Catholic Mary

[Moriah]

Start a thread on each one and I might. BTW, I don't hold to, or practice much of what you are asking for so why would I defend that with which I do not practice? Just sayin...

Are you kidding? You are in this thread defending what the Catholics do! You defend the Catholic Mary. You defend in my other thread what the Catholics do with their statues, but now you are pretending that you do not. What are you doing debating me in my Catholic Mary thread, if you do not defend the Catholics false practices?

So, for now stop the doctrinal dance and address my points. Throwing up a barrage of bait and switch distractors just won't get you off of the hook. Thus, I'll ask again...With which of the nine point(s) in the Creed do you disagree?

I have already explained to you that I do not go by Creeds. The Apostles did not make Creeds, nor did they tell us to make them. I could not care less what the Catholics say in their Creeds made by men who change God’s word. I could not care less about a religion’s Creed that says one thing, but in their other beliefs they go against what God says.

If so, then why do you disagree with it/them from a biblical standpoint? Personally, I don't think you want to address this because you actually might have to admit that your beliefs align (if ever so loosely) with the CC.

Since the Catholic religion will not get rid of their evil practices, then a child of God must leave the Catholic religion. If the Catholic religion repented of having a Pope, exalting Mary, prayers to Saints, canonizing of Saints, venerating statues and relics, etc., then they would be doing right, but they will not stop all those things.

Revelation 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;

 

[WestminsterMan]

Are you kidding? You are in this thread defending what the Catholics do! You defend the Catholic Mary. You defend in my other thread what the Catholics do with their statues, but now you are pretending that you do not.

No. I'm not kidding - nor am I pretending about anything. You have this whole thing backwards. I'm not defending all Catholic practices. I am, however, simply pointing out that many of your ideas and charges are fallacious.

What are you doing debating me in my Catholic Mary thread, if you do not defend the Catholics false practices?

Well, I am a member of this board and I have the right to participate in any forum here - though I must admit that I particularly like this one. Ultimately, I don't need your permission for that. If you only want approval and a pat on the back to reinforce your beliefs then why not join a site where they don't allow intellectual discourse, the free exchange of ideas, or presentations of positions that differ from your own?

I have already explained to you that I do not go by Creeds. The Apostles did not make Creeds, nor did they tell us to make them. I could not care less what the Catholics say in their Creeds made by men who change God’s word. I could not care less about a religion’s Creed that says one thing, but in their other beliefs they go against what God says.

Translation.... I'm not intellectually honest enough to respond to the question put to me. Got it!

Since the Catholic religion will not get rid of their evil practices, then a child of God must leave the Catholic religion. If the Catholic religion repented of having a Pope, exalting Mary, prayers to Saints, canonizing of Saints, venerating statues and relics, etc., then they would be doing right, but they will not stop all those things.

But therein lies the problem. You don't even understand what it is that Catholics believe, yet you continue to harp on what you "say" they are doing wrong. Further, when challenged you either:

1) Change the subject
2) Engage in ad homonym attacks
3) Feign offense

Revelation 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;

Hmmm.... I notice that God didn't use the word Catholic in that verse.

WM

 

[Moriah]

No. I'm not kidding - nor am I pretending about anything. You have this whole thing backwards. I'm not defending all Catholic practices. I am, however, simply pointing out that many of your ideas and charges are fallacious.



Well, I am a member of this board and I have the right to participate in any forum here - though I must admit that I particularly like this one. Ultimately, I don't need your permission for that. If you only want approval and a pat on the back to reinforce your beliefs then why not join a site where they don't allow intellectual discourse, the free exchange of ideas, or presentations of positions that differ from your own?



Translation.... I'm not intellectually honest enough to respond to the question put to me. Got it!



But therein lies the problem. You don't even understand what it is that Catholics believe, yet you continue to harp on what you "say" they are doing wrong. Further, when challenged you either:

1) Change the subject
2) Engage in ad homonym attacks
3) Feign offense



Hmmm.... I notice that God didn't use the word Catholic in that verse.

WM

I have already proven everything that you said I have not.

That is enough.

 

[Walter]

No. I'm not kidding - nor am I pretending about anything. You have this whole thing backwards. I'm not defending all Catholic practices. I am, however, simply pointing out that many of your ideas and charges are fallacious.



