|Another provocative practice promoted and examined
The Fallacious Doctrine: 5 Reasons to Pray for the Souls in Purgatory Refuted
But the basis for his exhortation is doctrinal and thus must be examined by those who test all things by the only wholly inspired substantive body of express Divine revelation that God has provided.
Actually, not only can RCs apparently disagree on this aspect, but the only postmortem suffering that Scripture manifestly teaches for saved souls is that of shame and the suffering the loss of rewards at the judgment seat of Christ, as 1Cor. 3:8ff teaches, due to the combustible manner of workmanship which one built the church with. Which loss by burning of works one is saved despite of, not because of.
And which only occurs after the Lord's coming, not commencing at death, thus excluding it from being purgatory.
Other texts which are invoked as supporting purgatory either refer to this life, or to the lost, as can be shown, by God's grace.
Yet nowhere in Scripture are departed souls ever prayed for (or to) to be released from suffering , and even in 2Mac. 12 the prayer is part of the ritual of making an offering for the dead who were slain due to idolatry, that the [mortal] sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance being mindful of the resurrection. (2Mac. 12:42,43)
Which is not that of saved souls being released from purifying torments and of making atonement for sins that were forgiven but not yet made up for, but that of intercession being made that they may realize the resurrection of the just, or may not be damned at the judgment that believed follows the resurrection.
Yet nowhere is this seen in Scripture, despite multitudes of believers having past on, and the only place any of them are said or shown to be (apart from their bodies being in the grave) is in Heaven. (Heb. 12:22-24) Likewise wherever NT Scriptures clearly speak about the next spiritual place of man after death then it is always with the Lord. (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [we]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they ever be with the Lord. (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul who said that to depart from this life was to be with Christ. (Phil. 1:20-24; 3:13,14)
Yet even the carnal Corinthians were not warned of any postmortem suffering (apart from the aforementioned judgment seat of Christ), but told that to absent from the body is to be present with the Lord and that all believers would be with the Lord at His return. (1Co. 15)
For the primary fundamental premise behind purgatory is that one must become actually practically good enough to be with God, which is a gospel of salvation under the Law, but with more grace given to attain the level of practical perfection needed. But while the only kind of faith that is salvific is one that will produce characteristic obedience and holiness, it is faith which both obtains purification of the heart and is imputed as, counted for righteousness.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:3-5)
Which is not restricted to the Law:
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)
Texts such as,
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14) are not teaching that practical perfection of character is essential in order to see God, but that holiness, which is imputed to the unGodly by faith, making him accepted in the Beloved, and made to sit together with Christ, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) is a fruit that those of true faith are to seek to be realized practically.
It is simply untenable to presume that all the believers would have been perfect in character if the Lord returned in the first century, or that the so-called good thief became perfect in only a few hours on the cross, yet all were told that their next residence and reality would be that of being with the Lord. (1Ths. 4:7; Lk. 23:39-43)
Yet while believers are told of many specific rewards for certain things, including turning a backslider back to the Lord, (Ja. 5:19,20) yet nowhere in Scripture is there any mention of believers being rewarded for praying for the souls in purgatory.
Yet nowhere in all of Scripture, with its over 200 prayers, does anyone (but pagans) pray to or make offerings to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord! Nor in any instructions on prayer to Heaven are we taught or exhorted to prayer to any one else but the Lord (Our Father who art in Heaven, not our Mother...) Nor does the Holy Spirit cry to anyone but the Father (Abba, Father, Gal. 4:6; not Mama, Mother). Nor is any created being shown being able to hear multitudinous prayers to them in Heaven, which only God is shown able to do.
After 1400 years we still have this. Give money to Rome and your poor souls will soon stop suffering. Act today: only 9.99 for express shipping of souls.
Preach salvation on the basis of becoming perfect in character, then invent purgatory in order to obtain it, then promise deliverance by money, thus feeding the machinery that runs on this false salvation system.
