Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mary: Mother of God?
What Does the Bible say? ^ | 01/11/2012 | Bro. Lev Humphries,

Posted on 01/11/2012 7:34:56 PM PST by RnMomof7

Mary: Mother of God?

This article is prompted by an ad in the Parade Magazine titled: "Mary Mother of God: What All Mankind Should Know." The offer was made for a free pamphlet entitled "Mary Mother of Jesus" with this explanation: "A clear, insightful pamphlet explains the importance of Mary and her role as Mother of God."

This is quite a claim, to say the least! Nowhere in the Bible is Mary said to be the mother of God. I touched on this subject in a series on "Mary Co-Redeemer with Christ" printed recently.

Question: If Mary is the Mother of God, Who, may I ask, is the Father of God? Does God have a Father, and if He does, Who is His Mother?

The phrase "Mother of God" originated in the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431 AD. It occurs in the Creed of Chalcedon, which was adopted by the council in 451 AD. This was the declaration given at that time: "Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the Manhood." The purpose of this statement originally was meant to emphasize the deity of Christ over against the teaching of the Nestorians whose teaching involved a dual-natured Jesus. Their teaching was that the person born of Mary was only a man who was then indwelt by God. The title "Mother of God" was used originally to counter this false doctrine. The doctrine now emphasizes the person of Mary rather than the deity of Jesus as God incarnate. Mary certainly did not give birth to God. In fact, Mary did not give birth to the divinity of Christ. Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human. He was divine God in a flesh body. This is what Mary gave birth to. Read Hebrews 10:5 and Phil 2:5-11.

Please refer to Hebrews 10:5 where we see. "...Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."

The body of Jesus was prepared by God. In Matthew 1:18, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

The divine nature of Jesus existed from before eternity, and this cannot be said of Mary Jesus never called her "mother". He called her "woman".

This doctrine deifies Mary and humanizes Jesus. Mary is presented as stronger that Christ, more mature and more powerful that Christ. Listen to this statement by Rome: "He came to us through Mary, and we must go to Him through her." The Bible plainly states that God is the Creator of all things. It is a blasphemous attack on the eternity of God to ever teach that He has a mother. Mary had other children who were normal, physical, sinful human beings. In the case of Jesus Christ, "His human nature had no father and His divine nature had no mother."

It is probably no coincidence that this false doctrine surrounding Mary was born in Ephesus. Please read Acts 19:11-41 and see that Ephesus had a problem with goddess worship. Her name was Diana, Gk. Artemis. You will not have to study very deep to find the similarities between the goddess Diana and the Roman Catholic goddess, Mary. It should be noted that the Mary of the 1st century and the Mary of the 20th century are not the same. Mary of the 1st century was the virgin who gave birth to the Messiah. Mary of the 20th century is a goddess created by the Roman Catholic Church. A simple comparison of what the Bible teaches about Mary and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about her will reveal two different Marys. Mary is not the "Mother of God." If she were she would be GOD! There is only one true, eternal God. He was not born of a woman. Any teaching on any subject should be backed up by the word of God. If it cannot be supported by Scriptures, it is false doctrine.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; Theology
KEYWORDS: blessedvirginmary; calvinismisdead; divinity; humanity; ignoranceisbliss; mariolatry; mary; motherofgod; nestorianheresy; nestorians; perpetualvirginity; theotokos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,601-1,6501,651-1,7001,701-1,7501,751 next last
To: Al Hitan
>>Show me where Scripture says that everything they said and taught is recorded in Scripture.<<

Are you saying that if the Bereans were commended for even checking scripture for the truth of what Paul taught that somehow he was saying that things he taught were not contained in scripture? If the things he was teaching were not found in scripture how could they check scripture if “these things are true”? If he was teaching that scripture did not contain all the things he taught how could they “search the scriptures daily to see if these things be true”? If the CC says all things are not in scripture did Paul not teach those things “not found in scripture”?

1,651 posted on 01/18/2012 10:56:11 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1645 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Are you saying

No, I was asking. Show me where Scripture says that everything they said and taught is recorded in Scripture.

1,652 posted on 01/18/2012 10:59:48 AM PST by Al Hitan (Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1651 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan; smvoice; HossB86; RnMomof7; metmom; boatbums; caww; Iscool; presently no screen name
>>As said by those proclaiming the spirit in their head as their authority.<<

Backed up by scripture.

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

Romans 8:10: Paul tells us, "If Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin."

Galatians 2:20: Paul speaks of himself and all true Christians: "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me."

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor 2:14

And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. John 14:16,17

Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.

Rely on the Catholic Church if you want but I will rely on the indwelling Spirit of God promised to all of those who truly believe on Him. It's dangerous to blaspheme the Holy Spirit by calling it the "spirit in their head" in a condescending manner.

1,653 posted on 01/18/2012 11:08:56 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1650 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan
That's true. But that says nothing about your interpretations.

And my interpretations that are *wrong* are what?

1,654 posted on 01/18/2012 11:15:20 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1647 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

And everyone with a conflicting interpretation of Scripture claims he is the one who has the Spirit of Christ.

It's dangerous to blaspheme the Holy Spirit by calling it the "spirit in their head" in a condescending manner.