Well, I am a member of this board and I have the right to participate in any forum here - though I must admit that I particularly like this one. Ultimately, I don't need your permission for that. If you only want approval and a pat on the back to reinforce your beliefs then why not join a site where they don't allow intellectual discourse, the free exchange of ideas, or presentations of positions that differ from your own?



Translation.... I'm not intellectually honest enough to respond to the question put to me. Got it!



But therein lies the problem. You don't even understand what it is that Catholics believe, yet you continue to harp on what you "say" they are doing wrong. Further, when challenged you either:

1) Change the subject
2) Engage in ad homonym attacks
3) Feign offense


Hmmm.... I notice that God didn't use the word Catholic in that verse.

WM

Nailed it, WM!! :thumbsup:

 

[WestminsterMan]

I have already proven everything that you said I have not.

That is enough.

Right... I haven't seen you do anything but make baseless accusations. Fine.

WM

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Right... I haven't seen you do anything but make baseless accusations. Fine.

WM

It get silly some times. Conversations usually go something like this. "you worship idols!" "No because of what the book of exodus and first kings says that isreal made images of angelic beings but didn't consider them idols so in the same way we view bible images of people like Mary and Joseph..etc..."

"You're a liar the bible says not to make a graven image or bow down to them."
"But then why are angles put on the mercy seat of the ark and people are allowed to bow down before it?"
"You are a stupid Papist!!!! Worship means to bow down!!! You follow your leaders to hell!!!! You don't know anything about scriptures because you worship Mary believe in purgatory bowdown to satan because the Pope is the False Prophet and Catholicism is the mystery religion of Babylon and the whore who sits on the beast"...... Ad infinitum....

Sigh.... I don't know if I should laugh at the illogical jumps or be conserned about people's mental well being.

It doesn't seem like there is a fair discussion but one side constantly accusing and the otherside trying hard to be educational and logical.

 

[DHK]

Note the American Tract Society is a protestant organization that shows its definition bias.

I laugh. You want me to use a Catholic dictionary with all of its biases. That would be unfruitful. The definition I gave you was just fine.
Easton's Bible Dictionary is more extensive:

Grace
(1.) Of form or person (Pr 1:9; 3:22; Ps 45:2). (2.) Favour, kindness, friendship (Ge 6:8; 18:3; 19:19; 2Ti 1:9). (3.) God's forgiving mercy (Ro 11:6; Eph 2:5). (4.) The gospel as distinguished from the law (Joh 1:17; Ro 6:14; 1Pe 5:12). (5.) Gifts freely bestowed by God; as miracles, prophecy, tongues (Ro 15:15; 1Co 15:10; Eph 3:8). (6.) Christian virtues (2Co 8:7; 2Pe 3:18). (7.) The glory hereafter to be revealed (1Pe 1:13).

But it still does not give the meaning that the RCC gives to it.
It is the unmerited favor of God.

Certainly the Greek that Paul used was χαρις. The English comes from latin so again you are wrong there, however, using the greek form the translation means

We are confined to the Greek for that is what the NT was written in. Do you think that Paul and Jesus spoke in English? I hope you know better than that.

Therefore it is not limited to your very limited understanding of only meaning "unmerited favor". You find youself in the same group as this exerpt specifies And so it is as you have shown.

The Greeks used it as free unmerited favor of God. The RCC added to the definition much later.

What do you think Jesus meant when he said;

Matthew 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
--He was giving an example of His grace. It is free and unmerited. Not one of us deserve it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I laugh. You want me to use a Catholic dictionary with all of its biases. That would be unfruitful. The definition I gave you was just fine.

I didn't use the Cahtolic Dictionary. I used an Lutheran systematic theologian. Big difference.

Easton's Bible Dictionary is more extensive:
But it still does not give the meaning that the RCC gives to it.
It is the unmerited favor of God.

because its a protestant dictionary its just as "unfruitful" as you claim my definition is. Which is why I went to a protestant systematic theologian who is an expert btw in Greek.

We are confined to the Greek for that is what the NT was written in. Do you think that Paul and Jesus spoke in English?

Again a read hearing chase. You and I speak english and thus I used the etymology of the english word which goes back to latin. However, if you want to use greek. That is fine with me. It supports my position on the meaning of Grace.