But one should note that this purifying is not simply being washed from sins, but all character defects:
"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." (Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224 )
However, Rome holds that the newly baptized can go directly to Heaven due to being even though what her baptism is claimed to effect, that of forgiveness and regeneration, with infused charity rendering one good enough to be with God, does not make one free from all character defects. Thus they subsequently sin and usually need purgatory in order to once again become enough to be with God.
In addition, nowhere is the character development of man shown to be take place apart from earth, as instead it is here, with its tests and temptations, that men are to learn to overcome the world, the devil and the lusts of the flesh, of pleasure, possessions and prestige/power. Nor does only suffering work to perfect character. Thus it was here that Eve was tested, Job was proved, and the Lord Himself was made perfect, in being tempted in all points like as we are, (Heb. 4:15l 5:9) yet without sinning. (2Co. 5:7; 1Pt. 2:22)
The Immaculate Conception in Scripture 2/6/2015, 122 of 133
Staples sophistry, take 2.
Having exposed Staples misdiagnosis on The Protestant Achilles' Heel, Morgana simply proceeds to provide another opportunity to expose cultic Catholic devotion which drives them to deny what Scripture reveals and compel Scripture to support teachings which are part of the many traditions of men that developed over time. While RCs cannot see Scripture as the only supreme sufficient (in formal and material aspects) standard for faith as described in my prior rebuttal, yet in-credibly they see the Immaculate Conception in Scripture, which is neither taught nor required in Scripture.
In my new book, Behold Your Mother - A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines, I give eight reasons for belief in the Immaculate Conception..Here, I will present some snippets from three of these biblical reasons for faith. But first, I must say I am sympathetic to my Protestant friends, and others, who struggle with this teaching of the Catholic Faith. Romans 3:23 says, All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I John 1:8 adds, If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.
However, Mary was saved from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be saved completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression... Scripture indicates that salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact.
Here the sophistry begins by arguing that since salvation and God being a Savior can mean being protected from sinning then this supports the premise that Mary never sinned. However, the former does not equate to the latter, and which remains to be established.
But what about all have sinned, and if any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him? Wouldnt all and/or any man include Mary? On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But this way of thinking carried to its logical conclusion would list Jesus Christ in the company of sinners as well. No Christian would dare say that!
And the reason No [true] Christian would dare say that! is actually a refuting argument against the Immaculate Conception! For the reason why no true Christian would dare say that Christ sinned is because He is plainly declared to be without sin many times. (2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:22; cf. Jn. 8:45; Heb. 7:26) And which is consistent with how the Holy Spirit characteristically mentions notable deviations from the norm which the sinless state of Mary certainly would be even of far less primary persons. from From extraordinary age (Methuselah), to not dying (Enoch), to length of fast, to miraculous birth (Abraham and Sarah), to extraordinary height (Ogg) or strength (Samson) or toes (Goliath), or holiness (Job, Noah, Daniel) to supernatural transport (Phillip), to the extraordinary length of celibacy of Anna, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, to virgin birth (Mary), to diet (John the Baptist), to the sinlessness of Christ, to the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, to the signs of an apostle, etc. Yet despite this the Holy Spirit says nothing about Mary being either sinless, or a perpetual virgin, or created beings being prayed to. And instead what He does teach weighs towards the norm for Mary having sinned and sexually cleaving in marriage.
Thus the argument for unrecorded Marian exception has no warrant, but instead only warrants her being as others in these aspects.
Romans 5:12 will deal with original sin...Original sin is not something we do; it is something weve inherited.
Actually, we inherit a spiritually dead Adamic nature that is prone to sin, and thus all do sin in time, except one who was God incarnate. And while we enter into the effects of the actions of others, yet we are not judged for what we are not culpable for, but judgment is always according to what we ourselves have done in the respective judgments of redeemed and lost, (2Cor. 5:10; . 20:11-15) and in accordance with light and grace given. (Lk. 12:48)
The question remains: how do we know Mary is an exception to the norm of all have sinned? And more specifically, is there biblical support for this claim? Yes, there is. Indeed, there is much biblical support,
Which audacious claim is typical of RCs who are all to willing to see whatever is needed or desirable to support Rome, and if this support was the basis for their veracity, which they are not. And even to relying on arguments their own church does not officially teach, but who will dismiss ours on that basis and tell us we need to rely on Rome to interpret Scripture.
