EMBRACING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

My point was that that is not all that Sola Scriptura means. Perhaps we miscommunicated on that.

 

Is "communal effect" authoritative? Why should I accept it? What about when someone disagrees on some point?

Pastor Larry, maybe I'm not understanding you, because I can't believe you just said that. The church is NOT built on the epistles. The church existed BEFORE the epistles. The church was already thriving. The church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph 2:20).

Then the ambassador does not really have *his own* authority, he is just reflecting authority.

Pastor Larry, the more you say, the more you are losing me. How did the church determine what books to accept in the canon? Why does 1 Tim 3:15 say the church is the "pillar and ground of the truth"?

Tell me, what was the "authority" before all the NT books were written? By what "authority" should I accept or reject James or Hebrews or Revelation as scripture?

I'm sure you seen me ask in the Bible versions forum: By what authority should we accept KJV-onlyism, since the KJV doesn't say only the KJV is authoritative? Well, by what authority should we accept sola scriptura, since scripture doesn't say only scripture is authoritative (nor could it, for the church existed before scripture)?

 

When this pope has completed his life tour and you get a new and liberal pope in office, will you still be shouting his praises, even if he decrees some new ideas that are contrary to the Word of God, the Bible?

 

I'd like to know what our Catholic friend makes of Mary being seen as "co-redemptrix" and "co-mediatrix" within Catholic theology. I thought that Jesus was the one and only Mediator and Redeemer for sinful man (1 Tim. 2:5, John 14:6).

Also, I'd like to know how our Catholic friend can denounce the biblical notion of eternal security of the believer when it is so clear in the Scriptures (2 Cor. 5:5, Eph. 4:30, John 10:27-30, 2 Tim. 2:12, etc.).

I agree with the Pastor - the RCC ceased to be an authority when they departed from the authority of Scripture. The most recent councils of the church have been nothing more than attempts to cover up the corruption of the church. Thanks Pastor for making that clear with your replies.

 

None of these verses say "Once a man has accepted Christ as His personal Lord and Savior, that man can never choose to leave Gods family". You're making an assumption based on faith.


Next, to the Mary issue. This is the actual petition submitted to Pope John Paul II by the Catholic faithful. It helps to read about what your disagreeing with:

http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html


Catholics have not departed from the "authority of scripture" They believe the scriptures to hold the same attributes as protestants: It is divine, contains no error, and is infalliable. The Holy Scriptures are an authority in the Catholic Church. No doctrine, dogma, or teaching is permitted to be anti-scriptural. The Holy Scriptures however are not the "only" authority in the Catholic Church, just as they are not in the Protestant Church. Pastors, Deacons/Deaconesses, teachers, and others are seen as figures of authority in the protestant church.

 

I'll be the first to ask though since I don't agree with the doctrine of the coredemptrix.

How does any suffering Mary went through at the foot of the cross add to or go with the perfect suffering of our Lord on the cross?

(It should be understood though that from what I've been told by my Catholic Brethren that this is not a dogma of the Catholic faith.)

 

I don't know much about that doctrine either, but how can Paul's suffering add to Christs?

"Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. "

 

Bob they don't lump us all together. How could you expect anyone to read your long posts when they start with such an obviously bogus statement?

 

I'm learning as I go here... I'm discussing this doctrine with faithful Catholics as we speak, and it seems that this has been a very contraversial doctrine in the church for a long time, but any idea that Mary suffering at the foot of the cross adds to or is with Christs suffering and aids in the payment of sin for the world is completely rejected as heresy. This doctrine, believed by some Catholics, is not Catholic dogma.

 

Carson Weber,

You said, 'The "Co" in Co-Redemptix does not mean "equal to," but "with" because it is
the English translation of the Latin cum, which means "with", not "equal to".'

Ray is saying, 'Was the N.T. written in Latin or Greek? Secondly, where in the Bible in I Timothy 2:5 does it say in the Greek the word--equivilent to the Latin word, "cum" meaning with or along with Jesus?

You and I know that it does not say "with" but the Greek does say, One Mediator, referring to our Lord Jesus. You and I both know that the Latin was employed to cloud the issue of Jesus being our only Redeemer. Some of us do not appreciate Rome's intervention in the Word of God by adding some Latin word which is not part of the thoughts coming from Jesus, the Savior of all who believe.

Take your Roman traditions and add on theology and dispose of it, and start obeying what the Holy Spirit is teaching to His people of God.

 

Carson and Adam, I have had these same conversations with Catholics many times before. Anytime an unbiblical Catholic dogma is questioned, then they always refer to the Pope or the Cathecism, as if someone who believes in the full inerrancy and sufficiency of the Bible gives a hoot what the Pope or the Catechism says.

