Catholic Mary

[DaChaser1]

OK ... one more time:
Point 1) Catholic doctrine forbids the worship of anyone or anything other than God.

Point 2) There is a difference between veneration (honor) and worship.

If you don't believe me then go look it up in their Catechism. However, here's a good description:

(Greek doulia; Latin servitus), a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while latria means worship given to God alone, and hyperdulia the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary. St. Augustine (City of God X.2) distinguishes two kinds of servitus: "one which is due to men . . . which in Greek is called dulia; the other, latria, which is the service pertaining to the worship of God". St. Thomas (II-II:103:3) bases the distinction on the difference between God's supreme dominion and that which one man may exercise over another. Catholic theologians insist that the difference is one of kind and not merely of degree; dulia and latria being as far apart as are the creature and the Creator. Leibniz, though a Protestant, recognizes the "discrimen infinitum atque immensum between the honour which is due to God and that which is shown to the saints, the one being called by theologians, after Augustine's example, latria, the other dulia"; and he further declares that this difference should "not only be inculcated in the minds of hearers and learners, but should also be manifested as far as possible by outward signs" (Syst. theol., p. 184). A further distinction is made between dulia in the absolute sense, the honour paid to persons, and dulia in the relative sense, the honour paid to inanimate objects, such as images and relics. With regard to the saints, dulia includes veneration and invocation; the former being the honour paid directly to them, the latter having primarily in view the petitioner's advantage.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm



You might want to look at the Nestorian heresy before you make that claim. Nestorians considered Mary the "Christotokos" (the woman who gave birth to the human Jesus) rather than the "Theotokos" (the person who gave birth to God), and believed that she bore Jesus in human form. Those who consider Mary the “Theotokos” believe she bore the divine Jesus. This has always been the position of the Church since the beginning.



And just where do you think the Greek word "Theotokos" comes from?



This is pure and unadulterated garbage.

Just look at Church history and how far back this “fictional Apostolic succession” goes.

Irenaus Against Heresies Book III: 2-3 c. 180 A.D

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

-- Later, Augustine confirms this line of succession. --

Augustine (Letters 53:2 [A.D. 412]).

2. For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found.

Oops...

WM

RCC teaches that mary bore GOD, was Mother of God, in the sense that she was co matrix/co redemptress, etc

derived from her status of being bearer of god, she was Mother to Jesus, NOT eternall mother of eternal God! She bore /contributed His humanity, did NOT bring forth God nature, as he always was that!

Also, even Paul and James were acknowleged by "Pope peter" as being his equals, as was Spostle John in the early Church...

Doctrines of mary/papacy etc ALL derived from RCC itself, NONE found in sacred scriptures!

No apostoloc succession ever was needed, as per the Bible, within it ALONE is the faith(doctrines/practices) once and for all delivered unto the saints!

 

[The Biblicist]

You went from faith alone to grace alone. nice jump. Catholics also believe that grace is essential for salvation.

Note faith and grace together means neither is alone.

Yes they are.

Grace is ALONE as the sole BASIS for salvation and "salvation" refers to the whole spectrum rather than one aspect of it.

Faith is ALONE as the sole MEANS in receiving justification and in regard to the only other alternative "justification by works" and "faith" is "of grace" (Rom. 4:16).

Christ is ALONE as the only PROVISION for salvation and SOLE object of faith in regard to salvation.

So it is perfectly scriptural to express these three Biblical truths as we are saved "by grace ALONE through justification by faith ALONE in Christ as the sole object of faith ALONE.

 

[The Biblicist]

Can you worship without veneration? If not, then veneration is inclusive of true worship. Hence, what attitudes and acts constittue true worship? The very house of God is repeatedly characterized as the "house of prayer."

The Greek term "proseuchomai" is the technical term for RELIGIOUS prayer. It is never ever used between men on earth and any one in heaven but God. All other terms translated "prayer" have no religious significance as they can be used in casual conversation and yet these words are never ever used by men on earth to describe any kind of conversation with anyone in heaven but God.

Bowing to a king as a sign of civil honor or respect for office is not a RELIGIOUS act. However, bowing to a RELIGIOUS image is a RELIGIOUS act and thus an act of worship.

