Posted on 05/30/2008 10:21:34 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Some of you will remember my recent decision to become a Catholic. I suppose I should be surprised it ended getting derailed into a 'Catholic vs. Protestant' thread, but after going further into the Religion forum, I suppose it's par for the course.
There seems to be a bit of big issue concerning Mary. I wanted to share an observation of sorts.
Now...although I was formerly going by 'Sola Scriptura', my father was born and raised Catholic, so I do have some knowledge of Catholic doctrine (not enough, at any rate...so consider all observations thusly).
Mary as a 'co-redeemer', Mary as someone to intercede for us with regards to our Lord Jesus.
Now...I can definitely see how this would raise some hairs. After all, Jesus Himself said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that none come to the Father but through Him. I completely agree.
I do notice a bit of a fundamental difference in perception though. Call it a conflict of POV. Do Catholics worship Mary (as I've seen a number of Protestants proclaim), or do they rather respect and venerate her (as I've seen Catholics claim)? Note that it's one thing to regard someone with reverence; I revere President Bush as the noted leader of the free world. I revere my father. I revere Dr. O'Neil, a humorous and brilliant math teacher at my university. It's an act of respect.
But do I WORSHIP them?
No. Big difference between respecting/revering and worshiping. At least, that's how I view it.
I suppose it's also a foible to ask Mary to pray for us, on our behalf...but don't we tend to also ask other people to pray for us? Doesn't President Bush ask for people to pray for him? Don't we ask our family members to pray for us for protection while on a trip? I don't see quite a big disconnect between that and asking Mary to help pray for our wellbeing.
There is some question to the fact that she is physically dead. Though it stands to consider that she is still alive, in Heaven. Is it not common practice to not just regard our physical life, but to regard most of all our spirit, our soul? That which survives the flesh before ascending to Heaven or descending to Hell after God's judgment?
I don't think it's that big of a deal. I could change my mind after reading more in-depth, but I don't think that the Catholic Church has decreed via papal infallibility that Mary is to be placed on a higher pedestal than Jesus, or even to be His equal.
Do I think she is someone to be revered and respected? Certainly. She is the mother of Jesus, who knew Him for His entire life as a human on Earth. Given that He respected her (for He came to fulfill the old laws; including 'Honor Thy Father and Mother'), I don't think it's unnatural for other humans to do the same. I think it's somewhat presumptuous to regard it on the same level as idolatry or supplanting Jesus with another.
In a way, I guess the way Catholics treat Mary and the saints is similar to how the masses treated the Apostles following the Resurrection and Jesus's Ascension: people who are considered holy in that they have a deep connection with Jesus and His Word, His Teachings, His Message. As the Apostles spread the Good News and are remembered and revered to this day for their work, so to are the works of those sainted remembered and revered. Likewise with Mary. Are the Apostles worshiped? No. That's how it holds with Mary and the saints.
At least, that's how my initial thoughts on the subject are. I'll have to do more reading.
“The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world”
The Greek form, here for “from” means separation, a completed act. God entered the names of those who would be saved and those not entered are revealed at the last judgment. Not foreknowledge, but a deliberate act known only by God, but since He is a God of love and justice, He had His reasons.
I don’t know who might be predestined to hell (I actually don’t believe that they are) but I have never seen anyone who believes it think that they or anyone they love is among that sad group.
Just a bit of curiosity here...
If you have been told “many times to go to hell”, I don’t see how that could have been on this particular Forum since you’ve only been here a little over 5 weeks.
If you meant that in your lifetime you’ve been told “many times to go to hell”. you belong to one big fraternity of many of us.
In which case, welcome to the world.......
ROE
I meant to add: it’s one thing to be told “you are going to hell” and another to be told “go to hell”.
I know you can easily see the difference, so I needn’t explain.
“If you have been told “many times to go to hell”, I don’t see how that could have been on this particular Forum since you’ve only been here a little over 5 weeks.”
I don’t think you saw the reception I received when I first posted. I was told by my boss what to expect but not from all sides. Be that as it may, in discussions and debates over the course of my teaching career, I have had the experience of being told and encouraged to visit permenantly the nether world, in some very erudite phrasing; some even used “please”.
Who among us remains sinless after Baptism (the washing of regeneration)?