And [the angel Gabriel] came to [Mary] and said, Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you! But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.... First, according to many biblical scholars as well as Pope St. John Paul II, the angel did more than simply greet Mary. The angel actually communicated a new name or title to her. In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or Hail, full of grace.
Wrong. His own RC Bible for America does not say this full of grace, as the word for full is not even there. Kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") in Lk. 1:28, is never used for "full" elsewhere, but Lk. 1:28 simply says she was graced, favored, enriched with grace, as in Eph.1:6.
In Greek: καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ. κεχαριτωμένη, is the pf. pass. ptcp. of χαριτόω (charitoō). It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. Repeated: It is a passive participle derived from charitoō. It does not mean "full of grace" or completely filled with grace which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.... Much more technical here :
In contrast, the only one (though in some manuscripts Stephen in Acts 6:8) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT. If Mary was uniquely perfectly full of grace as bearing Christ then it would say she was, as Christ was, (plērēs charis) and RCs would not have to engage in such egregious extrapolations in seeking to justify this invention.
However, seeking to compel Scripture to support her tradition of men, Lk, 1:28 was wrongly rendered "full of grace" in the DRB, rather than "highly favored" or similar, as in Rome's current official New American Bible, Hail, favored one!" (http://usccb.org/bible/luke/1) Yet the DRB correctly translates Eph. 1:6 as "in which he hath graced us."
When you add to this the fact that St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle...The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being...But only Mary is given the name full of grace and in the perfect tense indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.
Mary is not given a name (see below) and nor said to be full of grace, and uniquely so, nor from what i read does kecharitomene being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, in distinction to echaritosen (another form of the verb "charitoo") used in Eph. 1:6, as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:6)
See more on this issue here as White gets into detail with the Greek. (And notes that the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.)
Even Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin said of Luke 1:28 on the word kecharitomene:
"This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn't immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense" like Mary's grandmother). He went on to say, "This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together." Meaning the text does not teach the IM, nor is that necessary, but tradition becomes binding doctrine under the ultimate presumed authority of Rome.
Moreover, while Mary is highly blessed among women, and is to be honored according to what is written, this does not translate in the type of supererogation of praise seen in Catholicism, in which humble Mary is made into an almost almighty demigoddess!
Generally speaking, when one greeted another with kaire, a name or title would almost be expected to be found in the immediate context.
And indeed, in context that the angel was simply telling Mary she was graced of the Lord is confirmed in v. 30, And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour [charis] with God, (KJV), or as in the RC DRB: hast found grace with God.
The fact that the angel replaces Marys name in the greeting with full of grace was anything but common...
The fact is that the angel simply does not, but simply tells her that she is graced, as she was. Which is like the greeting given to Daniel, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong, (Daniel 10:19) Likewise, literally in Greek, the angel tells Mary Hail [rejoice], graced [one], the Lord is with thee: blessed thou among women.
In each case, the names reveal something permanent about the one named...Whats in a name? A lot according to Scripture!
But there is no name change here, as unlike cases such as Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham, (Genesis 17:5)Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel, (Genesis 32:28) Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone, (John 1:42) Mary is never addressed as full of grace, but is said to have found grace with God, and thus it is said of her, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, and henceforth all generations shall call me blessed, (Lk. 1:42,48) And which does not say more blessed than all women due to Mary having surpassing virtue. And in fact, as Ratzinger admits, Mary in the gospel tradition is quite marginal, (God and the world, p. 296) while the Holy Spirit is far far more descriptive of the sacrificial labor of Paul, to whom He never manifestly attributes sin after his conversion.
Nor is blessed art thou among women a unique type of appellation, as Scripture also says, Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent. (Judges 5:24)
Thus there is nothing in Lk. 1:28 that teaches or even infers Marian sinlessness, which we can be sure the Holy Spirit would have stated if that was the case as He did with other notable exceptions to the norm, especially among principal persons.
