...

One's acceptable to God, the other isn't...

137 posted on 01/04/2009 12:00:57 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

You wrote:

“Again, I will repeat what I said...This covers it all...”

It doesn’t even come close to covering it all. I asked questions. They are going unanswered by you. I made points. They are going unanswered by you.

“And NO, Christians don’t cooperate with God for their salvation...They REPENT, turn to God...”

Repentence would be cooperation with God’s desire. God wants us to repent after all. Again - and once again this is so far unanswered by you - if we resist God we are damned. Is repentence resisting God? No. So it must be...what?

“You keep changing to your Catholic word, cooperate...”

Again, if “cooperate” is a Catholic word, why do non-Catholics also use it? Also, I didn’t use the word cooperate there. I just said this: “Clearly He did and does. God saves no one against his will. Again, you keep avoiding that fact. “Working together with him [Christ], then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.” (2 Corinthians 6:1)

“It doesn’t say cooperate...It says work...”

No, it doesn’t say “work”. It says “Working together”. Why do you deliberately leave off the wod “together”? Are you afraid of that word?

“It says labor...And that is only AFTER you have salvation...”

It says “together”. Why do you keep running from that word? Does it scare you? Are you afraid of that word?

I wrote: “Again, to be consistent, something which no one will accuse you of being in theology, you must have faith (which is more than belief by the way), and acceptance and repentance and committment. Gee, sounds like a lot of work!”

You responded to only one part of that with:

“Yes, it is faith as well...Faith that God can and will save you...”

And - as you avoided mentioning - it is acceptance, repentance, and committment. Again, that sounds like a lot of “work” according to your understanding of things.

“I see what your problem is...You don’t know what Repent means...You think it means penance...Pay your debt and you can be saved...”

No. I don’t believe that at all. Once again, we see that you make things up out of thin air as to what I believe. I do not believe for a single second that you can “Pay your debt and you can be saved...” Why do you feel the need to make things up like that? This must be at least the sixth or seventh time you have completely made up something out of thin air. Penance is NOT about earning salvation or even paying debt toward salvation. Penance is part of repentance but it does not earn grace. Nothing on our part can earn grace.

“Repent is NOT turning from sin...”

Wrong. Repentence IS turning from sin, but it is more than that. Did you see what you did? You deny a truth (what repentence is) in order to propagate your Protestant ideology despite the reality of what repentence is.

“It IS turning your mind and heart to God...You can not turn from sin until God is within you...”

But do you need to do it to be saved? Aren’t you then claiming a work is needed? Again, we see your inconsistent theology.

And the verses you posted only prove cooperation. We cooperate with the works God has begun in us. That’s Catholic theology. Thanks for the assit there Iscool!

“There is nothing you can do to get saved other than believe and have faith...”

And repent, and commit, and - now according to you - cooperate with the works God begins within us. LOL! So much again for consistency on your part!

“Now maybe you think that takes some cooperation (works) on your part, but Jesus is crystal clear that if you do anything to earn or cooperate for salvation, you have fallen from grace...”

No, actually He never says anything like: “Don’t cooperate with Me.” Nor does He ever once say: “Resist Me to be saved.” That’s the lunacy you’re pushing, however. And, of course, rather than dealing with me fairly and honestly, you must create yet another straw man by insinuating that I have said or believed that Jesus taught a man could earn salvation or that our cooperation is what got our salvation.

“And since you guys won’t know til you face the White Throne Judgement whether or not you are saved, you have to keep cooperating (working) thru out your life to attain salvation at the end...Endure to the end...”

Again, you flout scripture. How sad. Doesn’t the Word of God tell us to persevere until the end? Have younever read Hebrews 12:1? How about James 1:25? And did you notice the “doer of acts”?

The Bible is right, and you’re not.

This is easy for me, but so difficult for you. Resisting God doesn’t help you.

“The big difference between you guys and us is:
You work (cooperate) to gain salvation...”

No, we don’t. And again you have to create a straw man and it just won’t work. Why say something that is clearly NOT TRUE? We don’t gain salvation by our cooperation, but we won’t be saved against our will either.
We work because we HAVE salvation...

“One’s acceptable to God, the other isn’t...”

Your ideology isn’t. You don’t even believe we must persevere - but the Bible says otherwise.

The Bible will always say otherwise. You can contradict it all you like, but you can’t change the word.

This is easy for me, but so difficult for you. Resisting God is not helping you. Ignoring the Word of God and denying what it actually says won’t help you either. Still, you’ll keep doing it won’t you? In that, you will persevere won’t you?


138 posted on 01/04/2009 5:34:53 PM PST by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Of course you can't get saved against your will...That's not even worth a conversation...