As to the issue of eternal security, Adam's assertions that someone could "opt out" of a covenant relationship with God is ridiculous - "If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself" (2 Tim. 2:13). Salvation is not something someone can opt in and out of, but it is a covenant relationship with God that is sealed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, of whom Paul said is an earnest (a guarantee, NKJV) of future glory (2 Cor. 5:5). Paul made the same statement in Eph. 4:30. Besides, if a man could lose his salvation, would he even know that it was gone? How many times can a person who has lost their salvation be "re-saved?" Further, is there even one example in the Bible who lost their salvation and was "re-saved?" Of course there isn't - that's because the Bible emphatically declares the eternal security of the believer as truth. If someone wants to say that God would "break" his guarantee of eternal security with a believer, they are much bolder than I am. I know you will probably reply by saying that we broke the covenant, not God, but it is impossible for a true believer to do so according to John: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us (1 John 2:19). Of course, there have been many so-called Christians who have turned their back on God and stopped fellowshiping with the brethren, but John clearly states that they never belonged to God to begin with. Besides, if eternal security is not a reality, then how could John later write in the same epistle, "these things I have written that you might KNOW that you have eternal life."? The RCC's view of salvation is nothing more than rehashed Pelagianism.

As for Mary being "co-redemptrix" and "co-mediatrix," can you provide me with one verse of Scripture that makes that claim? I provided you with two verses that clearly show that Christ is the only Mediator and Redeemer for sinful man, but you provided me with none to substantiate this phantom dogma of the RCC. The material you provided (an extra-biblical source though it was) only provided verses about Mary's emotional suffering and giving birth. The RCC tried to cover itself by saying that Mary was not equal with Christ, but they might as well have said it because making her co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix is the same thing! That is godless! It was interesting to see that Adam waffled on the subject while Carson tried to defend it.

I also noticed that Carson made reference to the infallible Papal dogmas of the church. I always like to remind my RC friends that it wasn't until 1870 that the RCC stated that the Pope has always been infallible when he spoke ex cathedra . That was nothing more than an attempt by the RCC to cover up the mistakes of past Popes (the condemnation of Copernicus, etc.). It seems pretty convenient for the RCC to state 1850 years later that the Popes have always spoken infallibly from the chair of Peter.

 

"I always like to remind my RC friends that it wasn't until 1870 that the RCC stated that the Pope has always been infallible when he spoke ex cathedra . That was nothing more than an attempt by the RCC to cover up the mistakes of past Popes (the condemnation of Copernicus, etc.). It seems pretty convenient for the RCC to state 1850 years later that the Popes have always spoken infallibly from the chair of Peter. "


You contradict yourself by saying that the declaratoin of infallibility of Vatican I was an attempt to cover up past mistakes such as the Copernicus. Catholicism never condemned Copernicus, where'd you get that. The fact is that historically the Church did give great weight to what Popes said. They did go to the Pope to resolve disputes time and time again and Popes did sign off on the decrees of the councils. Tell me, in the year 30 AD it was written that Jesus was going to be from Nazareth in Luke's Gospel. First time ever that it was written. So was it believed before that time? Awfully convenient of Luke to write it after the fact. In fact it wasnt' even mentioned in the Old Testament. Ignatus of Antioch and Irenaus from the very earliest post apostolic writings speak of the purity of doctrine of the Church in Rome. So infallibility was quite clearly recognized then.

Blessings.

 

They often quote "their own sources" as "if" that forms some kind of "objective proof" for non-Catholics.

But more interesting - when non-Catholics find that over the course of the ever-evolving Catholic doctrines - some more recent errors are "refuted" by earlier Catholic sources - they "simply ignore the details".

All a fascinating study in the the behavior of human nature.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No it is based on speculation and guesswork.

The Bible endorses Christ as alone as "mediator" and as "Redeemer".

The Bible contains "no reference at all" to infant Baptism = nor do the earliest Christian documents AND in fact RC historians themselves admit to "A evolution in the practice" so that what is practiced today is in their words "VERY different" from what was practiced by the first century church.

And of course in Acts 20 and 2Thess 2 - this evolving system of error introduced into the Christian church - was "predicted".

In Christ,

Bob

 

This coming from a guy who admits that he's a follower of an offshoot of the false prophet Miller At least you should have enough dignitiy to be a direct disciple of a false prophet, but a follower of an offshoot?

 

This is what the Bible calls "vain imaginings" - speculation leading to claim such as "co-redemptrix".

"Imagining" that SINCE in Adam all fall with Eve also having a key role in the fall of mankind (duh) - THEN in Christ and Mary ALL are redeemed - is simply a non-sequiter a fallacious form of illogic (as Carson's quote proclaims).

What in fact DO the RC sources say about Mary?

You know, "the details".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here then is the fallacy compounded by buidling one error upon another. Mary as Co-Redemptrix is being argued from "Mary-sinless-like-Christ" being argued from "Mary-born-without-sin".

Error upon Error upon Error.

With "nothing" to show for it from scripture.

One has to be astounded by the "blindness" of a supposed baptist that would see all this error and "leap back into the dark ages" inspite of it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"How many times can a person who has lost their salvation be "re-saved?""

This is why conversations between Catholics and non-Catholics are usually fruitless. They are speaking two different languages. I've never once heard a Catholic use the term "re-saved" as in I went to "confession and got resaved".

And for the record I'm not Catholic.