Mariology vs Mariolatry

[Clint Kritzer]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi BobRyan,

Have you ever looked up the term "bigotry" in the dictionary? It's a fascinating vice.

Read my lips. Catholics adore nobody and nothing other than the Most Holy Trinity.

This is really simple. Do I have to repeat myself? Okay, very well then.

Catholics do not worship statues or saints.

Still don't get it? Let me try once again.

"Only God is to be worshipped" - the Catholic Church.

Are you still confused? Okay, one last time:

Pictures are just images that symbolize people we love, and by kissing them, we do so out of love just as one lays flowers on a grave to honor a descendent.

You STILL don't get it? One FINAL time:

We don't worship Mary.

I hope this helps. If it doesn't, may God bless you and keep you, may he turn his face to you and give you his countenance, and may he bring you to everlasting life.

yours in Christ,

Carson

Carson -

You should read the first ten pages of this thread. Perhaps then you would see how ridiculous your double-speak sounds. It is well established from Catholic sources that Catholics DO worship Mary. Why on earth are you trying to deny it when the evidence is right before you?

As for the label "bigotry," wasn't it you who said in a thread today that Protestantism is evil? Isn't it you who tries to lump all Baptists into a single file of the modern term of "fundamentalists"?

Be careful where you throw those labels. You are becoming rather loose with them.

Matthew 7:3
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

[ November 27, 2002, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Clint,

You wrote, "It is well established from Catholic sources that Catholics DO worship Mary."

Clint, we've already spoken about this, and we've already been over this, so why are you starting this confusion all over again?

Catholics do not worship Mary in the postmodern, English usage of the term, which bespeaks of latria.

God bless you,

Carson

 

[Clint Kritzer]

It is not I spreading the confusion, Carson. Whether the term be in Latin, English, French, or swahili, call it what it is: worship. The contortions that you go through to dismiss the Second Commandment do not negate such.

Catholics do not worship Mary in the postmodern, English usage of the term, which bespeaks of latria.

Are you referring to the term used in the 1908 edition of the Catholic encyclopeia? The language has not evolved that much in the past 100 years. Does the most recent version use a different definition for the term hyperdulia? I doubt it does.

I fail to see where anything was established that supports your contention that the terms used in the cited sources are obsolete. You are ineffectively trying to sweep the issue under the carpet.

Perhaps you can cite a Scriptural example of a dichotomy of worship that does not equate to idolatry.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Clint,

It seems that you want to continue in this nonsense. Very well.

You wrote, "Whether the term be in Latin, English, French, or swahili, call it what it is: worship."

Words are simply signs that point to realities, and the signs themselves point to different realities according to various cultures.

"Worship" is an English word that one point in time meant something completely different than what we mean for it today to mean.

Here, let's go through a simple lesson provided by Catholic Answers:
___

The word "worship" has undergone a change in meaning in English. It comes from the Old English weorthscipe, which means the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. To worship in the older, larger sense is to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence to someone, whether a sage, a magistrate, or God.

For many centuries, the term worship simply meant showing respect or honor, and an example of this usage survives in contemporary English. British subjects refer to their magistrates as "Your Worship," although Americans would say "Your Honor." This doesn’t mean that British subjects worship their magistrates as gods (in fact, they may even despise a particular magistrate they are addressing). It means they are giving them the honor appropriate to their office, not the honor appropriate to God.

Outside of this example, however, the English term "worship" has been narrowed in scope to indicate only that supreme form of honor, reverence, and respect that is due to God. This change in usage is quite recent. In fact, one can still find books that use "worship" in the older, broader sense. This can lead to a significant degree of confusion, when people who are familiar only with the use of words in their own day and their own circles encounter material written in other times and other places.

In Scripture, the term "worship" was similarly broad in meaning, but in the early Christian centuries, theologians began to differentiate between different types of honor in order to make more clear which is due to God and which is not.

