Church still attracting converts: CHN at record levels

The Wanderer ^ | 10/10/02 | Paul Likoudis

[OLD REGGIE]

The same special grace which was granted to Stephen? Yes, of course. Except that Stephen got this grace through Baptism and the coming of the Holy Spirit, after being born in the normal state. This was all after the Crucifixion, of course.

Please show me Scripture where Stephen received his "grace" through Baptism.
====================================================================================

Mary got the grace before the Crucifixion (in time, anyway). She was full of grace before Jesus was even born, when the Annunciation of His Birth was made.

Same effect - sinlessness; different instrument - Baptism versus IC; same source - Crucifixion.

Words, words, words. Without meaning, but words nevertheless. Do you get paid by the word?

[pseudo-justin]

Also, please do not ask why we count Mary as among the exceptions that are abviously countenanced by Rom 3:8. Just see my post 302 and 322.

[RnMomof7]

Then what are we doing here? -:)

Well when FR was on its break I used a new product to repair a problem with my sprayed ceiling..other than that we is hanging out :>)

[OLD REGGIE]

It always, always, as always, comes down to a question of authority. Which infallible man do you trust, the old Polish guy in Rome, or yourself?

Well, I frequently don't trust myself or the Polish guy in Rome. (I frequently trust them both, especially when they agree).

I sleep on it and leave my questions with the Lord, not any man.

[OLD REGGIE]

BTW, that was a deliberate softball pitched your way. I thought you might have some fun with it. :-)

I am full of it. So are you.

[RnMomof7]

Dave it is a LITERAL translation..

Do you have a problem with a word for word literal translation?

Here are some standard translations New American Standard.

.Luk 1:28 And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.

Websters Translation

Luk 1:28 And the angel came to her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favored, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women.

Revised Standard

Luk 1:28 And he came to her and said, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!

King James

  Luk 1:28   And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women.

5487 charitoo {khar-ee-to'-o}

from 5485; TDNT - 9:372,1298; v

AV - be highly favoured 1, make accepted 1; 2

1) to make graceful
1a) charming, lovely, agreeable
2) to peruse with grace, compass with favour
3) to honour with blessings

[pseudo-justin]

The basic difficulty with Sola Scriptura is that it takes a certain real truth -- that Christ through the Holy Spirit personally teaches us in dramatic ways the meaning of Scripture for me and my life--and then turns that truth concerning my subjective relationship to the Lord into an ECCLESIOLOGICAL principle about the source of the NORMATIVITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. From the fact that in a subjective encounter with the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit guides me to understand X, it does not at all follow that X is normative doctrine for all other Christians.

So I agree that the Holy Spirit can and does guide individual readers to grasp things from the Scriptures, but I deny that such subjective encounters issue in doctrines that are NORMATIVE for other Christians. What is it that confers normativity for others upon what the Holy Spirit leads you to see? There needs to be an ECCLESIAL guidance as well. The Holy Spirit must guide the Church as a whole in the same way it guides this or that joe.

Besides, how do you deal with the following. Either you are infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit or you are fallibly guided. If you say that you are infallibly guided, then you attribute to yourself the very attribute you deny to the Catholic Church. Why should we think that you are infallible? If you are fallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, then certainly what you discover is not normative for others, and we are back to the questions I raised to xzins in the first place.

Lastly, two people, A and B, both claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, A says "Scripture says X" and B says "Scripture does not say X" Somebody is getting deceived unless the Holy Spirit is speaking contradictions. Now what should I do? Please don't tell me to pray and study, or we are back to where we started in teh first place.

[OLD REGGIE]

Also, please do not ask why we count Mary as among the exceptions that are abviously countenanced by Rom 3:8. Just see my post 302 and 322.

It does no good to deny that she is sinless, for to do so would be to deny the significance of "full of grace" used as a proper name, it would be to deny that she whose very name is "full of grace" is full of grace.

Is this argument contradicted by the lengthly, rambling, article you posted?

[RnMomof7]

Seeing that the defination of sin is breaking a law of God making your own rules..Seeing God makes the rules He can not break His own rules..

Hail

5463 chairo {khah'-ee-ro} a primary verb; TDNT - 9:359,1298; v

AV - rejoice 42, be glad 14, joy 5, hail 5, greeting 3, God speed 2, all hail 1, joyfully 1, farewell 1; 74

1) to rejoice, be glad
2) to rejoice exceedingly
3) to be well, thrive
4) in salutations, hail!
5) at the beginning of letters: to give one greeting, salute

I do not see anything there about having to be sinless to have Hail said to you..Hey, Hail Reggie

[pseudo-justin]

Is this argument contradicted by the lengthly, rambling, article you posted?

I do not understand what you mean?

[OLD REGGIE]

The basic difficulty with Sola Scriptura is that it takes a certain real truth -- that Christ through the Holy Spirit personally teaches us in dramatic ways the meaning of Scripture for me and my life--and then turns that truth concerning my subjective relationship to the Lord into an ECCLESIOLOGICAL principle about the source of the NORMATIVITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. From the fact that in a subjective encounter with the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit guides me to understand X, it does not at all follow that X is normative doctrine for all other Christians.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile if you posted the definition of Sola Scriptura you are working with.

[OLD REGGIE]

I do not see anything there about having to be sinless to have Hail said to you..Hey, Hail Reggie

Matthew 28:
[9] And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Hail!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.

Gosh, he said "hail" to them and they worshipped Him.

Wow! The simple word "hail" means different things to different people.

Hail Mom!

[RnMomof7]

Therefore, some human has not sinned.

Funny I thought Catholics believed that Jesus was God..but I guess you are willing to trade that off unless we make Mary a godess for ya

[RnMomof7]

That the IC is consistent with Scripture, or at least is not inconsistent with it.

really? LOL

[RnMomof7]

Words, words, words. Without meaning, but words nevertheless. Do you get paid by the word?

