John's Gospel & Epistles

Why do you insist on using the word "ascension" when it has been clearly and repeatedly pointed out to you that the doctrine you question is "assumption"?

Please, be kind enough to answer this very simple question.

 

Curtis,

You asked a question that has an error in it. "Ascension," in regards to Mary, is incorrect. Why should he, or anyone else, answer a question that has an obvious error in it? He shouldn't.

Fix your question, or address the error. Then the question can be answered.

God bless,

Grant

 

Curtis,

Thank you for evidence that you are unwilling to admit making errors, and your willing ascent to furthering those errors, and then proclaiming yourself correct because we won't answer questions that contain obvious errors.

God bless,

Grant

 

Curtis, you are asking for the impossible.

You are asking for me to know the mind of another.

You are asking for proof from silence.

My questions to you, on the other hand can only be answered by you.

Will you be so kind as to grace me with a direct answer?

Why do you insist on using the word "ascension" when it has been clearly and repeatedly pointed out to you that the doctrine you question is "assumption"?

 

Assumption and ascension are fundamentally different. You will address the issue properly or the issue will not be addressed (at least by me). If you can't be respectful, why should I respect your questions?

God bless,

Grant

 

Why do you insist on using the word "ascension" when it has been clearly and repeatedly pointed out to you that the doctrine you question is "assumption"?

 

So you cannot admit making an error and being disrepectful in the manner in which you ask us questions. That is my thought.

God bless,

Grant

 

"And I am guilty of nastiness here."

Bro. Curtis:

What kind of witness is this? Do you really think you will win anyone over with the way you are acting?

I don't see the other Baptist on this board being disrespectful and "nasty."

 

"

Now I don't claim that none were killed but do you have a list of names for me to support your millions number. I happen to be reading a book named "Salvation at Stake" written by a Protestant who takes a very unbiased approch. He has studied the tiems quite in detail and does not come up with near that number. The other question of course is who actually killed these people? In those days people were put to death for even smaller crimes such as stealing. Even the reformers agreed that when a man publicly professed heresy it was akin to killing the body as it was killing the soul and so it was taken much more seriously in those days. Governments who took their authority from Romans 13 took it upon themselves to enforce religoius orthodoxy. Protestant governments killed for what they deemed to be false theology. Ever heard of a guy named Servetus. Look him up on the web and how he was burned by the Calvinists, you know 5 points calinism. Oh by the way have you seen the link I have posted several times, linking the KKK to the Baptists.

http://www.detnet.com/wilke/klan1.html

Don't put your head in the sand too far. What kind of Church has no outcry about it's members dragging black men behind a car and burning their Churches. They turn a blink wink wink eye to it all.

 

What kind of false arguement is it where you turn and point the finger at someone else in response to a question about your behavior?

 

Asked and answered.

From my previous post.

"Curtis, you are asking for the impossible.

You are asking for me to know the mind of another.

You are asking for proof from silence."

You may as well be asking how high is up.

 

Protestants have criticized Mariology because many assertions apparently lack biblical foundation. Scripture does not mention her immaculate conception or assumption. Her perpetual virginity is challenged by references to Jesus' sisters and brothers (Mark 3:31; 6:3; John 2:12; 7:1-10; Acts 1:14; Gal. 1:19; Mariologists claim they were cousins). Moreover, the Gospels do not present Mary unambiguously as sinless and in continuous accord with Christ's will. Protestants have also argued that Mariology exaggerates the contribution that any human can make to divine redemption. Luther and Calvin saw Mary as a human who in herself was nothing; she was enabled to bear Christ wholly through God's grace. Conservative Protestants argue that most Mariological excesses, her roles as Mother of God's Creatures, co-redemptrix, intercessor; her immaculate conception; and her "fullness of grace", spring from overestimating the human role in redemption, which was perhaps already implied by Irenaeus. This ancient theological issue may be the most fundamental one surrounding Mariology.

rufus