Simply denying it is on the basis of a term definitions does not change it from what it is, a RELIGIOUS act. The Bible forbids bowing to images as a RELIGIOUS act (Exod. 20:4-5).

Roman Catholics cannot possibly deny that bowing to images is a RELIGOUS act and as such is an act of worship just as "proseuchomai" is ALWAYS an act of worship and when any other term translated "prayer" is directed toward heaven is ALWAYS an act of worship simply because every single time in scripture where any term translated "prayer" is in a context where it is directed by men on earth to heaven it is never ever used toward anyone in heaven but God alone.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes they are.

Grace is ALONE as the sole BASIS for salvation and "salvation" refers to the whole spectrum rather than one aspect of it.

Faith is ALONE as the sole MEANS in receiving justification and in regard to the only other alternative "justification by works" and "faith" is "of grace" (Rom. 4:16).

Christ is ALONE as the only PROVISION for salvation and SOLE object of faith in regard to salvation.

So it is perfectly scriptural to express these three Biblical truths as we are saved "by grace ALONE through justification by faith ALONE in Christ as the sole object of faith ALONE.

You keep insisting Alone doesn't mean alone. Alone means nothing else is required for salvation. What you are basically really saying is that in order to be saved you need Grace, Faith, and Jesus Christ. They all work together to save the individual. if all you need is faith ie as in faith alone then grace and Christ are irrelevant to your salvation. If you grace is alone then you don't need faith or Christ.

You're just playing word games to suggest something you don't even believe. You recognize you need all three elements for salvation but you don't want to admit it.

 

[WestminsterMan]

1 Pet. 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Peter denies that the scriptures were the "private interpretation" of the writers of scripture but rather what they wrote is the personal opinion of God and God alone. They were moved along by the Holy Spirit to write what God wanted them to write and that is precisely why it the scriptures are called "The Word of God" or "God's Word."

Hence, the scriptures provide OBJECTIVE truth not merely SUBJECTIVE truths. The scriptures can be "rightly divided" and false interpretations can be demonstrated by common sense rules of interpretation as every scripture is placed in a CONTEXT for definition.

God has designed the scriptures to be understood and to be used to discern truth from error (Isa. 8:20; 1 Jn 4:1,6; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; etc.).

But that's exactly what you are doing - private interpretation. Putting that aside for a moment...
Are you saying that you are one of those "holy men of God" who reads as moved by the Holy spirit? Besides... scripture says that no one is Holy but God.

Anyway - let's get down to a common sense level for a moment.

You, a fallible human, interpret (read, are moved by the HS, etc.) and come to an understanding of what scripture says.

I, another fallible human, interpret (read, are moved by the HS, etc.) and come to a DIFFERENT understanding of what scripture says.

So how is it that both of us - spirit filled Christians - can come to different menaings of scripture? There is but one truth and the Holy Spirit is truth.

Is the Holy Spirit schizophrenic? No. Therefore, one or both of us is/are wrong.

Further, how is it that for 1500 years the Catholic Church had it all wrong and now you, a fallible human, can claim that you have the truth over that which was taught for 1500 years? If this is true and the CC taught error for 1500 years, then there are millions of people in hell because of it. Ultimately, this also means that the Gates of Hell DID prevail against the Church. We know that it didn't.

However, the Roman Catholic teaching contradicts what the Scriptures do provide. The scriptures explicitly say "all have sinned" and the only clearly stated exception is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ never claimed the need of a "redeemer" but Mary does claim "my redeemer."

Did Jesus sin? Nope. Yet, lets look at that scripture...

Romans 3:23-25: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God."

Is your exegesis for these verses that all have committed personal sin? Paul is quoting the old testament here (Psalm 14: 1-7). Those passages make a distinction between “evil doers” and “my people” also called therein, the “company of the righteous”. The context of these verses clearly shows that not all have sinned, but all “evil doers” have sinned. If all have sinned, then there are no righteous, a scenario that would put this scripture in conflict with itself. Clearly, this cannot be and only happens when verses are taken out of context.