2. An Ancient ProphecyGenesis 3:15:..I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. Not only do we have the Virgin Birth here implied because the text says the Messiah would be born of the seed of the woman (the seed is normally of the man), but notice the woman is not included as the seed of the devil. It seems that both the woman and her seed are in opposition to and therefore not under the dominion of the devil and his seed, i.e., all who have original sin and are by nature children of wrath as St. Paul puts it in Eph. 2:3. Here, we have in seed form (pun intended), the fact that the womanMarywould be without sin, especially original sin, just as her Sonthe Messiahwould be. The emphasis on Mary is truly remarkable in that the future Messiah was only mentioned in relation to her. There can be little doubt that a parallel is being drawn between Jesus and Mary and their absolute opposition to the devil.
In-credible! The RC again examples he can see what he wants to if it can support his Roman religion. Note first that though I agree the seed of the women is Christ, both Hagar and Rebekah are said to have seed. (Gn. 16:10;24:60) . Meanwhile the Hebrew words in this entire verse actually only says, put/place enmity/hostility between woman between seed seed it/he bruise head thou shalt bruise heel. And much commentary has been written about how this is best translated and what it precisely means. Thus the little doubt that a parallel is being drawn between Jesus and Mary being both sinless is based upon a text for which there is much doubt about its precise rendering and meaning,
And while I agree with the text Staples quotes, yet nowhere does it say the women is uniquely different from the rest of mankind, as it only distinguishes between the seed of the devil and seed of Eve, which prophetically would be between the lost and Christ coming ultimately through Mary, or perhaps between demons and Christ. Seed is singular, but it can refer to a single line of decedents. And as Christ genealogy is full of souls who were lost at least at one time, the only exclusion of any seed that is not fallen is the sinless Christ. The seed of the women no more excludes her from being fallen then it does the parents of Mary.
Behind the Roman reasoning is the premise that a sinless vessel is essential for Christ to be sinless, but which is fallacious. 1 Sam.2:2 and Rev.15:4 states that there is "no one holy as the Lord" and "Thou only art Holy." Yet God used impure men to bring forth His pure expressive word to men, and if God could preserve Mary from sin then it is certain He could preserve Christ from being contaminated from the impurity of the vessel through which His body was supplied. For Hebrews 10:5 states that Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.
And it is also argued, that "The human male determines the sex of the offspring. His entrance into the unfertilized egg of Mary caused it to develop without the expected duplication of the female X chromosomes. When an artificial egg duplicates its chromosomes in response to artificial stimulation. the result is female" D. Hocking from his Christology course (animal studies). And thus The blood type of the Son of God was a separate and precious type unlike any other, it had no sin. Because of this method of conception, it is not possible that Mary could have supplied any of her Adamic blood for Jesus who was to be the spotless lamb of God. The Holy Spirit who is God, protected His sinlessness, as God the Son entered the womb and the egg of Mary and took upon Himself a human nature in addition to His divine nature (clothed himself in humanity Phil. 2:5-8). There was no change of nature but an addition, adding humanity to His deity. (http://www.letusreason.org/rc11.htm)
I am not sure if I agree that the sin nature is dependent on the male seed, but if God can produce a male from a female virgin then He can certainly bring forth a perfect sinless male from a fallen vessel tainted by sin.
Note also here that Staples is not arguing for a binding, infallible interpretation of Gn. 3:15, while Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus (Latin for "Ineffable God") which defines the infallible (which presumed status only pertains to the actual pronouncement) dogma of the Immaculate Conception relies upon a Vulgate translation [and thus the Douay Rheims] of Gn. 3:15 which changed the he to she shall crush thy head, and thus that the most holy Virgin was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot. (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm)
However, as the Catholic Encyclopedia (Immaculate Conception) states, The translation she of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpents head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)
As with others, the official Roman Catholic Bible for America translates this,
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.