If I was calling the Holy Spirit that it would be blasphemy. But since I'm not, no worries. I'm referring to the spirits that leads people to erroneous and conflicting interpretations of Scripture.

1,655 posted on 01/18/2012 11:16:01 AM PST by Al Hitan (Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1653 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And my interpretations that are *wrong* are what?

Not from the Holy Spirit.

1,656 posted on 01/18/2012 11:18:37 AM PST by Al Hitan (Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1654 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan
>>No, I was asking. Show me where Scripture says that everything they said and taught is recorded in Scripture.<<

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

If what they taught was not in scripture the Bereans couldn’t have “examined the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true”. In other words, everything Paul taught was found in scriptures. In other words, Paul taught nothing that was not to be found in scriptures. In other words, if it wasn’t found in scriptures it was not true.

1,657 posted on 01/18/2012 11:18:42 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1652 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan; CynicalBear
No, I was asking. Show me where Scripture says that everything they said and taught is recorded in Scripture.

And again, who claims that and what's that got to do with recognizing the ultimate and final authority of Scripture.

It's more than hypocritical for Catholics to appeal to the authority of Scripture to back up their defense of using their tradition, and then turn around and reject the authority of Scripture to back up anything they disagree with.

1,658 posted on 01/18/2012 11:19:34 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1652 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Call the posse for help. Maybe they can save you.


1,659 posted on 01/18/2012 11:20:55 AM PST by Al Hitan (Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1653 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan

Nice evasion. Very smooth.

Try again.

What have I interpreted wrong? Show me Scriptural support for your position.


1,660 posted on 01/18/2012 11:24:55 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1656 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan

Show me one instance where the Holy Spirit was promised to an organization called the “church” as opposed to individual believers.


1,661 posted on 01/18/2012 11:32:43 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1655 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Interesting that Scripture's use of the term “complete”. It indicates that nothing is lacking, perfectly equipped.

Thus while every word the apostles or Jesus spoke is not recorded what we do have is sufficient to thoroughly train the man of of God for every good work.

Someone might be proud of their schooling and have knowledge (gnosis) but it is not the epignosis that Paul spoke of. They are not equipped for every good work.

1,662 posted on 01/18/2012 11:40:25 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1613 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

We aren’t given everything that happened because we don’t NEED to know everything that happened.

God saw to it that what was needed was transcribed into Scripture and gave it to us.

He said it was enough.

I believe Him.


1,663 posted on 01/18/2012 11:55:34 AM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1662 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan
>> Call the posse for help. Maybe they can save you.<<

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.

You don’t like it if Christ is in on the discussion?

1,664 posted on 01/18/2012 12:02:45 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1659 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And so it's a false argument for any to say that because we don't have every word spoken by the apostles and Jesus that something is missing. Cheers!
1,665 posted on 01/18/2012 12:09:20 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1663 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan
Again I must point you towards the early fathers whom relied upon scripture as their guide. That was the earliest tradition, and one which served them, and all of us well.

Some other time perhaps, if it is a list of scripture speaking of the Word itself which you seek, it can be provided. But of what use would that be to yourself, if you are of the camp which elevates tradition to be not only on par with scripture, but above and beyond it when it comes to adding things and instituting practices which are not found in the Word, even in opposition and contradiction to it?

Perhaps some other time you might read what Berkouwer had to say at the link provided at the colored banner "Unshakable Authority". The discussion of identity is important, speaking much to the differences of approach towards scripture, and who we are, in relation to the Lord.

If one is able to digest that, it would help tone down the false argument that each child of the Reformation takes it upon their own selves to interpret scripture privately.

Interestingly enough, just the other day we had a sermon or teaching of sorts brought by a Catholic here to FR, from a Catholic source, which was all but indiscernible from preachings and teachings commonly found among other-than-Roman Catholic pastors. It seemed good teaching to myself, though admittedly I did not delve into it too deeply, for the concepts being discussed were familiar to me.

I thought to comment upon the completeness of the similarities but did not, as another made the point. The point being, that each teacher arrived a the same conclusions. Wondering upon that, I did look enough to see that the focus was upon an individual's more direct ongoing relationship with the Lord, and how to better that, rather than that relationship being entirely subsumed and taken custody of by submission to church hierarchy.

1,666 posted on 01/18/2012 12:14:56 PM PST by BlueDragon (on'a $10 horse an' a $40 saddle I'm going up the trail with them longhorn cattle c'm uh ty-yi-yipy-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1608 | View Replies]

To: verga
I'll make it really simple. Who is the stone in Psalm 118:22?

22 The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief corner stone.

A: Jesus

Who is the stone in Matthew 21:44?

42 Jesus *said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures,

‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone;
THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD,
AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’?

43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a [m]people, producing the fruit of it. 44 And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”

A: Jesus

Who did Peter(by the Holy Spirit) say the stone is?

8 Then Peter, [c]filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “[d]Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are [e]on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, [f]as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that [g]by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—[h]by [i]this name this man stands here before you in good health. 11 [j]He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

A: Jesus

Who is the stone in Romans 9:33?

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is [t]by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it [u]by faith, but as though it were [v]by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 just as it is written,

“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE [w]DISAPPOINTED.”