If, however, in Romans, you believe that Paul is referring to personal sin, then you must make exceptions for infants and small children as they cannot have committed personal sin. Thus, making such an exception invalidates Paul’s use of the word “all”.

Next...

The Bible clearly defines the role of marriage and its responsibilitiess and that regular sexual union is a command of God (1 Cor. 7:4-5). The Bible clearly states Mary and Jospeh were married.

The Bible clearly states that Jesus had "brothers" and "sisters" in direct connection with both Joseph and Mary and those terms in that context has to be forced to mean something other than what it naturally implies if taken at face reading."

Not necessarily. Look at Jewish culture - then as today, you will see that the term brothers and sisters applies not only to extended family such as cousins, but also to friends of the family.

Lets look at the scriptural reference that you used earlier to make this claim. If scripture shows any deviation from the "face reading" meaning of Jesus' biological brothers and sisters, then you stated position must be false.

Matthew 13:55
"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

These "brothers" are actually named in Matthew and Mark's Gospels:

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

This "other Mary" was probably Mary's (Jesus's Mother) cousin - not sister. the Greek word used here is Adelphe, which means sister, cousin, kinswoman, fellow countrywoman, neighbor, etc. It is highly unlikely that Mary had a uterine sister whose name was also Mary. This goes against Jewish custom.

Besides, according to John's Gospel, this other Mary is the wife of Clopas (also called Alphaeus).
This would make the "brethren" of Jesus his cousins - probably 2nd cousins, actually.

Whoa....

The Bible clearly restricts religious prayer (proseuchomai) only between saints on earth toward one Spirit being in Heaven - the Triune God.

Which bible? It depends on the translation. Look at the KJV.

The Bible clearly denies any more than "one mediator between God and man" and therefore it is anti-biblical to speak of a "co-redemptrix"

Thinkingstuff has already shot that claim down. The term "co-redemptrix" is not part of Catholic Dogma or Doctrine.

...or other mediators between men on earth and God in heaven.

Ultimately, there is but one mediator between God and man. Yet you are forgetting the difference between mediation and intercession. These are two different things. Do you pray for other brothers and sisters? If you do then you are interceding.

Whether you see it that way or not does not change the facts of history. The titles "Pontif Maximus" and "The Queen of Heaven" have their prior origin in Babylonian paganism practiced at Rome not in the Scriptures. The "college of Pontifs" has its origin in paganism not in the Scriptures and that is exactly the relationship between the Roman Catholic "Pontif Maxiumus" and "college of Cardinals" from whence the "Pontif Maximus" is chosen.

The term God has its origins in pre-jewish pagan cultures. Does that make the title unusable for Christians? No! Besides - if you're all tourqed out about paganism, take off your wedding band and throw away your calendar.

Further the Catholic Church has some scriptural backing for the term. Read Revelation 12.

WM

 

[Alive in Christ]

WestminsterMan...

Point 1) Catholic doctrine forbids the worship of anyone or anything other than God.

Thats what the Catholic cult *says*. But then they turn right around and engage in full blown goddess worship regarding Mary.

God is NOT amused.

Point 2) There is a difference between veneration (honor) and worship.

The only difference is the words used.

There are a whole lot of people who, sadly, are going to be in for the shock of their lives on judgment day. :tear:

 

[The Biblicist]

You keep insisting Alone doesn't mean alone. Alone means nothing else is required for salvation. What you are basically really saying is that in order to be saved you need Grace, Faith, and Jesus Christ. They all work together to save the individual. if all you need is faith ie as in faith alone then grace and Christ are irrelevant to your salvation. If you grace is alone then you don't need faith or Christ.

You're just playing word games to suggest something you don't even believe. You recognize you need all three elements for salvation but you don't want to admit it.

You are jerking our language out of the context we place it in and then putting it in the context of your own making where you can attack it. When placed in the context of your making it is oxymoronic. But when it is placed back in the context of our making it is consistent with not only our doctrine but with scripture.

First the term "salvation" is comphrehensive of more than justification by faith. So to place all these terms equally in that comprehensive context distorts/perverts what we are saying. If you want to distinguish different aspects by using the past versus the present and future tense of "save" then that is fine as long as the right tense is aligned with the right aspect of salvation ("saved" = regeneration/justification; "being saved" = progessive sanctification; "shall be saved" = glorification).