The Greeks used it as free unmerited favor of God. The RCC added to the definition much later.

That is not true as I've shown you from a protestant systematic theologian.

What do you think Jesus meant when he said;

Matthew 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

This has nothing to do with grace but with everyone being in the same boat.
You really have to corrupt a proper exegete and formulate your eisegesis to come up with a connection to grace. And especially your definition of it.

--He was giving an example of His grace. It is free and unmerited. Not one of us deserve it.

That is not what he was saying look at the passage again as always note the passage before and after and you have a better idea of context.

But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

These are the evidences and actions of faith not an explination of Grace therefore if you love your enemies and pray for them you are children of the Father living in the same world as those who are not. So try to be perfect like your father is perfect because the passage goes on to say

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Nope not an explination of Grace but an instruction on how we are to live.

 

[WestminsterMan]

It get silly some times. Conversations usually go something like this. "you worship idols!" "No because of what the book of exodus and first kings says that isreal made images of angelic beings but didn't consider them idols so in the same way we view bible images of people like Mary and Joseph..etc..."

"You're a liar the bible says not to make a graven image or bow down to them."
"But then why are angles put on the mercy seat of the ark and people are allowed to bow down before it?"
"You are a stupid Papist!!!! Worship means to bow down!!! You follow your leaders to hell!!!! You don't know anything about scriptures because you worship Mary believe in purgatory bowdown to satan because the Pope is the False Prophet and Catholicism is the mystery religion of Babylon and the whore who sits on the beast"...... Ad infinitum....

Sigh.... I don't know if I should laugh at the illogical jumps or be conserned about people's mental well being.

It doesn't seem like there is a fair discussion but one side constantly accusing and the otherside trying hard to be educational and logical.

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

I hate to put it this way. But you believe Mary was forced to give birth to the incarnation and that she had no choice in this matter? How is that different from rape?

.

Come now, THINK, you are named Thinkingstuff! Rape involves sex you know.

Note what Mary said "I am the handmaid of the Lord, Let it be done according to your word" "let it" suggest allowance and allowance is indicative of choice. She could have just have easily said "I dont want you to do that." At that point would God have used her for the incarnation? I think not.

God chose Mary. God knew Mary would say "Let it be so".

No God is not a tyrant forcing himself upon us

AMEN! We can agree on some things!

 

[DHK]

I didn't use the Cahtolic Dictionary. I used an Lutheran systematic theologian. Big difference.

Your original definition of "grace"

is a supernatural gift of God to intellectual creatures (men, angels) for their eternal salvation

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Now tell me how your definition is in harmony with Scripture?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your original definition of "grace"


Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Now tell me how your definition is in harmony with Scripture?

Can't you see it? It is God's grace which gives you faith. It is God's Grace that gives you the ability to believe and live that faith. Not works of the law. Therefore Grace is a supernatural gift that leads you and saves you. Not works. Works are the result of Grace in that Grace gives you faith and faith's fruits are good works.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Come now, THINK, you are named Thinkingstuff! Rape involves sex you know.

Sex is a reproductive process which culminates in Childbearing unless you think abortion is ok. Therefore it involves reproduction. Now God didn't have sex with Mary but made full use of her reproduction systems. And according to you against her will because according to you God Chose her and thus she had no choice. A rapist gives his victim no choice about using their reproductive process thus many children are born from rape. What is the difference? And btw rape isn't just about sex. A city can be raped which equates with pillaged. Did God pillage Mary despite what she wanted?

God chose Mary. God knew Mary would say "Let it be so".

So you agree she consented which means she obeyed? Because that is what happned. Think of it this way. I chose my wife. I courted her. And I got to know her well enough to know when I popped the question (marriage) I knew she would say yes. Does that mean she had less of a choice? Not at all.

AMEN! We can agree on some things!

Good! At least there is that!

 

[DHK]

Can't you see it? It is God's grace which gives you faith. It is God's Grace that gives you the ability to believe and live that faith. Not works of the law. Therefore Grace is a supernatural gift that leads you and saves you. Not works. Works are the result of Grace in that Grace gives you faith and faith's fruits are good works.