I'm reminded of when J2P2 died and one of the deputies said to me, "He's just a man." And I had to think for a while before I understood why he would say that. He was evidently victim of a misconception of what we think the office of Pope is so he thought he was somehow correcting my thinking in saying, "He's just a man."
Popes sin. Popes err. Benedict XVI said he does. And no serious thinker says they don't.
People adduce Peter's obvious flaws in an effort to show that there are no Popes and Peter was a bad one. (Okay, I know that's not it, really.) But, if anything, my response is even deeper gratitude to God for the miracle of His grace and the wonder of His showing grace through the flawed and sinful children of Israel and flawed and sinful Popes, and maybe even through a flawed and sinful me.
I KNEW we were brothers under the skin. Yeah, it's not so much a theological statement as a suggestion -- or maybe an expression of a devout hope.
Why don't we say, "Jesus did so I don't have to. Follow Him and we'll have better things to say to each other!" (And then run really fast, or in my case, hobble really fast.)
Yankees Fans?
If you read your Bible, you'll find the answers.
The outward call of the Gospel goes out to every man on earth so none is without excuse. But the only men who will respond in true faith and believe in Christ are those who receive the inward call, the gift of the Holy Spirit who will bring them to repentance and saving faith in Jesus Christ.
To believe that God wills for the salvation of every man on earth denies the Scriptures and our own lying eyes. If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved. My God, the God of Scripture, the all-holy, all omnipotent, all-omnicient, all sufficient Creator of heaven and earth, gets what He wants because He already has it. It's His to do with as He pleases. Thank God, He pleases to mercifully, freely redeem His people from their sins by the sacrifice of His Son on the cross.
"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." -- Matthew 20:28
"I have manefested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word... I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine... And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word... Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." -- John 17: 6, 9, 19-20,24 "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." -- John 6:65
"He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." -- Isaiah 53:8
"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." -- Hebrews 9:28
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word" -- Ephesians 5:25-26
"But if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, which is the image of God, should sine unto them" -- 2 Corinthians 4:3-4
"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" -- 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11
"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." -- Rev. 20:15"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." -- Matthew 1:21
Read the following link to see why the concept of Christ paying for everyone's sins actually denies the work of Christ on the cross by saying Christ only died in theory, and not for the specific sins of His flock. Christ's death was sufficient to pay for all the sins of the world; but it was efficient only for those whom He came to redeem.
Christ did not come to redeem everyone, or else everyone would be redeemed. God's ultimate will is not thwarted by men; Christ's blood was not shed in vain for those who reject Him; the Holy Spirit is not merely an influence, but a giver of new life through the new birth in Christ...
Again, the great issue of our time dealing with the docrine of atonement is simply its basic definition -- vicarious, substitutionary atonement. We must zealously preach and defend this core doctrine without relenting. With this on the line, limited vs. general atonement is not likely to come up as much as it did in prior generations. Nor is it so urgent, given the more fundamental doctrinal issues in the balance. But we must not shrink from this doctrine, and we must teach it in appropriate settings with all zeal and diligence.""...General atonement wrongly asserts that limited atonement speaks to the world with an ingenuine offer of salvation. "After all, if Christ only died for the elect, then how can the Bible say, "Whoever will, let them come?" To argue this is to confuse categories. Christ does offer all a free pardon of their sins if only they will come, and we should speak this way to the world in his name. But it remains true that "No one comes to me unless the Father draws them" (Jn. 6:44). If only the elect are saved -- as the Bible teaches -- and if the Triune God knew these from before the creation of the world -- as the Bible teaches -- and if the precious blood of Jesus cleanses us from all our sins -- as the Bible teaches -- then it is only applied to those elect persons who reveal their election through their faith in Jesus, which is itself the gift of God. This limited number of persons receives an unlimited atonement. Everone else dies in their sins, all of them having known and sinfully rejected God (Rom. 1:18-25) and many of them having spurned a genuine offer from Christ to come to him and be saved.
It all goes back to election and who is responsible for our salvation. Either men elect themselves by their good work and clever decision to believe, or God elected His family from before the foundation of the world and ordained that they were to be saved by faith in the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Those who deny the particular atonement of Jesus Christ are actually doing the devil's job by denying that Christ's atonement accomplishes exactly what God has ordained. It makes Christ's redemption of His flock impersonal, non-specific and incomplete, when in reality, God knows who are His because He named them and called them with a holy calling before they could do anything good or evil, as Paul tells us...