As the terminology of Christian theology developed, the Greek term latria came to be used to refer to the honor that is due to God alone, and the term dulia came to refer to the honor that is due to human beings, especially those who lived and died in God’s friendship—in other words, the saints. Scripture indicates that honor is due to these individuals (Matt. 10:41b). A special term was coined to refer to the special honor given to the Virgin Mary, who bore Jesus—God in the flesh—in her womb. This term, hyperdulia (hyper [beyond]+ dulia = "beyond dulia"), indicates that the honor due to her as Christ’s own Mother is beyond the dulia given to other saints. It is greater in degree, but still of the same kind. However, since Mary is a finite creature, the honor she is due is fundmentally different in kind from the latria owed to the infinite Creator.

All of these terms—latria, dulia, hyperdulia—used to be lumped under the one English word "worship." Sometimes when one reads old books discussing the subject of how particular persons are to be honored, they will qualify the word "worship" by referring to "the worship of latria" or "the worship of dulia." To contemporaries and to those not familiar with the history of these terms, however, this is too confusing.

Another attempt to make clear the difference between the honor due to God and that due to humans has been to use the words adore and adoration to describe the total, consuming reverence due to God and the terms venerate, veneration, and honor to refer to the respect due humans. Thus, Catholics sometimes say, "We adore God but we honor his saints."

Unfortunatley, many non-Catholics have been so schooled in hostility toward the Church that they appear unable or unwilling to recognize these distinctions. They confidently (often arrogantly) assert that Catholics "worship" Mary and the saints, and, in so doing, commit idolatry. This is patently false, of course, but the education in anti-Catholic prejudice is so strong that one must patiently explain that Catholics do not worship anyone but God—at least given the contemporary use of the term. The Church is very strict about the fact that latria, adoration—what contemporary English speakers call "worship"—is to be given only to God.

Though one should know it from one’s own background, it often may be best to simply point out that Catholics do not worship anyone but God and omit discussing the history of the term. Many non-Catholics might be more perplexed than enlightened by hearing the history of the word. Familiar only with their group’s use of the term "worship," they may misperceive a history lesson as rationalization and end up even more adamant in their declarations that the term is applicable only to God. They may even go further. Wanting to attack the veneration of the saints, they may declare that only God should be honored.

Both of these declarations are in direct contradiction to the language and precepts of the Bible. The term "worship" was used in the same way in the Bible that it used to be used in English. It could cover both the adoration given to God alone and the honor that is to be shown to certain human beings. In Hebrew, the term for worship is shakah. It is appropriately used for humans in a large number of passages.

For example, in Genesis 37:7–9 Joseph relates two dreams that God gave him concerning how his family would honor him in coming years. Translated literally the passage states: "‘Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose and stood upright; and behold, your sheaves gathered round it, and worshiped [shakah] my sheaf.’ . . . Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, ‘Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were worshiping [shakah] me.’"

In Genesis 49:2-27, Jacob pronounced a prophetic blessing on his sons, and concerning Judah he stated: "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons shall worship [shakah] you (49:8)." And in Exodus 18:7, Moses honored his father-in-law, Jethro: "Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and worshiped [shakah] him and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare, and went into the tent."

Yet none of these passages were discussing the worship of adoration, the kind of worship given to God.
___

Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Saint_Worship.asp

End of story. End of conversation.

God bless you,

Carson

[ November 27, 2002, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[BobRyan]

Carson
You wrote, "It is well established from Catholic sources that Catholics DO worship Mary."

Clint, we've already spoken about this, and we've already been over this, so why are you starting this confusion all over again?

Catholics do not worship Mary in the postmodern, English usage of the term, which bespeaks of latria.

First of all I don't blame Carson for wanting to avoid this topic. The documents available from Catholic sources and their immediate equivalence to the same ideas on the same subject from Hindu and Bhudhist sources is all too prevalent.

The key here is that the image worship practiced by all pagan religions is on the same basis and in the same liturgical manner as is practiced in the Catholic church. This is obvious to all.