A: Jesus

Now for the best part. Here is an opportunity for Catholics who believe in the Alter-Christ to twist some scripture.

1Peter 2:4-8

4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is [i]choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, [j]are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in [k]Scripture:

“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN [l]HIM WILL NOT BE [m]DISAPPOINTED.”

7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve,

“THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,”

8 and,

“A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”;

for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

Now, who is the stone in verse 4 and who are the stones in verse 5? Its quite clear Peter is referring to believers. Peter is calling me, Tramonto, a living stone. In verses 7 and 8, the stone is again referring to Jesus. Jesus named Peter a stone and Peter named all believers as living stones but it is Jesus who is the corner stone upon which the church is built.

Ephesians 2:19-22

19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the [p]saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy [q]temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Here Paul calls Jesus the corner stone and then he goes on to call the apostles and the prophets as being the foundation upon which all other believers are built. The prophets wrote the old testament and the Apostles along with their companions wrote the new testament.

The true church is built on Jesus and the prophets (old testament) and the apostles (new testament). There is a kernel of truth to the false Catholic teaching that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built because he is one of the apostles that is part of the foundation. True Christians believe Peter when he says that Jesus is the chief corner stone.

Who should Christians believe? Jesus, King David, Isaiah, Peter and Paul or the man who claims he is the Alter-Christ?

Matthew 16:21-23

21 From that time [r]Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. 22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “[s]God forbid it, Lord! This shall never [t]happen to You.” 23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on [u]God’s interests, but man’s.”

Matthew writes about this episode right after the one where Peter confesses that Jesus is the Son of God. Now it is clear from other scripture that the corner stone of the church is Christ but it seems that Peter, as a "living stone" and an apostle, is a piece of the foundation built upon Christ and upon which all other believers are built. In verse 23 Jesus calls Peter "satan" and a "stumbling block" because he was setting his mind on man's interests rather than God's. Peter is not infallible and neither is the Alter-Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is built on the rock that is Peter but its not from Matthew 16:18 but rather Matthew 16:23. The rock being the stumbling block and Peter as someone who is pursuing man's interests rather than God's.

In review, the corner stone is Jesus. The prophets and the apostles, which I interpret to be the Bible, are the foundation and all believers are living stones in a spiritual temple that is the true church. The hierarchical organization that is run by the Alter-Christ is not spiritual, not built on Christ, the prophets or the apostles but rather on the traditions of man.

1,667 posted on 01/18/2012 12:31:09 PM PST by Tramonto (Draft Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1614 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto

Well said.


1,668 posted on 01/18/2012 1:03:12 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1667 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I realize it's tough for some people to see past their rabid anti-Catholicism, but:

Jesus Christ said the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles to all truth.

James said, “... not by faith only”.

Anyone who thinks James is wrong, that James lied or that James was misquoted, is saying that the Holy Spirit did not lead James or did not oversee and ensure the Truth of the Scriptures.

Anyone who says the Holy Spirit did not guide the Apostles to all truth is calling Jesus Christ a liar.

Anyone who calls Jesus Christ a liar is denying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God from God, incapable of telling a lie.

It's about those who deny the deity of Christ. Being Catholic comes in when a Catholic reads how we're to deal with those who openly and repeatedly deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Even prior to recognizing that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ Himself and the One True Church, I didn't want anything to do with the sort of numb skulls who claimed to be Christian but denied the deity of Christ. Not the Watchtower crew, the Mormon crowd, and especially not pontificating posters pretending they are infallible interpreters of His Word while at the same time denying His Word and The Word which is Christ Himself at the same time.

Blather, babble, bumpkin interpretations, and everything else those who deny the deity of Christ post to excuse or hide their denial of Christ are all meaningless. Anathema applies because they have openly and repeatedly denied the deity and the Truth of His Word right along with their repeated denials of the deity of Christ.

So, such folks can wallow in whatever muddy little fantasy they like, especially any of them who also like to pretend they were once Catholic, they still cannot hide from the fact that they deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the thing to do is leave them to their reprobate mind and pray for them. They've made their bed and either they'll be totally given over to a reprobate mind and continue to move ever further away from Christ, or the Holy Spirit will deal with them by other means.

1,669 posted on 01/18/2012 1:48:30 PM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1609 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

The Holy Spirit will lead ALL believers into all truth.

Any believer has the same Holy Spirit the apostles had.

Same Holy Spirit = same truth.

What He did for them, He can do for you and me.


1,670 posted on 01/18/2012 2:14:27 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1669 | View Replies]

To: metmom
They why do you deny the deity of Jesus Christ? Is your personal version of the Holy Spirit telling you that James was a liar and therefore Christ is not the Son of God or does your version of the Holy Spirit say, “nah, you don't have to believe that garbage to believe Christ is God”?

I suspect the latter but then again, I can't follow the many twists and turns of insanity those who post here believe as the result of having been given over to a reprobate mind. Maybe those with a reprobate mind are just so blind they can't follow simple logic like water is wet or the sky is blue.

