Posted on 01/01/2009 3:51:01 PM PST by NYer
mark
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.
Is Jesus somehow separate from the Father and the Holy Spirit? Where one is, all are. Therefore Mary was Mother to God.
Just wow!
Thank you for that translation. What a beautiful verse, it can only be about our Blessed Mother, Mary most holy.
“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.
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.
Classic which came first. Peter or Scripture? Oh maybe not, after all even protestants know that Peter did. Right?
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.
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.
You wrote:
“Of course you can’t get saved against your will...That’s not even worth a conversation...”
Oh, but it is worth a conversation. If you can’t be saved against your will, then it must be by cooperation.
Now, seeing that it took you half a dozen or more posts to finally admit that a man can’t be saved against his will, I would not be surprised if you try to avoid the import of that point at all costs. Will you merely dismiss your admission? Will you claim it is irrelevant when it is actually at the heart of the matter?
“As usual, you guys take that verse out of context...That verse goes right along with the one that says we must overcome...”
I took nothing out of context and your point just buried you again. If our cooperation is unnecessary, then why must we “overcome” anything? That was your very word - “overcome”. Why “must” we “overcome” anything if we must not “cooperate”?
I thought the Protestant ideal was that we did nothing but “accept” Jesus. Now you’re telling us we must overcome something. Sounds like work to me. And you didn’t even mention God or grace in that overcoming. Interesting.
“But then John throws a monkey wrench into your gears and telss us we have overcome already...”
But James says that we WILL overcome through our endurance - which implies our cooperation with God’s grace. James 1:12:
“Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.”
Can we endure temptation on our own? No. But we also can’t do it without cooperating with God’s grace.
And notice how I not only mention something from the Bible, but I actually mention the author, the verse and post the verse itself? So far, all we have from you is an assertion about “John [throwing] a monkey wrench”. But, thankfully, I actually know the Bible, and am more than happy to assist you. You are probably referring to 1 John and his five mentionings of overcoming in chapters 2, 4 and 5. Right?
Are you trying to say that these verses which OSAS believers say show assurance of salvation some how work for your argument? Sorry, no chance there. You see, in verse 28 of chapter 2 John says: “And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming.”
Notice how John tells the Christians to abide in Christ so they have confidence at the judgment? Doesn’t sound like OSAS to me!
“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...”
Yes, He did. And if I resist His work, I won’t be saved. You see, I get it, but you don’t. You admit a man can’t be saved against his will - and that is OBVIOUSLY THE TRUTH - but you can’t see the rest of the truth - that we must cooperate with God or we will not be saved. God paid the price, but we must accept Him (as you’ve admitted)...and we must believe in Him (as you’ve admitted)...and we must commit to Him (as you might admit) and we must repent of our sins (as you’ve admitted). If that isn’t cooperation with the will of God, what is?
“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...”
Only if we cooperate with that help. God does not force grace on us. You want it both ways. On the one hand, in one post, you claim free will exists, but in another post you act as if God helps us against our will. Which is it?
Also, you just shot yourself in the foot again. Can a man lose the Holy Spirit? If a Spirit filled man renounces Christ and becomes a Hindu is the Spirit still dwelling in him as He once was? I ask for this simple reason: If the Holy Spirit can leave a man because the man’s actions are an offense to God, doesn’t that imply that the man must cooperate with the Holy Spirit to keep that relationship intact and full? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim - as I am almost positive you would - that a man through his apostasy can lose the Holy Spirit, but that that same man does not have to cooperate with the Spirit to keep that relationship intact. Apostasy would be the most outrageous form of not cooperating. So wouldn’t cooperating be the bare minimum a man to keep that relationship intact?
Will I have to post the above paragraph a half dozen or so times before you offer a response as happend with my simple point about men not being saved against their own will?
“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...”
So God does good works in men who are not open to Him? To be open to God - to “take Him” as you put it - would require a willingness to cooperate would it not? Again, if God doesn’t save you against your will, then isn’t your cooperation needed?
“Again you are wrong...Repent is not turn from sin...All you have to do is accept what Jesus offered...”