The approved notes (1970 ver.), while also noting the Traditional Messianic exegesis, explains this saying, They will strike
at their heel: the antecedent for they and their is the collective noun offspring, i.e., all the descendants of the woman. (http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis3.htm)
RC apologist Jimmy Akin also states,
Q: Please explain to me how come the Douay-Rheims Gen 3:15 and the New American Bible Gen 3:15 differ. Im sure you know what I am talking about.
...The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman... just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew. (www.jimmyakin.com/mary-and-genesis-315)
The Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission explains the controversy:
The Hebrew text of Genesis 3:15 speaks about enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between the offspring of both. The personal pronoun (hu) in the words addressed to the serpent, He will strike at your head, is masculine. In the Greek translation used by the early Church (LXX), however, the personal pronoun autos (he) cannot refer to the offspring
but must refer to a masculine individual who could then be the Messiah, born of a woman. The Vulgate (mis)translates the clause as ipsa
This feminine pronoun supports a reading of this passage as referring to Mary which has become traditional in the Latin Church. (Source.)
The Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata), the revised Latin version authorized by the Vatican, corrected the error and changed it from ipsa to ipsum in the Latin.
As a reformed source states, He .. in the original Hebrew is masculine. It is pronounced hoo and can also mean it. Many think it means it in reference to collective offspring of the woman crushing the head of the serpent. In the LXX, however, it is rendered autos he, indicating that the passage should be understood as a Messianic prophecy about Jesus Christ alone crushing the head. He [Jesus] will crush the serpents head. (http://reformedapologeticsministries.blogspot.com/2012/02/catholic-misuse-of-genesis-315.html)
The Hebrew Masoretic text reads that one who will crush the serpents head is in the masculine, speaking about Christ, and the NT does not mention Mary of doing this, but that Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he [Christ] also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (Hebrews 2:14,15) Glory be to God.
3. Mary, Ark of the Covenant: The Old Testament ark of the Covenant was a true icon of the sacred. It was a picture of the purity and holiness God fittingly demands of those objects and/or persons most closely associated with himself and the plan of salvation. Because it would contain the very presence of God symbolized by three types of the coming Messiahthe manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aarons staffit had to be most pure and untouched by sinful man (see II Sam. 6:1-9; Exodus 25:10ff; Numbers 4:15; Heb. 9:4).
In the New Testament, the new and true Ark would not be an inanimate object, but a personthe Blessed Mother. How much more pure would the new and true Ark be...
This is another attempt to glorify the creature rather than the Creator, God blessed for ever, as it is Christ who best fulfills the typology of the ark of the Covenant.
God commanded Moses to make an ark of shittim wood, which wood represents the humanity of Christ, And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, (Ex. 25:10,11) and which gold can be seen to glory. And thus the wise men brought gold as a gift to Christ (not Mary), and was girded about His loins and breast with a golden garment, (Dan. 10:5; Rv. 1:13) which also is never said of Mary.
The Ark, once made, was moved via poles, so as not to be directly touched by sinful man (Ex. 25:12-16; II Sam. 6:1-9), yet which men Mary was touched by, as well as Christ. And the former was ritually defiled by giving birth, and thus observed the required days of purification, (Lk. 2:22-24; cf. Lv. 12:2,6-8) and then brought the required living creatures to the priest for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. (Leviticus 12:6,7)
But the sanctity of the Ark corresponds to the spiritual purity of Christ, who being the Lamb of God is alone said to be holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, (Hebrews 7:26) Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, (1 Peter 2:22) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
Which is never said of Mary. Yet Catholics have the audacity to make Mary was sinless, even as binding doctrine, when Scripture nowhere teaches it, and we can be confident that it would say so if that was true, and especially if was a binding doctrine, just as it clearly records the sinlessness of Christ and other extraordinary or otherwise notable aspects of its subjects, even far lesser ones.
And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold....And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end:...And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims (Exodus 25:17,19,22) On top of the ark was the mercy seat on which rested the cloud signifying the presence of God, between two cherubs of gold. The Greek word (Hebrews 9:5) for mercy seat is hilasterion, meaning that which makes atonement.