Second, the term "alone" is defined by what each aspect (grace, faith, Christ) is contrasted with in scripture and in response to what Scripture eliminates as its only other alternative, thus leaving it ALONE wthout any other alternatives.

For example we are "justified" through "faith" ALONE! Justification though faith is contrasted in the scriptures with justification by works as the only other alternative. Scripture eliminates "justification by works"(Rom. 3:28) thus eliminating the only other alternative leaving ONLY "justification by faith" ALONE as the Biblical teaching. Since faith is "of grace" (Rom. 4:16) it is not contradictive to "grace" alone.

For example "Christ" and His provisions are placed in contrast with you and your provisions as the object of faith for justification. The scriptures eliminate you and your provisions as the proper object of faith for justification. Hence, Christ ALONE is the proper object of justifying faith.

For example, we are "saved" by "grace" ALONE! Grace is contrasted with works in scriptures (Rom. 11:6) as the only contrasting alternative. Scriptures eliminate works and thus grace ALONE stands as the basis for salvation.

Hence, there are no "games" being played but the expression "by grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE" accurately defines our soteriology and accurately defines the Biblical teaching.

 

[WestminsterMan]

RCC teaches that mary bore GOD, was Mother of God, in the sense that she was co matrix/co redemptress, etc.

derived from her status of being bearer of god, she was Mother to Jesus, NOT eternall mother of eternal God! She bore /contributed His humanity, did NOT bring forth God nature, as he always was that!.

Changing the topic are we? Hmmmm...

Also, even Paul and James were acknowleged by "Pope peter" as being his equals, as was Spostle John in the early Church...

Let's look at that statement. You and I are equal under the law. We all have the same rights (In the US anyway) so in that regard we can say that we are equal. Further, in that regard one can say that we are equal with the President of the United States. Yet, in other ways we are very UNEQUAL to him. He is the leader of the country and as such, he is a powerful individual, not in the same class as ourselves.

Just as the President of the nation is the leader of the free world, so Peter was the leader of Christ's Church on earth so appointed by Christ himself.

Doctrines of mary/papacy etc ALL derived from RCC itself, NONE found in sacred scriptures!

But, Catholics don't believe that scripture alone is the SOLE authority of faith and morals. Those are your rules not theirs.

No apostoloc succession ever was needed, as per the Bible, within it ALONE is the faith(doctrines/practices) once and for all delivered unto the saints!

We are talking about Apostolic succession not Mary, Dotrine, Practices, whatever. Now that those distractors are out of the way... No - scripture never says the Apostolic Succession was NEEDED, nor does it preclude it. As a matter of fact, scripture sets up a heirachical structure for the Church.

None-the-less, needed or not, HISTORY shows that is exists - counter to your claim that the RCC made it all up. You are simply wrong!

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

But that's exactly what you are doing - private interpretation.

Peter is not talking about the READER of scripture but the WRITER of scripture as the next verse makes very clear. The human WRITER of scripture is not writing his own personal opinion or private interpretation of what he thinks God means but is being moved by God to say exactly what God said.

 

[DaChaser1]

Changing the topic are we? Hmmmm...



Let's look at that statement. You and I are equal under the law. We all have the same rights (In the US anyway) so in that regard we can say that we are equal. Further, in that regard one can say that we are equal with the President of the United States. Yet, in other ways we are very UNEQUAL to him. He is the leader of the country and as such, he is a powerful individual, not in the same class as ourselves.

Just as the President of the nation is the leader of the free world, so Peter was the leader of Christ's Church on earth so appointed by Christ himself.



But, Catholics don't believe that scripture alone is the SOLE authority of faith and morals. Those are your rules not theirs.




We are talking about Apostolic succession not Mary, Dotrine, Practices, whatever. Now that those distractors are out of the way... No - scripture never says the Apostolic Succession was NEEDED, nor does it preclude it. As a matter of fact, scripture sets up a heirachical structure for the Church.

None-the-less, needed or not, HISTORY shows that is exists - counter to your claim that the RCC made it all up. You are simply wrong!