No, God's grace doesn't give you anything.
Grace is God's free unmerited favor. What it does is provide for us a way of salvation; it is a gift from God that is free and unmerited. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. Salvation is a gift, one we don't deserve.

For by grace are you saved through faith...It (salvation) is the gift of God.
Salvation is provided by grace. It is a gift of God. It comes through faith or is appropriated through faith. Whosoever believes on him shall be saved. Salvation comes through belief or faith. The appropriation of God's gift of salvation can only be obtained by faith. It is a gift of God that we don't deserve. It is totally unmerited, fully attainable, but only by faith.

Grace doesn't give. It doesn't have any magical super powers.
The only one who has the power to give anything is God. God gives grace.
You have it backwards. God gave his son. That is grace. The grace of God in salvation must be received.

 

[WestminsterMan]

No, God's grace doesn't give you anything.
Grace is God's free unmerited favor. What it does is provide for us a way of salvation; it is a gift from God that is free and unmerited. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. Salvation is a gift, one we don't deserve.

For by grace are you saved through faith...It (salvation) is the gift of God.
Salvation is provided by grace. It is a gift of God. It comes through faith or is appropriated through faith. Whosoever believes on him shall be saved. Salvation comes through belief or faith.The appropriation of God's gift of salvation can only be obtained by faith. It is a gift of God that we don't deserve. It is totally unmerited, fully attainable, but only by faith.

Well, what about infants who die... did they have faith?
What about the mentally retarded - do they have faith?
If as you say that "...Salvation comes through belief or faith" and these people through no fault of their own have none, then by necessity they are all going to hell. Hmmm... Sounds like its just not as cut and dried as you make out.

WM

 

[DHK]

Well, what about infants who die... did they have faith?
What about the mentally retarded - do they have faith?
If as you say that "...Salvation comes through belief or faith" and these people through no fault of their own have none, then by necessity they are all going to hell. Hmmm... Sounds like its just not as cut and dried as you make out.

WM

It is. It is that simple. As for infants, etc. Abraham said: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right."
Concerning the death of his infant David said,
He cannot come to me; I shall go to him.

We commit these ones to the mercy of God and rest in his mercy that He will do right.

 

[WestminsterMan]

It is. It is that simple. As for infants, etc. Abraham said: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right."
Concerning the death of his infant David said,
He cannot come to me; I shall go to him.

We commit these ones to the mercy of God and rest in his mercy that He will do right.

Yes! However, your statement "Salvation comes through belief or faith..." cannot be totally correct as these had no faith - especially if God is making exceptions.

WM

 

[DHK]

Yes! However, your statement "Salvation comes through belief or faith..." cannot be totally correct as these had no faith - especially if God is making exceptions.

WM

As the nation of Israel came out of Egypt and neared the Promise Land, the Lord commanded them to send in 12 to spy out the land. When the 12 returned 10 of them gave discouraging reports; only Joshua and Caleb encouraged the people. The nation as a whole rebelled against God. At that time God did not hold accountable their younger ones for the rebellion. The generation that actually rebelled and were accountable for that decision that they chose and had the will to do so, would die in the wilderness. It would be their children that would inherit the Promised Land, under Joshua, not Moses.

Those that are not able to be accountable, to make a decision for themselves--to receive or reject Christ, will not be held accountable. Salvation is by faith. But one must be able to exercise faith in order to be held accountable for the decision.

 

[WestminsterMan]

As the nation of Israel came out of Egypt and neared the Promise Land, the Lord commanded them to send in 12 to spy out the land. When the 12 returned 10 of them gave discouraging reports; only Joshua and Caleb encouraged the people. The nation as a whole rebelled against God. At that time God did not hold accountable their younger ones for the rebellion. The generation that actually rebelled and were accountable for that decision that they chose and had the will to do so, would die in the wilderness. It would be their children that would inherit the Promised Land, under Joshua, not Moses.

Those that are not able to be accountable, to make a decision for themselves--to receive or reject Christ, will not be held accountable. Salvation is by faith. But one must be able to exercise faith in order to be held accountable for the decision.

Well I don't dispute that. But, it does seem to go against the concept of faith alone. If it were faith alone in the proper sense, then there wouldn't be exceptions for those without faith. Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with those exceptions.

WM

 

[DHK]

We are at 30 pages. This thread needs to close.