This easily corresponds to Matthew 17:4,5, in which Moses and Elijah, representing the the law and the prophets, can be seen to answer to the two cherubims, and who talk with Christ under a bright cloud, and in which context all are called to commune with Christ, the atonement: While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him, thus directly communing with God. (cf. Heb. 10:19) And which is said to Peter, James and John, whom Paul later states (Gal. 2:9) appeared to be pillars of the church (if not in that order), thus this call to directly commune with God via the mercy seat under the cloud is to the church.
And in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. (Exodus 25:21)The Ark contained the 2 tables of the Law, which testimony in the NT becomes grace and Truth, and the Scriptures uniquely state Christ was full of grace and Truth. (Jn. 1:14) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (Jn 1:17)
And they commanded the people, saying, When ye see the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, and the priests the Levites bearing it, then ye shall remove from your place, and go after it. (Joshua 3:3) And it was Christ, not Mary, who said Follow me, (Mt. 4:19) and My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, (John 10:27) as Christ alone was God manifest in the flesh. (Jn. 1:1-3,14; 20:28; 1Tim. 3:16)
And the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them in the three days' journey, to search out a resting place for them. (Numbers 10:33) And Christ, not Mary said,I go to prepare a place for you. (John 14:2)
Therefore it is Christ, not Mary who is clothed with gold, and declared to be undefiled, sinless, and the atonement/mercy seat, with two cherubs of glory on each side, by whom believers commune with God under the cloud of glory, and whom constrains the testimony of grace and Truth, and goes before believers.
And thus by God grace Staples compulsion of Scripture to support vain traditions of men is once again exposed, which he inventively adds to within the rest of his book (which is not dealt with here), promoting the Mariolatry of the false Mary of Catholicism, thinking of mortals above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6) to his own condemnation and those who sadly subscribe to this. It is the Lord who is high and lifted up, not any Queen of Heaven, which is only found among pagans. But despite what Scripture says and fails to say, like the Catholics insist,
But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem... (Jeremiah 44:17)
10 Things Catholics Are Tired of Hearing 7/8/2015, 4:22:37 PM · 83 of 133
10 Things Evangelicals Are Tired of Hearing Catholics Say
Meaning a sophist mostly valid objections into strawmen almost no one posts, or reiterating refuted polemics.
1.Catholics worship statues. This stereotype is painful to hear. Not only is this completely false, but it is ludicrous...In this country, approximately 51.5% of people are Protestant Christians. Realistically, most of these families have pictures in their home, which is completely normal, right? If these Protestant families can have pictures of Uncle Bernie and Mawmaw hanging on the wall, then most certainly the Church can present pictures of our beloved Jesus, his disciples, and the saints.
Looking affectionately at family photos is simply not what the objection is to. Elizabeth Giddens has to know that, and thus she is being dishonest. And Morgana should be ashamed to post such a poor polemic.
Instead, what we protest against is Catholics engaging in toward created beings what Scripture describes as worship. Indeed, one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue in adulation and praising the unseen entity it represented in the unseen world, with attributes, glory and titles being ascribed to them which are never done so to created beings in Scripture (except to false gods). Including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them.
And beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them.
Which would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine by playing word games they avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference? <img alt="" src="http://peacebyjesus.net/images/moses.gif" border="0"> <img alt="" src="http://peacebyjesus.net/images/mary.gif" border="0">
Instead they should do what Mary and every believer in every prayer to Heaven did (and I should do more of), which was to pray directly to the Lord, not secretaries. But they must truly become born again for that.
2.Catholics pray to Mary instead of God. This is a very common misconception throughout the Protestant community...We dont pray to Mary, we ask her to pray for us, just as a Protestant asks their deceased grandparent/parent to watch over them.
Mere sophistry, as there is no difference between asking and beseeching an unseen entity in Heaven for aid and praying to them. Since Christ is man's (only) Heavenly intercessor between God and man (1Tim. 2:5) then RCs could say they do not pray to Christ, but only ask Him to intercede for them. Moreover, Catholics do ask Mary to do more than to pray for them, as they ascribe power to her to perform other actions in response to devotion to her.