WM

I am correct per the Bible, while you are still addressing it from the viewpoint of RCC, non biblical!

 

[WestminsterMan]

WestminsterMan...

Thats what the Catholic cult *says*. But then they turn right around and engage in full blown goddess worship regarding Mary.

God is NOT amused.

You know... I take them at their word. I figure they probably know what they believe better than you or I do. Just sayin...

There are a whole [bunch] of people who, sadly, are going to be in for the shock of their lives on judgment day. :tear:

You bet - and there will be plenty of Catholics, Prodestants, etc. represented in that group.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Peter is not talking about the READER of scripture but the WRITER of scripture as the next verse makes very clear. The human WRITER of scripture is not writing his own personal opinion or private interpretation of what he thinks God means but is being moved by God to say exactly what God said.

Well with that I completely agree.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Anyway - let's get down to a common sense level for a moment.

You, a fallible human, interpret (read, are moved by the HS, etc.) and come to an understanding of what scripture says.

I, another fallible human, interpret (read, are moved by the HS, etc.) and come to a DIFFERENT understanding of what scripture says.

So how is it that both of us - spirit filled Christians - can come to different menaings of scripture? There is but one truth and the Holy Spirit is truth.

Is the Holy Spirit schizophrenic? No. Therefore, one or both of us is/are wrong.

There can only be one of two conclusions. God wrote his Word so that no one can understand it or He wrote it as a REVELATION to be understood. Which is it?

The fact that he says it is "profitable" for doctrine, correction, instruction, reproof" demonstrates the latter and denies the former.

You are exactly right in your final conclusion - either one of us or both of us are wrong!

How can it be determined which one is right or wrong? That is what the science of hermeneutics is all about - "rightly dividing the Word of truth." If God wrote it as a REVELATION to his people to REVEAL His will then he wrote it so that it can be discerned or else there is no reason to write it in the first place. Paul would not have applauded the Bereans for searching the Scriptures to check him out if apostles or any other professed man of God's understanding of scripture was abritrarily final. We would not be commanded to "try the spirits" in prophets if every prophet was to be taken merely at his word. We would not be called upon to "study the scriptures" if they were not to be understood! We would not be called upon to use the scriptures to try others interpretations if the scriptures were not given for that purpose (Isa. 8:20).

Further, how is it that for 1500 years the Catholic Church had it all wrong and now you, a fallible human, can claim that you have the truth over that which was taught for 1500 years? If this is true and the CC taught error for 1500 years, then there are millions of people in hell because of it. Ultimately, this also means that the Gates of Hell DID prevail against the Church. We know that it didn't.

Even the Catholic church admits that there were thousands of professed Christians and congregations living during that same time who repudiated them and for which they called them "heretics." So, even their own history is a testimony that all did not agree with them during the same 1500 years.

Secondly, are they above the commands given in Isaiah 8:20 or 1 John 4:1,6?

Thirdly, does not the apostles predict a great apostasy future from their time (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1-9).

Fourth, does not Jesus describe the kingdom of God invested increasingly with "tares" all the way up to the end of the world (Mt. 13) in so much that he rhetorical asks "shall I find faith" when he returns (Lk. 18:8)??

 

[WestminsterMan]

I am correct per the Bible, while you are still addressing it from the viewpoint of RCC, non biblical!

What... because the Bible never says that Apostolic succession was needed, then the RCC viewpoint is non-biblical? That's an argument from silence (not to mention illogical) and thus holds no sway.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

There can only be one of two conclusions. God wrote his Word so that no one can understand it or He wrote it as a REVELATION to be understood. Which is it?

The fact that he says it is "profitable" for doctrine, correction, instruction, reproof" demonstrates the latter and denies the former.

You are exactly right in your final conclusion - either one of us or both of us are wrong!

