John's Gospel & Epistles

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
I am speaking not of "past sins" but of active, current doctrine.

Isn't ordaining lesbian women doctrine?

By the way, since you insist on continuing to obfuscate the actual discussion at hand, you are welcome to point out, in the PC(USA) Book of Confessions and Book of Order, where these liberal positions are upheld in our bylaws and stated doctrines.

What PCA may claim in your confession is one thing the practices of the PCA is another entirely. (Ironic response)

Ohhh... are you starting to feel like a Catholic under attack? Welcome to our world.

 

[Carson Weber]

Tragic,

Is your Church c67 or subscriptionist? If it's PCUSA, it's most probably c67, I would think.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
I noticed this moringing that EWTN was offewring a prayer of consecration to the blessed heart of Mary. Complete devotion to her... but of course, this is far from an idolatrous practice... right?

Your response to another thread:

"I know that if a person agrees with me on the One by whom we are saved, the rest is material for an interesting discussion, but as far as who is neccesarily right about a given interpretation upon Scripture, I will leave it to interpretation of original languages, the doctrine and teaching of the person's church, and above all the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

So you say.

The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is only through Christ.

Why then do you so stridently reject Tradition of the Church which Catholics believe to be supported by Scripture?

Also, if you sincerely mean the above, why are you so upset with the liberals in your church? Don't they agree with you on the One by whom we are saved? Ordained women lesbians in your church should then be for you merely material for an interesting discussion. </font>[/QUOTE]Answer to all of the above: the beliefs and practices are clearly unsupported by Scripture. Tradition does not now, nor has it ever, equalled the truth of Scripture. This is the error of the Pharisees, if you'll recall. And lesbians/homosexual ordination is not a position supported by the PC(USA) Book of Order. Any ordained lesbians received ordination by other than "legal" Presbyterian means.

Again, obfuscation.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Answer to all of the above: the beliefs and practices are clearly unsupported by Scripture. Tradition does not now, nor has it ever, equalled the truth of Scripture.

By your interpretation. Doesn't mean your interpretation is correct.

And lesbians/homosexual ordination is not a position supported by the PC(USA) Book of Order. Any ordained lesbians received ordination by other than "legal" Presbyterian means.

So if PC USA doesn't support it, who exactly is ordaining them.

Like I said, your outdated Book of Order isn't in lilne with practice.

BTW where can I find "Book of Order" in the Bible?

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Answer to all of the above: the beliefs and practices are clearly unsupported by Scripture. Tradition does not now, nor has it ever, equalled the truth of Scripture.

By your interpretation. Doesn't mean your interpretation is correct.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh? OK.

At least it's an interpretation of Scripture,, and not a wholesale innovation plopped in place of Scripture.

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.

And lesbians/homosexual ordination is not a position supported by the PC(USA) Book of Order. Any ordained lesbians received ordination by other than "legal" Presbyterian means.

So if PC USA doesn't support it, who exactly is ordaining them.

Like I said, your outdated Book of Order isn't in lilne with practice.

BTW where can I find "Book of Order" in the Bible? [/QUOTE]

*sigh*

I recall that, recently, some women were ordained as Catholic priests. Who did that -- the RC leadership, or militants in opposition to the RC leadership?

There's your answer.

The specific parts of the B of O which deal with ordination of homosexuals are currently under fire in the PC(USA).

Again, you're obfuscating the discussion at hand. You want to discuss the practices of the PC(USA), make a thread, and if I'm interested, i may respond. All you're doing here is ignoring the actual discussion.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Tragic,

Is your Church c67 or subscriptionist? If it's PCUSA, it's most probably c67, I would think.

What do you mean?

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
This thread needs to stay on subject, Ron. Address Mary only, in this thread.

Here is what you wrote, Curtis, for the topic of this thread:

What is the RCC's position on when these books were written ?

"I believe, after a little study, that they were recorded between 85-95 A.D. I can't absolutely prove it, but I didn't see where a big argument ensued, like the arguments surrounding Hebrews, or 1&2 Peter.

Any ideas ? "

Try being honest with your opening posts, Curtis. There is NOTHING about Mary here. You introduced the Assumption later on. Or as you so lyingly call it, the "ascension."

God bless,

Grant

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The point was to try and get an honest answer on why John ommited your fable about Mary.

I didn't get the answer, but sure got a lot of info!!!

Mary rose to heaven. LOL. You guys will believe anything.

 

[Catholic Dad]

Boy Curtis, you protestants will make up anything when it suits you.

Your original post was:

What is the RCC's position on when these books were written ?

"I believe, after a little study, that they were recorded between 85-95 A.D. I can't
absolutely prove it, but I didn't see where a big argument ensued, like the arguments
surrounding Hebrews, or 1&2 Peter.