The FACT is that out of the over 200 prayers to Heaven which the Holy Spirit records in Scripture, not a single one is to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, except by pagans.
And a Protestant asking their deceased grandparent/parent to watch over them is also inconsistent with Scripture, thus invoking Protestant aberrations does not justify Catholic ones.
3. The saints cant hear your prayers, because they are dead. I beg to differ. Since when is anyone who is in Heaven considered dead? We call it the afterLIFE for a reason. In fact, there is biblical proof that the saints can hear our prays: -Revelation 5:8....Revelation 8:3-4
Very few Prots hold that believers are not conscious and with the Lord in Heaven commencing at death, the latter of which Rome denies to most, but the power to hear virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them is an ability only God is shown having.
Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4 do NOT teach that created beings hear prayer, only that they offered pray to God as a memorial before Divine judgment is poured out in the day of the Lord. Whether believers in glory can hear prayer or not, only God is sanctioned as being the direct object of prayer, to whom believers have direct access to by the sinless shed blood of Christ, (Heb. 10:19) who alone is set forth as the immediate all-sufficient Heavenly intercessor. (Heb. 2:18; 4:15,16; Heb. 7:25) To the glory of the Father.
What saith the Scriptures? (Rm. 4:3; 11:2; Gal. 4:30) Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:6)
Prayers in Scripture addressed to God in Heaven
Over 200 prayers, besides instruction on prayer to Heaven. (Our Father who art in Heaven, not Out Mother.)
Prayers in Scripture addressed to any created beings in Heaven
ZERO prayers or examples, or in instruction on prayer to Heaven
Examples or teaching showing God being able to hear and respond to prayer from earth addressed to Him in Heaven.
Multiple. I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee.. (2 Kings 20:5; cf. Ps. 65:2; 66:19,20; Lk 1:13)
Examples or teaching showing created beings being able to hear and respond to prayer from earth addressed to them in Heaven.
ZERO. Angels and elders offering up prayers before the judgments of the last days in memorial (Rev. 5:8 and 8:3,4; f. Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15) does not constitute this ability, which is unique to God.
Examples or teaching showing God able to personally communicate with man from Heaven.
Many. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. (2 Corinthians 12:8-9)
Examples or teaching showing created beings being able to converse with man from Heaven.
ZERO. From what I see, all two-way communication required both created beings to somehow be consciously operating in the same realm.
Examples or teaching Christ as being the heavenly intercessor between man and God.
Many. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5) For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:18) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16) Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)
Examples or teaching any as created beings as heavenly intercessor between man and God.
ZERO. See under 2 above.
The objection is not to Mary being important, but to the supererogation of adulation given to Mary, such as which is only shown being given to God. Rather than being a sinless almost almighty demigoddess, to whom many things are ascribed which are only shown being said of God/Christ (see here), the holy spiritual Mary of Scripture is never prayed to or asked by others to intercede, and little is said of her, while the Holy Spirit gives far more press to the sacrificial labor of Paul in birthing multitudes of souls into the body of Christ and disciplining them.
Meanwhile, Israel is also said to have brought forth Christ, (Rm. 9:4,5) and the Lord said all who did the will of His Father, as Mary did, were His mothers. (Mt. 12:49) In addition, among mothers, of Jael it is also said, Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent. (Judges 5:24)
5. Catholics made up all their rules. Every single tradition we have in the Catholic Church, namely during Mass, has biblical roots. Not to mention the fact that Jesus was the founder of our Church. I dont know about you, but Jesus doesnt make mistakes.
Actually, Protestantism has historically contended for Biblical Truths we both hold to, while it is utterly false that every single tradition in the Catholic Church has biblical roots, praying to created beings in Heaven being just one of them. Nor does the veracity of RC teaching rest upon the weight of Scriptural evidence, but upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
In addition, the premise that Jesus was the founder of the church of Rome is manifestly false, as the latter is a critical deformation of the NT church (see here), though a few in it are part of the One True Church. That being the body of Christ, as that only 100% consists of only true believers, unlike the visible church in which they express their faith as do tares.