1,671 posted on 01/18/2012 2:28:34 PM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1670 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Then why do you deny the deity of Jesus Christ? Is your personal version of the Holy Spirit telling you that James was a liar and therefore Christ is not the Son of God or does your version of the Holy Spirit say, “nah, you don’t have to believe that garbage to believe Christ is God”?

I suspect the latter but then again, I can’t follow the many twists and turns of insanity those who post here believe as the result of having been given over to a reprobate mind. Maybe those with a reprobate mind are just so blind they can’t follow simple logic like water is wet or the sky is blue.


1,672 posted on 01/18/2012 2:28:56 PM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1670 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
They why do you deny the deity of Jesus Christ?

Show me where I said that.

1,673 posted on 01/18/2012 4:01:34 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1671 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto

Blah Blah Blah, take it up with your Prot brothers and sister that say you are wrong. these are peoople that actually studied the Greek and have a piece of paper that says they are smart.


1,674 posted on 01/18/2012 5:49:34 PM PST by verga (We get what we tolerate and increase that which we reward)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1667 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Though it may be impossible for some to show respect and appreciate your honest AND scholarly input, let me declare that if I had to choose between what they call their “pearls” and yours, I will take what you represent. You speak for the Pearl of Great Price, Jesus Christ the righteous and the truth of the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith - THE Gospel. Thank you.


1,675 posted on 01/18/2012 5:57:20 PM PST by boatbums (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1590 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; daniel1212

I’ll keep my thank you short. What boatbums said! God Bless!


1,676 posted on 01/18/2012 6:00:26 PM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing is for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1675 | View Replies]

To: verga; Tramonto; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...
Blah Blah Blah, take it up with your Prot brothers and sister that say you are wrong.

He's not wrong. Catholics and Catholicism are.

these are peoople that actually studied the Greek and have a piece of paper that says they are smart.

Right. People with a BS, MS, and a Piled higher and Deeper.

1,677 posted on 01/18/2012 6:06:46 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1674 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; smvoice

Unexpected and charitable, and which reminds me of one my fav verses:

“I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which thou hast shewed unto thy servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am become two bands. “ (Genesis 32:10)


1,678 posted on 01/18/2012 6:17:07 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1675 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I realize it's tough for some people to see past their rabid anti-Catholicism, but:

Jesus Christ said the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles to all truth.

(everyone who does not deny that Jesus Christ is God will be guided to the Truth, not everyone who spins their own web of personal interpretation or accepts what that who worship The Most High Self tells them)

James said, “... not by faith only”.

Anyone who thinks James is wrong, that James lied or that James was misquoted, is saying that the Holy Spirit did not lead James or did not oversee and ensure the Truth of the Scriptures.

Anyone who says the Holy Spirit did not guide the Apostles and insure that the Scriptures are not in error is calling Jesus Christ a liar.

Anyone who calls Jesus Christ a liar is denying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God from God, incapable of telling a lie. Obviously, when someone insists that a particular thing that Christ promised is a lie, they are calling Christ a liar whether they realize that or not.

When someone goes even further and blatantly calls Christ Himself a liar by denying that He is present in the bread and wine when we remember Him, they are deliberately denying the deity of Christ by directly calling Christ a liar.

"Show Me" replies are always a joke coming from those who routinely post the very doctrines that within their very definition deny the deity of Christ. Some such folks are sincere and only interested in the Truth. Such folks can discuss these things without beginning and ending with attacks on the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, some cannot. Those who cannot and those who refuse to reconsider their acceptence of doctrines that by definition call Christ a liar, let them be anathema.

Those who continue to deny the deity of Christ can fool themselves however they like, but they should get used to the idea of hearing, "I never knew you" from the very Jesus Christ they deny is God.

1,679 posted on 01/18/2012 7:13:01 PM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1673 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Appealing to Catholic tradition to support Catholic tradition is like pulling themselves up by their boot straps. Only an outside authority can confer authority to someone or something else. Nobody gets it by self-declaring it.

How curious that the Catholics must use Holy Scripture to insist the Church was established upon St. Peter, the giving of the power to bind and loose, to forgive or retain sins and any other such things that they deem came from Christ, but then assert that their "traditions" have authority over Holy Scripture. Do they not see a circular reasoning here? From http://www.the-highway.com/tradition_Webster.html:

In the history of Roman Catholic dogma, one can trace an evolution in the theory of tradition. There were two fundamental patristic principles which governed the early Church’s approach to dogma. The first was sola Scriptura in which the fathers viewed Scripture as both materially and formally sufficient. It was materially sufficient in that it was the only source of doctrine and truth and the ultimate authority in all doctrinal controversies. It was necessary that every teaching of the Church as it related to doctrine be proven from Scripture. Thomas Aquinas articulated this patristic view when he stated that canonical Scripture alone is the rule of faith (sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei).1 Additionally, they taught that the essential truths of Scripture were perspicuous, that is, that they were clearly revealed in Scripture, so that, by the enablement of the Holy Spirit alone an individual could come to an understanding of the fundamental truths of salvation.