Actually to repent includes turning from sin. Either Christians are supposed to embrace sin (an impossibility and something God would never command us to do) or they are supposed to turn away from sin. There is no chance of it being otherwise. There can be no sincere repentence without a sincere desire to amends one’s ways. Again, we either reject sin or we embrace it. Rejecting it would be part of repentence. Embracing it would be death.
Now, if you actually look in the Bible, this is what you would discover about repentence: In Matthew 3:7–9, John says to the Pharisees: “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come? Therefore, bear fruit worthy of repentance.” What can “bear fruit worthy of repentance,” be other than turn away from your previous actions and attitudes? It is a call to turn away from sin. Sincere repentance requires turning away from sin. John makes this all the more clear when he tells them in verse 8 or 9 that their lists of ancestors won’t help them in this. THEY must do something. THEY must turn away from the sins.
I had written:
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”?
You wrote [without answering any of my questions of course]: “Who is Hebrews written to??? Who is James written to???”
Who do you think? I asked you 4 questions and you answer with 2. Is that how you expect to get out of your corner? Is that how you expect to evade my questions perhaps? How desperate you might be about now, for this is easy for me, but for you so difficult. Again, Hebrews 12:1 - no matter who it is written to - tells us to persevere until the end. James 1:25 - no matter who it is written to - tells us to persevere. And we also saw today that 1 John 2:28 tells us we must abide in Christ so that we have confidence at our Last Judgment.
The scriptures are mounting against you. You did not list a single verse in your post. You have tacitly admitted the scriptures are against you.
“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...”
Almighty God revealed to Peter what he needed to know when he needed to know it in that regard. That belongs to the sovereignty of Almighty God. It is His alone. Still there was but one Gospel even if it were only preached to one people at that time, and there remained one Gospel even when it was later preached to more than one people. There is ONE Lord, ONE Faith, and ONE baptism.
“Acts ends up with the gospel of Grace...It’s a transition...”
No. Jewish Christians were saved by grace. Gentile Christians were saved by grace. There was only ONE Gospel, but two peoples to receive it. There was no transition from one Gospel to another. Both peoples needed Christ and needed grace to be saved and needed to cooperate with that grace to persevere. Jews had an advantage in that they already knew the history and doctrine of Judaism. But that did not preclude the salvation of Gentiles - for grace works on all people who cooperate with it. Nor did the inclusion of Gentile Christians demand a new or different Gospel. All were saved by Christ and His grace and all needed to cooperate with Christ and His grace or else they were damned forever.
“Not according to God...Turning to God is an act of faith...”
Yes, and if it is sincere it would include turning away from sin and cooperating with God.
This is easy for me, but increasingly difficult for you. You no longer even cite the scriptures.
Thank you very much! You made my day.
This is the line that I object to. Mary was the means by which God was made incarnate. But Mary had absolutely nothing to do with our redemption beyond that. To say otherwise is to take away from what God alone accomplished. Quote to me any Scripture that says otherwise.
You're going to wear your keyboard out trying to convince yourself that you cooperated with God for your salvation...
Sorry, but no matter how much nor no matter how many times you try to twist and turn it, You don't work together with God for your salvation...
Salvation is a free GIFT...And if you didn't get it for free, without 'cooperating', you didn't get it...God doesn't hand it out to people who think they can work (cooperate) for it...
You use a verse in Matthew for proof that one must turn from sin to attain salvation...Problem is, salvation is no where in the verse...It's not even in the vicinity...Those people were confessing their sins with the goal of coming into the Kindgom of Heaven...They were looking for a King, not a Saviour...There was no Grace involved...And there were no Christians...
One thing you guys are consistant about is your choice of scripture...You guys use one verse out of the Pauline epistles, one verse out of Peter, and spend the rest of your time in Matthew, Hebrews, James, and the first few chapters of Acts...
And yes, you can find verses in those books that state 'works' are necessary for salvation...
But if you go to the Pauline epistles, the books written to the church(es), where the gospel of Grace was revealed, you'll see that works are no longer required...They were replaced by Grace...God's grace...