All that Liz drums up does not support what she says, as for one, the fact is that nowhere in Scripture can she find even one place in which there was a special class of believers distinctively titled priests (hiereus) versus presbuteros/episkopos (senior/superintendent) which refers to those in one office. (Titus 1:5-7) Distinctively calling NT pastors priests (from old English as "preost") was a post NT development, due to imposed functional equivalence, wrongly supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as a primary function, and is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy See here.
Scripture nowhere says to confess sins to Catholic priests, and while in Ja. 5:14 it is elders who are to be called to for intercession, for God can show mercy to those being chastened for sins of ignorance, yet this was only in the case of one being infirm. Yet in Catholicism's Last Rites, which is based on this, is usually a precursor of death.
Meanwhile Ja. 5:16 which is what Liz cites, actually refers to all believers, and teaches a righteous believer like Elijah has power to bind and loose.
Thus Liz only has lies for an argument.
Which is a mere assertion, not an argument, while in reality Rome is cultic, as its basis for veracity is not the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power under which the NT church began, in dissent from the historical magisterium which Rome presents as infallible in her case. In-stead, the basis for the veracity of RC teachings is the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual formulaic magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture, and never promised.
Rome even teaches that one cannot even assuredly know what Scripture consists of and means apart from dependence upon here, yet the church began because common souls discerned both men and writings of God as being so.
It is cults which present their leadership as superior to Scripture, and require assent of faith, both of which Rome does, under the fallacious premise that God's word can only consist of and mean what she says in any conflict.
Which is another mere assertion, and which is contrary to the evidence. Catholicism is so different than the NT church that it is basically invisible in Scripture, from formal justification via one's own holiness, and becoming good enough to enter glory through postmortem suffering commencing at death, the lack of a perpetuated Petrine papacy, to the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, to the distinctive sacerdotal priesthood, to praying to created beings in Heaven, to basically required clerical celibacy and her priesthood, etc.
9. Catholics added books to the Holy Bible. This one is so hilarious it hurts. For 300 years there was no Bible, only random writings from the prophets like St.Peter etc, until the Catholic monks compiled and canonized what is now known today as the Holy Bible. (That is until the Protestant Reformation occurred, in which one man *Martin Luther* removed 7 books). Ouch.
Which parroted propaganda does hurt, that of the attempted polemic by Liz. In reality most of what we hold as Scripture was already established as being so before the church began, which thus began upon Scriptural substantiation, while all of the NT was written and began to be circulated by the beginning of the 2nd century. And while most of the Bible was largely established early on (essentially due to their unique Heavenly qualities and affirmation), the status of the apocryphal books and some NT ones were subject to doubt and scholarly disagreement down through centuries and right into Trent. Which issued the first indisputable (for Roman Catholics) definition of the canon after the death of Luther. The latter actually had scholarly RC company in his rejection of certain books as Scripture proper, yet he included them in his translation, in a separate section as per ancient tradition, and there simply was no infallible canon for Luther to remove books from! See here on this issue, by God's grace.
In addition, Rome saw unhindered access to reading Scripture as dangerous and detrimental and thus much hindered it, in contrast to earlier times or modern, while in thee latter she promotes liberal revisionism, which impugns the authority of Scripture. See here. Either way, the devil much has his way.
Actually, where do we see Prots saying this today? But no, there was no misconception, as Tetzel preached,
You should know that all who confess and in penance put alms into the coffer according to the counsel of the confessor, will obtain complete remission of all their sins... Why are you then standing there? Run for the salvation of your souls! Be as careful and concerned for the salvation of your souls as you are for your temporal goods, which you seek both day and night. http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=4207; Source of English translation (sermon was originally written in Latin): Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed., The Reformation: A Narrative History Related by Contemporary Observers and Participants. New York, 1964
And which enjoyed the implicit sanction of the pope.