Your ideology isn’t. You don’t even believe we must persevere - but the Bible says otherwise.

As usual, you guys take that verse out of context...That verse goes right along with the one that says we must overcome...

But then John throws a monkey wrench into your gears and telss us we have overcome already...

You still don't get it...Jesus has already paid the price...He didn't pay just part of it...He payed all of it...

Jesus has made us Righteous...Sin is not imputed to us...Do we commit sin??? Of course we do...We are filled with the Holy Spirit and He helps us fight the sin...

“There is nothing you can do to get saved other than believe and have faith...”

And repent, and commit,

Nope...Repent is turn to God...I already posted the Greek word and the definition...Commit??? No...God doesn't want you to commit...God wants you to take HIM...He will do a good work in you...You can not do it...And if you commit (anything), it will be as a debt...That's what grace is all about...

Wrong. Repentence IS turning from sin, but it is more than that.

Again you are wrong...Repent is not turn from sin...All you have to do is accept what Jesus offered...

Again, you flout scripture. How sad. Doesn’t the Word of God tell us to persevere until the end? Have younever read Hebrews 12:1? How about James 1:25? And did you notice the “doer of acts”?

Who is Hebrews written to??? Who is James written to???

Acts is a transition book...It started out with everyone under the law...Peter didn't even know Gentiles could come into the fold til ten chapters into the book...

Acts ends up with the gospel of Grace...It's a transition...

But do you need to do it to be saved? Aren’t you then claiming a work is needed?

Not according to God...Turning to God is an act of faith...

139 posted on 01/05/2009 6:18:45 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: NYer; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

140 posted on 01/05/2009 6:25:31 AM PST by narses (http://www.theobamadisaster.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

mark


141 posted on 01/05/2009 8:25:42 AM PST by Jaded (Don't go away mad... just go away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
We should all be grateful for Mary's faith and obedience to the word and giving birth and raising our Savior. But there is nothing to suggest that another person could not have been chosen by God to have done it had Mary not.

You are right, and were it another, she would be the object of Catholic doctrine. The point is that God had to depend on a human woman to acquiesce to His plan, as He does not force Himself on anyone. You throw out the canard with this statement. Mary was the chosen of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. She is whom she is and we are grateful for her.

Why do Protestants reject her so? I have heard it said that Mary, the Apostles, the saints and the prophets are no better than anyone else. True only in the sense that they were human. But, completely untrue in that God chose them for His purpose and that elevates them. What Catholics believe about Mary takes nothing away from Jesus or His mission of salvation. She adds to it. There is nothing lost by devotion to her, only Jesus to gain.

142 posted on 01/05/2009 12:42:56 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
That is why I perfer the use of the title Mother of Jesus, which is biblical.

Is Jesus somehow separate from the Father and the Holy Spirit? Where one is, all are. Therefore Mary was Mother to God.

143 posted on 01/05/2009 12:50:08 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Just wow!


144 posted on 01/05/2009 12:56:09 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Thank you for that translation. What a beautiful verse, it can only be about our Blessed Mother, Mary most holy.


145 posted on 01/05/2009 12:57:10 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

“Why do Protestants reject her so?”

Seems a very odd question.

Are people told to receive her? You said that she is what she is. Protestants and other Christians believe exactly that.


146 posted on 01/05/2009 1:00:14 PM PST by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
I reject the Mother of God line. Elevation of Mary to an exalted status, sharing in any way in our redemption, serving in any way in our access to the Son is bordering on idolatry. It is not Scriptural; it is not acceptable.

It would seem then, that your beef is with God, for it was His actions which elevated her. It was God's choice that Mary should share in the redemptive nature of Jesus' life. Had He so wanted, Jesus could have dropped out of the sky, fully grown. Ah, but that was not as God willed. Instead, He willed that Jesus would be born of a woman. There is nothing in Catholic Marian doctrine that is unScriptural. It is only those outside of the Catholic Church who say so. And, I reject your beliefs as being unScriptural.

147 posted on 01/05/2009 1:03:37 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Classic which came first. Peter or Scripture? Oh maybe not, after all even protestants know that Peter did. Right?


148 posted on 01/05/2009 1:07:59 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Yes, as a matter of fact we are. Christ offered her as our mother when he was dying on the cross. We can accept her and receive her love and guidance or we can reject her. Protestants do not accept her as she is, they reject the glorious titles attributed to her by the Church. I believe that the rejection is mostly driven as a repudiation of the Church.


149 posted on 01/05/2009 1:48:30 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I have been following the discussion between you and iscool and I must say that you have an excellent grasp of Catholic theology. It has been a pleasure to read, thank you for taking the time and energy to write such coherent and thought provoking posts.


150 posted on 01/05/2009 1:51:37 PM PST by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-184 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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