How can it be determined which one is right or wrong? That is what the science of hermeneutics is all about - "rightly dividing the Word of truth." If God wrote it as a REVELATION to his people to REVEAL His will then he wrote it so that it can be discerned or else there is no reason to write it in the first place. Paul would not have applauded the Bereans for searching the Scriptures to check him out if apostles or any other professed man of God's understanding of scripture was abritrarily final. We would not be commanded to "try the spirits" in prophets if every prophet was to be taken merely at his word. We would not be called upon to "study the scriptures" if they were not to be understood! We would not be called upon to use the scriptures to try others interpretations if the scriptures were not given for that purpose (Isa. 8:20).

I hate break it to you (well, not really) but hermeneutics is not really considered a science.

WM

 

[DaChaser1]

There can only be one of two conclusions. God wrote his Word so that no one can understand it or He wrote it as a REVELATION to be understood. Which is it?

Bible was/is revealtion from God, inpired writers to record what he intended for us to know, as it would be unknown to us without God giving it to us!

The fact that he says it is "profitable" for doctrine, correction, instruction, reproof" demonstrates the latter and denies the former.

You are exactly right in your final conclusion - either one of us or both of us are wrong!

How can it be determined which one is right or wrong? That is what the science of hermeneutics is all about - "rightly dividing the Word of truth." If God wrote it as a REVELATION to his people to REVEAL His will then he wrote it so that it can be discerned or else there is no reason to write it in the first place. Paul would not have applauded the Bereans for searching the Scriptures to check him out if apostles or any other professed man of God's understanding of scripture was abritrarily final. We would not be commanded to "try the spirits" in prophets if every prophet was to be taken merely at his word. We would not be called upon to "study the scriptures" if they were not to be understood! We would not be called upon to use the scriptures to try others interpretations if the scriptures were not given for that purpose (Isa. 8:20).

Apostle John states that ALL believers have the annoiting from/of the HS, to be able to understand the truth

NO need for RCC to interprete it to us, as the HS HImself promised to bring personal illumination to us, as Christ said that he would!

]




Even the Catholic church admits that there were thousands of professed Christians and congregations living during that same time who repudiated them and for which they called them "heretics." So, even their own history is a testimony that all did not agree with them during the same 1500 years.

jesus promised to preserve HIS church throughout the ages to come...

That was done, as the Lord had His body of Christ upon earth preserved int he truth all that time...

Jesus meant the true church, all the saved in the Body of Christ, NOT the RCC itself!

Secondly, are they above the commands given in Isaiah 8:20 or 1 John 4:1,6?

Thirdly, does not the apostles predict a great apostasy future from their time (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1-9).

Aleady had started in Apostles Jude/John/paul time!

Fourth, does not Jesus describe the kingdom of God invested increasingly with "tares" all the way up to the end of the world (Mt. 13) in so much that he rhetorical asks "shall I find faith" when he returns (Lk. 18:8)??

Think that all of his objections jave been effectively countered by you and I, so we are back to seeing that the RCC has indeed mixed Grace/Law, that they promote a false Gospel!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are jerking our language out of the context

Not at all just using the terms and clarity of what they mean.

First the term "salvation" is comphrehensive of more than justification by faith.

Yes we agree. However that indicates that Faith is not alone in salvation. So you are not saved by faith alone but faith working in conjunction with other things.

So to place all these terms equally in that comprehensive context distorts/perverts what we are saying.

Not at all because you admit one aspect doesn't assure salvation of its self alone. Faith with out Christ or Grace cannot save. Thus it is not alone.

Second, the term "alone" is defined by what each aspect (grace, faith, Christ) is contrasted with in scripture and in response to what Scripture eliminates as its only other alternative, thus leaving it ALONE wthout any other alternatives.

Alone means

separate, apart, or isolated from others to the exclusion of all others or all else unique; unequaled

Therefore since grace, faith, Christ work together in conjunction with each other to provide salvation none are alone.

 

[The Biblicist]

I hate break it to you (well, not really) but hermeneutics is not really considered a science.

WM

I hate to break it to you but it is the fundemental science of all science as nothing can be read or understood apart from it - the laws of grammar, the laws of syntax are all involved in any ability to read or understand anything. There can be no communication at all apart from its basic laws. Communication ceases to exist without it in regard to anything and everything. Nothing can be written apart from it and nothing can be understood apart from it and nothing can be communicated apart from it.