"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" -- Romans 9:11
"The purpose of God" saves the fallen sinner, by His grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
It only denies the lies told about Scriptures by the autocratic French lawyer Jean Cauvin.
If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved.
God wants all men to be saved by their own choice. He gave us free will that we might choose Him.
Even Calvinists have free will, but they pretend they don't because that feels more comfy.
I can go with Rev. Phillips here, or I can go with the 1970+ years of scholarship and teaching of the Church Christ founded: the Catholic Church, as guided by the Holy Spirit.
No contest.
There is no logic in that, no wisdom. It does not follow at all.
Christ's death was sufficient to pay for all the sins of the world; but it was efficient only for those whom He came to redeem.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
God is a God of love. The petty, vindictive god created by Cauvin is a cruel fiction.
Gibberish. He came to redeem everyone who believes in Him.
God's ultimate will is not thwarted by men
Of course not. God's ultimate will is that we have the free will to love Him or reject Him.
...Christ's blood was not shed in vain for those who reject Him...
Of course not.
No it doesn't.
Either men elect themselves by their good work and clever decision to believe...
Free will is a gift from God. Belittling it with snide remarks is not exactly the height of gratitude.
...or God elected His family from before the foundation of the world and ordained that they were to be saved by faith in the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
A calvinist lie.
The devil's job is telling the world the Calvinist lie that we have no free will, or the Calvinist lie that God does not want us all to be saved, but instead that God created countless souls predestined to damnation.
That's not God, it's a sick god created by Cauvin in Cauvin's vindictive image.
Can't help wondering if his work inspired Shakespeare in King Lear: "As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods,/ They kill us for their sport."
What Calvin "gets" and wants to convey is the sovereign and awesome majesty of God.
Asserting "Free will" (as I do, but with scant comprehension) scarcely makes the mystery and horror of damnation go way.
As we look at our own lives and our own journey to Christ, don't we see, (usually? often? sometimes?) that we were "managed" and chivvied and pulled and pushed, given sometimes a long leash and sometimes a short until finally, at some point we found ourselves the foot of a throne (which looked suspiciously like a cross) where kneeling seemed not just the only sane thing to do, but a joyful release from the worsening madness of sinfulness and alienation we had suffered up to that point?
We are aware that our coming to our knees and our senses was not something we had earned but a gift and the answering of a longing we scarcely knew we had. If anything we had warred against receiving THIS gift. We had resisted. We had often preferred any tawdry and sordid thing or any illusory grandiosity to the the Mercy and Grace of God.
And, there on our knees we find ourselves saying, "He has saved me; I was made for this; what I am FOR is to know Him and love Him and enjoy Him more and more forever."
And then we look at the Scriptures, where it seems undeniable that SOME are not saved. And we look around and see others living and dying in their sins and obstinacy -- at least as far as we can tell (and, really, maybe it's not our business even to TRY to tell.)
And at some point we are going to wonder, why when He waked me at the edge of the precipice, when He inveigled and pushed and by main force and by wile herded me to this place, why isn't everyone else here with me?
I think we have some experience of the exercise of free will. But we also experience a kind of passivity in being brought to Christ. It can hardly seem to be a salvation for humans if freedom is not involved, and it is less than a human aspiration to want to be God's lap dog.
But theologically, conceptually, it's a problem beyond explanation. One answer makes God a kind of bystander, a passive observer. The other makes Him a puppet master. Both seem unacceptable resolutions.
We may be LIKE clay in the hands of a potter, but we are not clay. My wife used to do right much potting and she never reporter coming into the studio and surprising the clay in services of prayer and praise or in theological (potterological?) disputes.
On the other hand not only do we not experience ourselves as free, but sometimes freedom seems too great a burden for us to bear unassisted, and what we pray for is that our will be conformed to God's, and not His to ours. Both our experience and thought testify and demand that God be Lord of absolutely ALL.
Myself, I think the proper answer to the antinomy is to shrug, to see that He does seem to set some in slippery places, to remember that He set us in those places so that we might call upon Him and He might deliver us from our distress, and finally to say and confess that He is indeed Lord of all, Lord of all time and space and all that fill them and Lord of our hearts in which He beg him to advance and plant His banners.
So I think Calvin erred in going for an answer that seemed comprehensible and sufficient in his theological system. I don't think He is to be rejected wholesale.
Okay. I'll duck. You shoot.
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.