The second is a principle enunciated by the Roman Catholic Councils of Trent (1546-1562) and Vatican I (1870) embodied in the phrase ‘the unanimous consent of the fathers.’ This is a principle that purportedly looks to the past for validation of its present teachings particularly as they relate to the interpretation of Scripture. Trent initially promulgated this principle as a means of countering the Reformation teachings to make it appear that the Reformers’ doctrines were novel and heretical while those of Rome were rooted in historical continuity. It is significant to note that Trent merely affirmed the existence of the principle without providing documentary proof for its validity. Vatican I merely reaffirmed the principle as decreed by Trent. Its historical roots hearken back to Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century who was the first to give it formal definition when he stated that apostolic and catholic doctrine could be identified by a three fold criteria: It was a teaching that had been believed everywhere, always and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est).2 In other words, the principle of unanimous agreement encompassing universality (believed everywhere), antiquity (believed always) and consent (believed by all). Vincent readily agreed with the principle of sola Scriptura, that is, that Scripture was sufficient as the source of truth. But he was concerned about how one determined what was truly apostolic and catholic doctrine. This was the official position of the Church immediately subsequent to Vincent throughout the Middle Ages and for centuries immediately following Trent. But this principle, while fully embraced by Trent and Vatican I, has all been but abandoned by Rome today in a practical and formal sense. This is due to the fact that so much of Rome’s teachings, upon historical examination, fail the test of unanimous consent. Some Roman Catholic historians are refreshingly honest in this assessment. Patrologist Boniface Ramsey, for example, candidly admits that the current Roman Catholic teachings on Mary and the papacy were not taught in the early Church:

Sometimes, then, the Fathers speak and write in a way that would eventually be seen as unorthodox. But this is not the only difficulty with respect to the criterion of orthodoxy. The other great one is that we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.3

At first, this clear lack of patristic consensus led Rome to embrace a new theory in the late nineteenth century to explain its teachings — the theory initiated by John Henry Newman known as the development of doctrine. In light of the historical reality, Newman had come to the conclusion that the Vincentian principle of unanimous consent was unworkable, because, for all practical purposes, it was nonexistent. To quote Newman:

It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem.4

The obvious problem with Newman’s analysis and conclusion is that it flies in the face of the decrees of Trent and Vatican I, both of which decreed that the unanimous consent of the fathers does exist. But to circumvent the lack of patristic witness for the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas, Newman set forth his theory of development, which was embraced by the Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, this is a theory which, like unanimous consent, has its roots in the teaching of Vincent of Lerins, who also promulgated a concept of development. While rejecting Vincent’s rule of universality, antiquity and consent, Rome, through Newman, once again turned to Vincent for validation of its new theory of tradition and history. But while Rome and Vincent both use the term development, they are miles apart in their understanding of the meaning of the principle because Rome’s definition of development and Vincent’s are diametrically opposed to one another. In his teaching, Vincent delineates the following parameters for true development of doctrine:

But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.5

First of all, Vincent is saying that doctrinal development must be rooted in the principle of unanimous consent. That is, it must be related to doctrines that have been clearly taught throughout the ages of the Church. In other words, true development must demonstrate historical roots. Any teaching which could not demonstrate its authority from Scripture and the universal teaching of the Church was to be repudiated as novel and therefore not truly catholic. It was to be considered heretical. This is the whole point of Vincent’s criticism of such heretics as Coelestius and Pelagius. He says, ‘Who ever before his (Pelagius) monstrous disciple Coelestius ever denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin?’6 Their teaching, which was a denial of original sin, was novel. It could not demonstrate historical continuity and therefore it was heretical.

But, with Newman, Rome redefined the theory of development and promoted a new concept of tradition. One that was truly novel. Truly novel in the sense that it was completely foreign to the perspective of Vincent and the theologians of Trent and Vatican I who speak of the unanimous consent of the fathers. These two Councils claim that there is a clear continuity between their teaching and the history of the ancient Church which preceded them (whether this is actually true is another thing altogether). A continuity which can they claimed could be documented by the explicit teaching of the Church fathers in their interpretation of Scripture and in their practice. Vatican I, for example, teaches that the papacy was full blown from the very beginning and was, therefore, not subject to development over time.

In this new theory Rome moved beyond the historical principle of development as articulated by Vincent and, for all practical purposes, eliminated any need for historical validation. She now claimed that it was not necessary that a particular doctrine be taught explicitly by the early Church. In fact, Roman Catholic historians readily admit that doctrines such as the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility were completely unknown in the teaching of the early Church. If Rome now teaches the doctrine we are told that the early Church actually believed and taught it implicitly and only later, after many centuries, did it become explicit.