Are you trying to say that these verses which OSAS believers say show assurance of salvation some how work for your argument? Sorry, no chance there. You see, in verse 28 of chapter 2 John says: “And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming.”
Just to make a point, do you see anything in that verse about salvation??? What you apparently don't know is that there will be many people that make it to Heaven but will be ashamed when they stand before Jesus...That verse has nothing to do with losing Salvation...
Also, you just shot yourself in the foot again. Can a man lose the Holy Spirit? If a Spirit filled man renounces Christ and becomes a Hindu is the Spirit still dwelling in him as He once was? I ask for this simple reason: If the Holy Spirit can leave a man because the man’s actions are an offense to God, doesn’t that imply that the man must cooperate with the Holy Spirit to keep that relationship intact and full? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim - as I am almost positive you would - that a man through his apostasy can lose the Holy Spirit, but that that same man does not have to cooperate with the Spirit to keep that relationship intact. Apostasy would be the most outrageous form of not cooperating. So wouldn’t cooperating be the bare minimum a man to keep that relationship intact?
Of course a Christian can't lose the Holy Spirit...Jesus says were are 'sealed' with the Holy Spirit until the day of Redemption...
Eph 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
We can not lose the Holy Spirit but we can certainly 'grieve' the Holy Spirit by our bad actions...Our spirit is at war with our flesh...When the flesh wins, it grieves the Holy Spirit...
God would no more kick you out of His family than you would kick one of your kids out of yours...
Heb 12:5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
God may whip you, but he won't run you off...He'll be there waiting for you to come back just like the Prodigal Son...
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Yes, Jesus alone was able to open the gates heaven, but we must take the steps that lead us through those gates. Mary was needed, God could not accomplish the incarnation on His own, He is God, not human and though He could have created a human body for Jesus, it would not have been the same as the conception. You are wrong here my FRiend. Mary’s fiat was needed just as ours is.
I think that the confusion is in that some people believe that merely by His life, death and resurrection, Jesus saves all, but if you read carefully, you see that Jesus only makes it possible, we must accept that gift. Mary accepted Jesus even before she knew the fullness of His glory and His mission.
This doctrine does not take away from God. He chose not to accomplish this alone, HE chose to be born of woman. I did not make this choice, you did not make this choice, God did. Why then would He be diminished in any way by our veneration of the woman who said yes to both Jesus’ birth and His death. Remember, Jesus was not alone at His death. His mother was with Him. Remember in her own words, Our Blessed Mother says she magnifies Him. What could that mean other than through her eyes we see Him as He wanted as truly man and truly God?
The entire New Testament is about how we share in the redemptive nature of Jesus. St. Paul speaks of how they reconcile us to God. Jesus tells the disciples to go out into the world spreading the good news and baptizing others. St. Paul declares that we must finish Jesus’ work, begun with His Incarnation.
While it is certainly true that without Jesus, none of it is possible. While it is certainly true that God at any time could just open the heavens and reveal Himself to all ensuring that every knee will bend to Him, that is not how God chose to redeem us. He has asked us to share in Jesus’ mission. Every time we love someone though we would rather not, every time we help someone, though we don’t really have the means, every time we forgive someone who has deeply injured us, every time we give Him praise and Glory, every time we reach out to Him in prayer, we are sharing in the redemptive work of Jesus.
You have an amazingly naive theology of redemption!
Welcome home!
Excellent post! That goes for your #155 too.
To “receive a gift” I must accept it. This is the most basic rational logical meaning of the phrase “receive a gift”. To “accept” it. This naturally implies cooperation on one’s part; for if one does not cooperate in the exchange of the gift from the Giver to the recipient, then the gift cannot be “received”. Without cooperation, the gift is rejected.
This follows from reason. If one gives their child a pair of socks for Christmas, and the kid throws them over his shoulder, that means the kid rejects the socks. One could “force” the socks on the kid, but once left alone, the kid would be free *then* to either continue wearing them or take them off. The kid must, at some point, *accept* the gift of the socks for them to be worn. The kid must cooperate with the giving of the gift, or else they will just remain in the drawer (or in the trash).
And “home” it is. Thank you.
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.