He is certainly not paid by the scripture or his family would starve

[RnMomof7]

The basic difficulty with Sola Scriptura is that it takes a certain real truth -- that Christ through the Holy Spirit personally teaches us in dramatic ways the meaning of Scripture for me and my life--and then turns that truth concerning my subjective relationship to the Lord into an ECCLESIOLOGICAL principle about the source of the NORMATIVITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. From the fact that in a subjective encounter with the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit guides me to understand X, it does not at all follow that X is normative doctrine for all other Christians.

The Mormons also believe in the burning breast means of authority..and they have added to scripture too...and they have a heavenly Mother..you guys may have more in common than ya think

[pseudo-justin]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile if the Protestants themselves could agree on what sola scriptura means. It is the ever shifting target promulgated by man which, when all the obfuscation is done, means "if it ain't in the Bible, I don't need to believe it (at least to get saved)".

I see you guys are whipping out your dictionaries for kecharitomene, as if the dictionary could settle the question. Do any of you realize that dictionaries give the meanings of a word but are not suffficient to express the essence of the reality signified by the word? Dictionaries can tell me what the word "water" means, but do not tell me what the very nature of water really is. For the latter, I need to pass beyond the meaning of the word to the grasp what is not in the word but in the thing signified by the word -- nature of the thing. Now, the dictionaries can tell us no more than what the word kecharitomene means, but it does not tell us what kecharitomene IS precisely when applied to Mary.

Why MUST we say that the reality signified by kecharitimone is nothing but the meaning of the word? If that standard were applied to any other passage of Scripture, the words God has given us in Sccripture would be emptied of their power to convey anything more than what dictionaries can inform us of Scriptures' sayings -- and that would be impoverished indeed.

[OLD REGGIE]

(OR) Is this argument contradicted by the lengthly, rambling, article you posted?

I do not understand what you mean?

I'm sorry. It was an article posted by CatholicGuy.

"The argument was not, technically, that Mary's name was changed; just that she was called this name by an angel (in the sense of a title, or additional identifier), and that that act could not possibly be without significance, in the Hebraic (and biblical) worldview. Consider this analogy: "If Jesus' name was 'Prince of Peace' [Isaiah 9:6] why is He called 'Jesus' in most places He is mentioned in the NT?"

If I recall, you say her name is changed to "Full of Grace". The author indicates it was a one time thing.

If I have misinterpreted your belief just forget the whole thing and write it off to a rambling from a silly old fool. If you believe her name is changed we can pursue the subject further. OK?

[OLD REGGIE]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile if the Protestants themselves could agree on what sola scriptura means. It is the ever shifting target promulgated by man which, when all the obfuscation is done, means "if it ain't in the Bible, I don't need to believe it (at least to get saved)".

Since you are the one using, and attacking, Sola Scriptura I believe it is incumbent on you to define just what it is you are attacking.

In any event, I will accept a few words of wisdom from Augustine.

ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO* (354-430)

"In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals." (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)
-------------------------------------------

"Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud." (De Pastore, 11)
---------------------------------------

"All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned to be done toward mankind and have delivered unto us: all those things also which we see and deliver to our posterity, so far as they pertain to the seeking and maintaining true religion, the Holy Scripture has not passed over in silence." (Ep. 42)
------------------------------------------

"Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions and sayings he commanded his apostles and disciples, as his hands, to write." (De Consensu Evang. 1:ult)
-----------------------------------------

Let them [the Donatists] demonstrate their church if they can, not by the talk and rumor of the Africans; not by the councils of their own bishops; not by the books of their disputers; not by deceitful miracles, against which we are cautioned by the word of God, but in the prescript of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the verses of the Psalms, in the voice of the Shepherd himself, in the preaching and works of the evangelists; that is, in all canonical authorities of the sacred Scriptures. (De Unit. Eccl. 16)
------------------------------------------

"This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves."
St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3.
===========================================================

[pseudo-justin]

Oh brother. Now what do you want? 15 Patristic passages declaring the necessity of holding fast to the traditions of the Church? Or some Patrisitc passages declaring that anyone who interprets the Scripture outside of apostolic Churches is bound to have the wrong understanding of Scripture? You should know better than to take one sentence from St. Augustine and treat it as if it were the only thing he had to say about the relationship between Scripture, tradition, and the Church. The simple fact is that the Patristic literature contains a vast array of claims about Scripture, about tradition, about apostolic succession, and many other germane issues. Even the Patristic passages you give here are not sufficient to show that the Fathers believed "if it ain't in the Bible, I don't need to believe it (at least not to get saved)". This is the principle I am opposing. The citations you give that are most similar to sola scriptura as I have defined it here,are from Augustine and the De Pastore, which do not differentiate between the material sufficiency of Scripture and the formal sufficiency. If Sola Scriptura -- understood as I have formulated here-- were what the Fathers unanaimously held, then why, in Adversus Haereses Bk iii, does St. Iranaeus appeal to a rule of faith, formulated in the Churches having apostolic succession, to oppose a global counterinterpretation of Scripture put forward by the Gnostics. The Gnostics had a complete counterinterpretation of Scripture such that ever verse put forward by Iranaeus was interpreted quite smoothly in terms of Gnostic cosmology. The Scriptures, at best, were considered materially sufficient, but membership in an apostolic Church was considered a necessary condition for rightly understanding the text. Clearly, Iranaeus did not think the Scriptures identical with the rule of faith, but appealed to an apostolic tradition to secure a certain interpretation of Scripture against heretical challenge. Whether that rule of faith was to be found in Scripture could not be determined by Scripture alone, for it was the meaning of Scripture itself which was in global dispute.