From this principle it was only a small step in the evolution of Rome’s teaching on Tradition to her present position. Rome today has replaced the concept of tradition as development to what is known as ‘living tradition.’ This is a concept that promotes the Church as an infallible authority, which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who protects her from error. Therefore, whatever Rome’s magisterium teaches at any point in time must be true even if it lacks historical or biblical support. The following statement by Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating regarding the teaching of the Assumption of Mary is an illustration of this very point. He says it does not matter that there is no teaching on the Assumption in Scripture, the mere fact that the Roman Church teaches it is proof that it is true. Thus, teachings do not need to be documented from Scripture:

Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.7

This assertion is a complete repudiation of the patristic principle of proving every doctrine by the criterion of Scripture. Tradition means handing down from the past. Rome has changed the meaning of tradition from demonstrating by patristic consent that a doctrine is truly part of tradition, to the concept of living tradition — whatever I say today is truth, irrespective of the witness of history. This goes back to the claims of Gnosticism to having received the tradition by living voice, viva voce. Only now Rome has reinterpreted viva voce, the living voice as receiving from the past by way of oral tradition, to be a creative and therefore entirely novel aspect of tradition. It creates tradition in its present teaching without appeal to the past. To paraphrase the Gnostic line, it is viva voce — whatever we say. Another illustration of this reality relates to the teaching of the Assumption of Mary from the French Roman Catholic historian, Joussard:

In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought — as some theologians still do today under one form or another — to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission.8

So, in effect, the new teaching of tradition in Rome is no longer that of continuity with the past but living tradition, or viva voce — whatever we say. Instead of sola Scriptura, the unanimous principle of authority enunciated by both Scripture and the Church fathers, we now have sola Ecclesia, blind submission to an institution which is unaccountable to either Scripture or history. That blind submission is not too strong an allegation is seen from the official Roman teaching on saving faith. What Rome requires is what is technically referred to a dogmatic faith. This is faith which submits completely to whatever the Church of Rome officially defines as dogma and to refuse such submission results in anathema and the loss of salvation, for unless a Roman Catholic has dogmatic faith, he or she does not have saving faith. Rome’s view is based on the presupposition that the Church is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and is therefore infallible. She cannot err. But the presupposition is faulty. Historically, the Roman Church has clearly proven that she can and has erred and is therefore quite fallible. Her gospel is a repudiation of the biblical gospel.

This is where we ultimately arrive when the patristic and Reformation principle of sola Scriptura is repudiated for the concept of living tradition and an infallible magisterium — the embracing of teachings which are not only not found in Scripture or the teaching of the early Church, but which are actually contradictory to Scripture and in many cases to the teaching of the Church fathers.

1,680 posted on 01/18/2012 7:29:12 PM PST by boatbums (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1622 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; metmom

They CAN’T argue on doctrinal issues simply because all they have is “that’s what we believe and we are the ONE”. Reading the way some talk to strangers here, I wouldn’t go to their church to get out of the rain much less to be spiritually fed. Thank God he led us out of false religion and into the glorious light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ!


1,681 posted on 01/18/2012 7:36:47 PM PST by boatbums (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1603 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan; metmom; CynicalBear
Luke 1:1-4 "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

The Protestant never denied the principle of apostolic tradition or oral instruction. It’s just that oral transmission suffers from a high decay rate. Word-of-mouth may be adequate when it comes straight from the mouth of an Apostle to the ear of a contemporary. But there’s a categorical difference between the viva voce of the Apostles and a "process of living Tradition" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶83.). Oral tradition is no substitute for a permanent record. It was never intended to supply a common norm for future reference. That’s precisely why revelation was committed to writing (cf. Exod 17:14; Deut 31:9,13,26; Ps 102:18; Isa 30:8). Human memory is too untrustworthy to rely on oral transmission over the long haul. The rediscovery of the written law code (2 Kgs 22:8ff. 2 Chron 34:14ff.) powerfully illustrates the inadequacies of unaided memory in keeping a people from apostasy—a point made by R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Eerdmans, 1986), 66.

To take another example, (a) Papias was, according to Irenaeus, a younger contemporary of the Apostle John. He made an earnest effort to collect the agrapha of Christ. Yet despite his proximity to primitive recollection, his gleanings are remarkably meager, and have an unmistakably derivative flavor. Owing to the short shelf-life of oral tradition, as well as the incentive to fabricate tradition (e.g. the NT apocrypha), no formal authority attaches to mere tradition, although some of it may afford probative evidence for past practice.

Moreover, Sacred Tradition, as currently redefined, is not the same as an oral mode of transmission. It ceases to be a conservative force and becomes a revisionary dynamic. Again, Jesus warns us against the dangers of man-made tradition, and judges that tradition by the standard of Scripture (Mt 7:7-8,13). But when human tradition comes to be identified with a divine teaching office, it is then impervious to the correction of Scripture, and we’re right back to the situation that summoned forth our Lord’s reproof. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/ten-objections-to-sola-scriptura-2.html

1,682 posted on 01/18/2012 7:52:51 PM PST by boatbums (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1645 | View Replies]

To: verga
Blah Blah Blah

I think you just won the argument. High Five.

1,683 posted on 01/18/2012 7:53:48 PM PST by Tramonto (Draft Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1674 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Standing back a bit, we can see that progressive revelation within Scripture is a Scriptural principal, and men like Moses, the Lord and His apostles did give additional revelation, such as the mystery of the church in the latter case, “...Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men,” (Eph. 3:3-5) though it was based upon and explained and expanded upon prior revelation of God-inspired Scripture, and thus such conflated with and complimented it.