Any ideas ? "

There is nothing in these words that even remotely suggest a point about Mary. You're just making up your own protestant traditions!

Catholic Dad

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
The point was to try and get an honest answer on why John ommited your fable about Mary.

So now we're not only deceived, we're just outright dishonest, is that it, Curtis? That you have to trick us to get answers out of us. Come on, be a big boy and just come out and say it.

But the best part is that in order to prove your point, or lack of one, you have to fabricate things. "Ommited"..."fable." Perhaps using these words makes you feel like you know what you're talking about, but in reality it shows that you don't know how to listen and that you are in general disrespectful of others beliefs. But, I think you are proud of that fact. After all, you hate the Catholic Church. That makes it okay to be rude, dishonest (in order to achieve honesty from us...what a novel idea THAT was), and make 1-3 sentence snide remarks instead of contributing to the dialogue.

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
I didn't get the answer, but sure got a lot of info!!!

You mean the answer that "Mary did not ascend into Heaven?" Yeah, we're all in agreement on that, Curtis. As for her assumption, the only reason you don't get an answer is because you have cotton stuffed in your ears and a blindfold around your eyes.

If you wish to disagree, I have no problems with that. I have no problems with anyone disagreeing with me. I have a problem with people who don't read my posts and claim they don't have an answer to their questions. You see, your definition of an answer to your question is for the person to end up believing exactly as you do. When you realize who illogical this practice is, please chime in and let me know.

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
Mary rose to heaven. LOL. You guys will believe anything.

Mary was "taken" into Heaven. You people filled with hate (perhaps that's just you, Curtis; few others have expressed such dire resentment) will believe anything that libelous websites proclaim.

God bless you,

Grant

 

[tragic_pizza]

Prove, Scripturally, that Mary was taken to Heaven.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Prove, Scripturally, that Mary was taken to Heaven.

That's not the assertion. The assertion is that it is CONTRARY to Scripture, or that it must STAND UP TO Scripture. You guys keep telling us that we misrepresent Sola Scriptura. Scripture is the FINAL authority, you say. If a belief causes a contradiction, then there is a problem.

What you have to do is tell me why Mary's assumption goes AGAINST Scripture. What contradiction is present? What other theological belief of yours does it challenge?

God bless,

Grant

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
The point was to try and get an honest answer on why John ommited your fable about Mary.

I didn't get the answer, but sure got a lot of info!!!

Mary rose to heaven. LOL. You guys will believe anything.

Talk about hillarious. Mary being taken up in to heaven by God is outside of God's power? Or is it bodily assumption in to heaven that you find so hillarious. Do you deny bodily ressurectoin and assumption in to heaven? If you do then there is no hope for us. God will perform something even more difficult for us at his comming. He will reconsturct our physical bodies and then unite them with our souls and we will be with him throughtout all eternity.

Yes, I do believe God can do anything. That is what an all powerfull God is after all.

Blessings.

 

[show me]

There was a post on the BB about a year ago by one of the Catholics that no longer post on this board. They mentioned a church that was excavated some years back that dated back to the 2nd century that had a mural that depicted the assumption of Mary. I went away at the time and was not able to find out more information about this claim. Anyone know anything about this?

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Prove, Scripturally, that Mary was taken to Heaven.

That's not the assertion. The assertion is that it is CONTRARY to Scripture, or that it must STAND UP TO Scripture. You guys keep telling us that we misrepresent Sola Scriptura. Scripture is the FINAL authority, you say. If a belief causes a contradiction, then there is a problem.

What you have to do is tell me why Mary's assumption goes AGAINST Scripture. What contradiction is present? What other theological belief of yours does it challenge?

God bless,

Grant </font>[/QUOTE]The cult of Mary challenges several theological beliefs.

First, the sovereignty of God. Rather than a triune Godhead, Marian theology places a fourth individual (at least; I'm not counting the cult of saints yet) into the fray. We are asked to consecrate ourselves to her -- an action reserved only for the One who bought our salvation with His blood. We are told to ask her for intercession -- when her Son, Himself, directed us to pray directly to the Father in His name, and to use no other.

Second, the reliability of Scripture. Nothing in the canon suggests any previous assumption; certainly Enoch and Elijah were taken to heaven without dying, but much is made of their holy life prior to this predeath translation. Mary, on the other hand, is noted for her willingness to submit to the will of God, her disbelief in her son's sanity at one point in the ministry of Jesus, and for being put under the care of the apostle John. Following this, we hear nothing more at all of Mary. Canon is sealed, and the only church at the time, the Catholic Church, is quite happy that the totality of Scriptural truth has been completed.