It is so essential that Jesus Christ took upon the title "The Word" of God, as the essence of that title is revelation of the unseen God and His will. Words are visible expression of unseen thoughts which without there is no verbal or written communication or revelation and without proper order and relationships between each other there can be nothing written or spoken that makes sense.

 

[DHK]

The red herring.

You say that the red herring is that Biblicist understands that the Bible teaches justification by faith.
It is clearly taught in Romans 5:1. This is no red herring.

The problem is I do.

Now this is the problem--your arrogance.

The issue is your faith. In order to recieve justifying grace into your life it must be accepted.

Faith has an object. Christianity teaches that the object of our faith must be Christ. He is the author and finisher of our faith. Anything other than Christ as the object of our faith leads to eternal damnation. You have substituted "justifying grace" as the object of faith. You are clearly in the wrong.

Acceptance isn't an issue of works to obtain grace. Its an issue of will to cooperate.

Any cooperation with God's offer of salvation is clearly wrong. "For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works (read cooperation) lest any man should boast (Eph.2:8,9). You deny Scripture at this point. Your belief is clearly anti-Biblical.

Imputation is weak because it does not change the individual it only makes a declaration. Infused is stronger because it causes a fundamental change in the individual. Thus the person is not only declaired such but is transformed into such.

Wrong again. The Bible simply says that a man is declared righteous because of his faith. So it was with Abraham.

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
--Abraham believed God, and God declared him righteous. The rest of chapter four is centered around that theme. And then chapter five starts with this statement.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

We are declared righteous by our faith in Christ. It has nothing to do with works; nothing to do with cooperation. Any suggestion of such is directly opposed to what the Bible teaches.

 

[DHK]

First of all it wasn't the Catholics that had Tyndale put to death but King Henry the VIII. The Catholics might have disciplined or sensor Tyndale but it was the protestant king of England that put him to death. I would never have you killed DHK. You are Canadian and its against my belief to treat Canadians in such a manner even if they are opposed to my view.

The Catholics attitude toward the Word of God in the time of Tyndale:

Most people during Tyndale's time believed that one earned salvation through good works and penance, but he taught that salvation was a gift, one given freely by God despite the sins of the recipient. By 1525 he had translated the New Testament and it became the first English Bible to be printed on the printing press, as well as the first to be translated from the original Greek manuscripts instead of Latin. It was printed in the city of Worms and the first shipment was smuggled into England in only a few months. Once they arrived though, Bishop Tonstall began confiscating and burning as many of these Bibles as he could obtain, even going so far as to actually buy others in Europe so they would never reach England. Despite his efforts, however, circulation of Tyndale's Bibles actually began to increase instead of decrease, because Tyndale was using the Bishop's money to print even more of his translations.

As all this was going on, things were changing back in England. Unhappy with his wife Catherine, King Henry VIII wanted to divorce her and was arguing with Rome about his right to do just that; Thomas Cromwell, a man who supported the idea of Vernacular Bibles, was named the new Lord Chancellor of the king; and finally, Tyndale's most vehement opponent, Sir Thomas More, had resigned from the position of Lord Chancellor, and, because he refused to take an oath that recognized the king as the earthy head of the Church, was imprisoned in the Tower of London where he was eventually executed.



Despite all this though, Tyndale was betrayed by someone whom he thought to be a friend, Philips, and was arrested and then imprisoned form over five hundred days in the castle of Vilvoorden. In an incredibly unfair trial, Tyndale was tried for both heresy and treason and, obviously, was convicted and sentenced to be burned at the stake. In a small act of mercy on the part of his executioners though, he was first strangled before his body was burned. Just before his strangling, his last words were, "Lord, open the king of England's eyes." God did just that. Three years later King Henry VIII allowed the publication of a Bible that had been translated by both Myles Coverdale and William Tyndale.

http://voices.yahoo.com/william-tyndale-brief-biography-2219891.html

The RCC certainly had its hand in it.


It was not against the RCC's policy to exterminate the Albigenses by a bloody Crusade. This was genocide at its worst. It was not against their policy to kill by the sword. It was not against their policy to hold cruel inquisitions throughout the centuries. Why, as a RCC, should it be against your policy to do the same to me?