But unlike the typical strawman of sols scriptura (SS), this does not mean that all that can be known is in Scripture, as that would be contrary to Scripture; (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4)

Or that Scriptura is all we can use in discerning and teaching truth, for that would reject reason itself which Scripture appeals to, and teachers, commentaries, historical helps, etc, all of which Scripture materially provides for;

Nor does it mean it must reject all practices otherwise loosely termed “traditions,” (wedding ceremonies, etc.):

But what it require is that all be subject to Scriptural warrant and conflation, it being alone as the assuredly infallible rule of faith, and is able to make one wise unto salvation and materially providing for all that is needed to make one perfect, and which nothing is equal to in authority (on earth), unto which body nothing is to be added.

And as per the latter, it provides for the church and its magisterium, among other things (and of course, we see in Scripture that writings were established as Divine Scripture without a perpetual, assuredly infallible magisterium, due to their qualities, conflation and attestation.)

The Westminster confession states,

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

CHAPTER XXXI.
III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm Cf. http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf

**From Alister McGrath’s The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith.

There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers’ understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”; http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/deliberate-fiction.html

Sorry for the length, but i think some clarification is needed in this foundational issue of authority.


1,684 posted on 01/18/2012 7:55:37 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1651 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Good point, and what we can see, and has been seen, is that the "word of God/the Lord" was normally written, immediately or soon afterwards, and that it became the authority for testing truth claims and establishing new revelation, by conflation with it and its means of affirming Truth, and by being complimentary to it.
1,685 posted on 01/18/2012 8:05:54 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1682 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
>> Standing back a bit, we can see that progressive revelation within Scripture is a Scriptural principal<<

No one has said it isn’t. The principal set down by Paul was that relying on oral transmission is not reliable and needs to be judged by the written word. Until the death of the apostles who were eye witness new information was relevant. After their deaths it becomes less and less reliable. The admonition to “search the scriptures to see if these things are true” still stands as sound advice.

>> But unlike the typical strawman of sols scriptura (SS), this does not mean that all that can be known is in Scripture, as that would be contrary to Scripture;<<

But I can assure that anything additional would agree with scripture in all respects.

>> Nor does it mean it must reject all practices otherwise loosely termed “traditions,” (wedding ceremonies, etc.):<<

I know of no non Catholic who has said otherwise.

>> And as per the latter, it provides for the church and its magisterium, among other things<<

Say what? It supports no hierarchical structure.

>> Sorry for the length, but i think some clarification is needed in this foundational issue of authority.<<

No one has said there aren’t traditions. There are local traditions, regional traditions and traditions which are nationwide. When Christ was denigrating the “traditions of men” he wasn’t talking about those. He was talking about the requirements for salvation. The “foundational issue of authority” only relates to the “elder” of the local Christian community who have grown in knowledge and the faith and the given gifts of teaching etc. No “organizational structure” for the “church” other than Christ as the head is given or implied. In every instance of increased “authority” with the leadership of the church on earth human greed and power has corrupted.

1,686 posted on 01/18/2012 8:23:00 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1684 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; metmom; smvoice; caww

A weighty and worthy submission, which strongly argues, that having infallible defined herself as infallible, Rome’s justification for such from history, Tradition and Scripture, must mean what she says they mean. And which Cardinal Manning basicially states, as quoted here. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2830085/posts?page=171#171

Note that assurance of the infallibility of such cannot rest upon the weight of Scripture (lest Scripture become the supreme authority for assurance), but while it may be invoked, assurance rests upon the premise of assured perpetual formulaic infallibility, which is what gives authority to any text invoked in support, although arguments behind infallible decrees are not themselves necessarily infallible.


1,687 posted on 01/18/2012 8:35:22 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1680 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
So, such folks can wallow in whatever muddy little fantasy they like, especially any of them who also like to pretend they were once Catholic, they still cannot hide from the fact that they deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the thing to do is leave them to their reprobate mind and pray for them. They've made their bed and either they'll be totally given over to a reprobate mind and continue to move ever further away from Christ, or the Holy Spirit will deal with them by other means.

Where are you even coming from???!!! I do not deny the deity of Jesus Christ, he is Almighty God incarnate, God in the flesh and I have NEVER denied him. I am also a former Roman Catholic who has no need to pretend about anything but, from the start, I have truthfully testified of my conversion. I praise the Lord that he led me to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ who saves us by his grace through faith. Do you think such hateful and vindictive words against those here who have also stated the same glorifies the Lord? Has it occurred to you that you may repel others from Christ? Do you think the way you speak to others honors God or draws people to your church?

Why not accept that we can dispute doctrines of the Catholic Church and do so without being "rabid anti-Catholicism"??? YES, Jesus said the Holy Spirit would be given to lead believers into all truth and it was a promise not just to the Apostles but ALL believers. The revelation of Jesus Christ that the writers of Scripture recorded was done so that we can all know truth from error. The Holy Spirit does not change because God does not change and he is just as ready to illuminate the truths of God to believers here and now as he was in the first century. Wallow in that for a while, why don't you.

1,688 posted on 01/18/2012 8:40:09 PM PST by boatbums (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1669 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin; metmom; boatbums; caww; Iscool; presently no screen name
>>James said, “... not by faith only”.<<

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:28-29

>>Anyone who thinks James is wrong, that James lied or that James was misquoted, is saying that the Holy Spirit did not lead James or did not oversee and ensure the Truth of the Scriptures.<<

That’s why we have to take all of scripture to understand and not try to deceive with portions taken out of the context of the entire scripture. Your attempt to intimate that the verse in James means something it doesn’t would have made other portions of scripture untrue.

Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."

Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"

Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

1,689 posted on 01/18/2012 8:46:16 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1679 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

1,690 posted on 01/18/2012 8:48:02 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1689 | View Replies]

To: narses

Once again you contend that scripture is yopios?


1,691 posted on 01/18/2012 8:52:12 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1690 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

I do not think there was any real disagreement but so often SS is misrepresented by those who oppose it.

As for “it provides for the church and its magisterium..,” it does just that, of pastors, teachers, etc, in the interdependence of the body and its gifts and offices, and in which bishops/elders refers to one office of leaders/overseers among brethren, (Mt. 23:8; Titus 2:15; Heb. 13:7) and not after the vast Roman bureaucracy and its most reverend Lord Archbishops, etc.

As re “foundational issue of authority,” i was speaking of Scripture versus an office of men being assuredly infallible and supreme.


1,692 posted on 01/18/2012 8:55:03 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1686 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

How do you dare disagree with such an interpretation of yourself by one who belongs to the (self-proclaimed) infallible church???

Have a god night.


1,693 posted on 01/18/2012 9:21:52 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1688 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

How do you dare disagree with such an interpretation of yourself by one who belongs to the (self-proclaimed) infallible church???

Have a God night.


1,694 posted on 01/18/2012 9:22:08 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1688 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
>>I do not think there was any real disagreement but so often SS is misrepresented by those who oppose it.<<

Of course they do. Some confuse it with Solo Scriptura and some just obfuscate and inject a meaning that isn’t true.

>>one office of leaders/overseers among brethren<<

Nein! Severs of the brethren. Overseers of truth perhaps.

Luke 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. 25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

1,695 posted on 01/18/2012 9:22:46 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1692 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
James said, “... not by faith only”.

Jesus says.....

John 3:16-18 16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 6:28-30 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

John says.....

John 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

So explain the contradiction that the Catholic interpretation of James causes, that works are required to earn salvation.

When someone goes even further and blatantly calls Christ Himself a liar by denying that He is present in the bread and wine when we remember Him, they are deliberately denying the deity of Christ by directly calling Christ a liar.

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

So why do Catholics deny the very words of Jesus where He explains that what He just said was spiritual truths and not physical.

"the flesh is no help at all."

1,696 posted on 01/18/2012 9:25:22 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1679 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Those who continue to deny the deity of Christ can fool themselves however they like, but they should get used to the idea of hearing, “I never knew you” from the very Jesus Christ they deny is God.


1,697 posted on 01/18/2012 9:32:34 PM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1696 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
bb:How curious that the Catholics must use Holy Scripture to insist the Church was established upon St. Peter, the giving of the power to bind and loose, to forgive or retain sins and any other such things that they deem came from Christ, but then assert that their "traditions" have authority over Holy Scripture. Do they not see a circular reasoning here?

Blatant and outright hypocrisy and obviously a power grab.

The claims for Scriptural support are just to mollify the objections of the non-Catholics. If it weren't for the demand of Scriptural support from non-Catholics, I don't doubt for a minute that the church would just claim tradition alone as enough support to raise tradition to that level and tell its membership that's all that's necessary and they'd better believe it.

From this principle it was only a small step in the evolution of Rome’s teaching on Tradition to her present position. Rome today has replaced the concept of tradition as development to what is known as ‘living tradition.’ This is a concept that promotes the Church as an infallible authority, which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who protects her from error. Therefore, whatever Rome’s magisterium teaches at any point in time must be true even if it lacks historical or biblical support. The following statement by Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating regarding the teaching of the Assumption of Mary is an illustration of this very point. He says it does not matter that there is no teaching on the Assumption in Scripture, the mere fact that the Roman Church teaches it is proof that it is true. Thus, teachings do not need to be documented from Scripture:

Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.7

What a joke. It's true because we say so????

Really?

1,698 posted on 01/18/2012 9:35:43 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1680 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

When it’s all they got...


1,699 posted on 01/18/2012 9:49:06 PM PST by boatbums (Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1691 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
Those who continue to deny the deity of Christ can fool themselves however they like, but they should get used to the idea of hearing, “I never knew you” from the very Jesus Christ they deny is God.

Those words of Jesus are not directed at those who deny the deity of Christ. They are directed at those who appeal to their works to get them into heaven. Catholics love to take that verse out of context, so here it is IN context.

Matthew 7:21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Matthew 25:31-46 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.

34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’

37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’

44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

The works that get those *sheep* into heaven were works that they weren't even aware that they were doing, as opposed to works the first group did to earn brownie points with God.

Deliberately doing works to earn salvation or even to contribute to it is an ... EPIC FAIL, that too many people are going to find out about too late.

You have time. Repent and confess and put your total faith in Jesus alone for salvation. Not the church, not Mary, not your works, not sacraments, not anything but the finished work of Jesus on the cross.

It's all you need to do, throw yourself on the mercy of (the court) God.

1,700 posted on 01/18/2012 9:55:56 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1697 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 1,601-1,6501,651-1,7001,701-1,7501,751 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