Without, to reiterate, a shred of Marian theology.

Only after the conversion of many Romans to Christianity by Constantine, and the settling of the Athenasian vs. Arian controversy, do we see Mary begin receiving attention. Only in the ninteenth century does this attention become a doctrine unto itself.

Third, dependence upon Christ as the Author and Finisher of our faith. He is somehow incomplete without Mary as the Queen of the Universe to aid Him in His saving work.

Fourth, the assumption of Mary smacks of Arian theology. Mary was "good enough" to be assumed. Can we be "good enough" to also receive this kind of blessing? Why or why not?

There's a lot more, especially when we add the cult of saints into the frey, but that'll do for now.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
First, the sovereignty of God. Rather than a triune Godhead, Marian theology places a fourth individual (at least; I'm not counting the cult of saints yet) into the fray.

It does? Please show me the official documents. Heck, show me any good Catholic source that even remotely hints at this.

Last I checked, God can share His authority with whomever He pleases. Did he not give Adam the authority over every living creature? Does this make God less of a God than before? Does it give Adam Godhead status? No, and no.

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
We are asked to consecrate ourselves to her -- an action reserved only for the One who bought our salvation with His blood.

Please tell me what you think it means to be consecrated to Mary.

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
We are told to ask her for intercession -- when her Son, Himself, directed us to pray directly to the Father in His name, and to use no other.

Paul told the early Christians to intercede for him. I didn't realize you thought Paul was a heretic.

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Second, the reliability of Scripture. Nothing in the canon suggests any previous assumption; certainly Enoch and Elijah were taken to heaven without dying, but much is made of their holy life prior to this predeath translation.

So, Mary led an unholy life. Glad you got that from Scripture.

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Mary, on the other hand, is noted for her willingness to submit to the will of God, her disbelief in her son's sanity at one point in the ministry of Jesus, and for being put under the care of the apostle John.

So you say it is a lack of holiness written? Please tell me all the evidence for Enoch's holiness. I see that He "walked with God, and he was no longer here, for God took him." Genesis 5:24. Where is this obvious evidence of holiness in God's Word that is missing for Mary?

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Following this, we hear nothing more at all of Mary. Canon is sealed, and the only church at the time, the Catholic Church, is quite happy that the totality of Scriptural truth has been completed.

Considering every word of Jesus and the Apostles was not recorded during this time, that doesn't mean theological information was not present that simply was not recorded in the epistles.

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Without, to reiterate, a shred of Marian theology.

It's there. We've shown it to you many times.

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Only after the conversion of many Romans to Christianity by Constantine, and the settling of the Athenasian vs. Arian controversy, do we see Mary begin receiving attention. Only in the ninteenth century does this attention become a doctrine unto itself.

Carson has shown you the first Marian prayer, which is from the first century. Obviously, she has always had attention.

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Third, dependence upon Christ as the Author and Finisher of our faith. He is somehow incomplete without Mary as the Queen of the Universe to aid Him in His saving work.

He is in no way incomplete, for He is God. That doesn't mean He didn't chose to do things in certain ways. Will you also argue that God was so weak that He had to be born of a woman to save us? Or maybe, just maybe, He has reasons for acting in these ways in which humans get to participate in His divine plan.

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
Fourth, the assumption of Mary smacks of Arian theology. Mary was "good enough" to be assumed. Can we be "good enough" to also receive this kind of blessing? Why or why not?

Mary was chosen by God, and all her blessings were from God. We all have our own individual blessings. There is no need for jealousy.

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
There's a lot more, especially when we add the cult of saints into the frey, but that'll do for now.

No, I don't see theological problems with that either.

God bless,

Grant

 

[tragic_pizza]

I can see we're getting into the "putting words in pizza-man's mouth" mode here.

Paul was speaking to LIVING PEOPLE.

The rest is proof that you didn't read my post for anything other than response fuel. Oh, well. I'll respond to the following, though:

Considering every word of Jesus and the Apostles was not recorded during this time, that doesn't mean theological information was not present that simply was not recorded in the epistles.

It is possible, using this argument, that Jesus turned Peter into a jelly doughnut and back again. Or that He spoke at length about nuclear proliferation. Or that He traveled to India on horseback and discovered chai.

It is a dangerous practice, this theology of developing what might have been in the holes. I strongly reccomend avoiding it.

 

[GraceSaves]

Pizza man

I don't have to worry about, though, because Christ instituted a Church that would be free from doctrinal error.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Free from doctrinal error. LOL. You guys will believe anything.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Being free from doctrinal error isn't free. You pay for it with vigilance, and testing. See if it's born from above. It requires work.