Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
I’m sure you do. Just keep in mind that the term “mother of God” does not come from scripture but does come from the pagans.
Doing that old “what denomination are you” badgering again ey?
It’s clearly out of the Roman Catholic, and I think, Orthodox traditions. The Orthodox are more likely to say Theotokos, which I think is God-Bearer, so if that translation is correct, then I have fewer issues with that term.
It all is tied up with the late agreed upon doctrine of the immaculate conception, which is problematic for a number of reasons, the most important being:
1. Lack of scriptural support
2. Taking from Mary her humanity
3. Questionable logic.
I'm permitted to ask someone about their affiliation on a thread (twice). You are permitted to reveal it, hide it, or not answer. I can draw my own conclusions from that as I test the spirits, to see if they are from God or not.
I just cannot imagine saying a single word against that brave girl. Her faith is so inspiring, her witness so full of grace. I am an unprofitable servant, yet I am in her family by the grace of God and I love her. She is called blessed by untold millions around the world down through the Centuries.
It clearly originated much farther back than that. Ishtar, who was worshipped as the "Mother of God and Queen of Heaven" who was impregnated by the pagan god Baal whose son was Tammuz the son of Baal. You can find hints of how God felt about the worship of Baal in Babylon in Ezekiel 8.
Yet not a word about her after Pentecost. Her roll having been completed was irrelevant to contemporary writers of both secular and religious historians.
I don't doubt the facts in Scripture, though sometimes I have to work to understand them. It's the johnny come lately's who want to sell me all manner of extra materials to help me "understand" Scripture I want to fact-check. Book of Mormon. Watchtower magazine. Scofield's Notes. Lists of popes that never were. That sort of thing.
As for the Berean response, the language was clear that this was not mere edification. There was conditional acceptance of Paul's teaching, hence "readiness of mind." The condition was verifying whether it was compatible with Scripture. Look at the language:
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.The phrase "ei echoi tauta houtōs" ("whether those things were so") is optative, i.e., in building out from "ei" ("if") it conveys a sense of conditionality, indeterminacy. It was not a foregone conclusion in their minds that Paul was correct. See AT Robertson on Acts 17:11. In other words, yes, they liked what Paul was saying, but they suspended judgment until they could test Paul's words against Scripture. That's the condition. This is not speaking of edification after acceptance. This is speaking of meeting some condition before acceptance.
I don’t doubt the facts in Scripture, though sometimes I have to work to understand them.
whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Cor 11:27-29)Observe: the bread and the wine of the Eucharist may transfer guilt for the body and blood of Christ whereas the duty of the Christian is to "discern" the body of the Lord in the bread and the wine.
Are you trying to reinforce my firm conviction that Protestantism ignores the scripture it does not like and offers fantastical explanations when pressed?
MANY ARE CALLED...FEW ARE CHOSEN....it is very sad to know that anyone gave up the true church of Christ to try salvation on their own....very sad
” Are you trying to reinforce my firm conviction that Protestantism ignores the scripture it does not like and offers fantastical explanations when pressed?”
You can and likely will draw whatever conclusion (”conviction”) you already predecided. That tells me you aren’t objective in the matter, but that is based on the specific words of your post.
In this case, the context of the chapter is the Body of Christ - meaning other believers. The whole chapter corrects them for their treatment of other believers.
Best.
I answered that several times. Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 contain a reference to the judgment of the Church on Earth is binding in Heaven.
Of course, and we ask them to pray for us. They are saints of the Catholic Church.
Praising and honoring -- in short, venerating -- a saint IS honoring and praising and glorifying Christ Who made them saints.
Yes, sure. The passage is:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. (James 2:21-23) James correctly points out that Abraham was not saved by faith alone: He offered his own son for sacrifice God seemed to ask. I might add, he also crossed a desert by faith. Both are acts of faith that are also heroic deeds. As St. James explains that a living faith cooperates with works and is perfected by works.
You confusion stems from the fact that the Protestant view the passage in Roman 4 as a prooftext of salvation by faith alone. Of course, it isn't. All St. Paul is saying that Abraham was saved by his mental disposition, -- his faith -- even before he was circumcised, and the Romans likewise can be saved without going through circumcision. Paul is not discussing faith in relation to good works but faith in relation to Jewish Law.
Romans 11 that you cite states the Catohlic doctrine that salvation is by grace alone and grace is not of works.
Yeah, riiight. The congregation is supposed to eat themselves reverently and orderly and not overdo the drinking of their fellows' blood. Makes perfect sense.
, to deny the true church of Jesus Christ and try to "do it themselves"...
would that equate with Jesus being angry with the money changers and tipping over their booths and throwing them out of the temple???
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.