The "Argument" is why the RCC claims to "get by" with these pagan practices regarding prayers to the dead, adoration of the dead, using images of the dead in worship services, prayers incense.

The forms are identical, wrote prayers, incense, candles and petitions to the dead - some of whom are considered to be "all powerful" in the RC context - where few if any in the pagan realms are said to be "all-powerful" in the way that Catholics claim for Mary.

Basically Mariolotry is practiced on a level that exceeds EVEN what most pagans are doing today with their prayers to their ancestors/dead.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 28, 2002, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

Carson
Another attempt to make clear the difference between the honor due to God and that due to humans has been to use the words adore and adoration

This is another red herring. The RCC itself forbids "honoring humans" in the way you "adore" the dead and we all know this.

IF you were to start praying to a living human - claiming them as queen of the universe, all-powerful, co-redeemer etc This would be rejected by the RCC.

IF you were simply to pray to them and "Adore" them in the form we find for the dead in the RCC - the church ALSO forbids this.

Your claim that this is just the honor due a human - is rejected by the Cathoic Church.

But of course - you knew that. The point is although there is honor shown to our fellow humans - this is not in fact what the RCC is doing it it's prayers to the dead- NEITHER will it allow you to pray to the living and use such terms.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi BobRyan,

You wrote, "First of all I don't blame Carson for wanting to avoid this topic."

I would just like to note, for the sake of posterity, my own foremost, that I did not avoid this topic. It has been explained, and your further accusations (such as my supposed wanting to avoid the topic) are straw men.

But, I understand that there are those who run around with earplugs in and blindfolds on, wishing to swing their metal baseball bat at anything they disdain, irregardless of what they are being "shown" or what is being "told" to them.

And, I can't do much about that but allow them to swing the bat, irregardless of their sincerity, of which I highly doubt, but of which I am not the judge. We know who He is, and I have confidence in His judgement.

May God bless you,

Carson

 

[D28guy]

Clint,

You wrote...

"Carson -

You should read the first ten pages of this thread. Perhaps then you would see how ridiculous your double-speak sounds."

Clint and Bob,

I very much understand your frustration with the "double speak".

This is my 1st post here at BB, but I have been involved in an over 2000 post thread at another large evangelical discussion site with a few CCers, and I am encountering THE EXACT SAME THING. Its is the most frustating thing.

They say "this"

You then counter with an argument based on them saying "this"

They then say "Oh, I would never say "this"!"

"But you said "this" in paragraph 2 of post #1175!!"

We Catholics would never say "this"!

I dont understand it. That is a very simplistic little hypothetical up there, but believe me, it has been going on for over 2000 posts now.

Very frustrating.

Someone mentioned the statues the CC uses, and the statues in Hinduism and Buddhism, etc, and the similarities in beliefs and meanings. Is there a web-site where those are clearly given in chart form, or some other graphic?

Thanks, and God bless,

"D"

 

[D28guy]

Carson,

Hello.

I want you to know that I do not, of course, have anything against you personally, and am not judging your relationship with Jesus Christ. My problems are only with the Catholic Church and her teachings and traditions.

I was raised Catholic...Mass every sunday, 8 years of parochial school, religion class, and CCD classes...so I am not just the product of outside bias against the CC. I was born again in 1982 when I had a life changing encounter with Jesus Christ. I am now an evangelical christian, and I attend a non-denominational evangelical/charismatic church.

Pleas let me share this with you...

" When Mary Speaks, Rome Listens

These apparitions and the supernatural phenomena associated with them, have not gone unnoticed by high level Church officials. In 1984 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the head of the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), declared that, "one of the signs of our times is that the announcements of 'Marian Apparitions' are multiplying all over the world." [Note 33]

Even the current pope has stated, "If I wasn't a Pope, I'd be in Medjugorje already." [Note 34] The pope has visited numerous Marian shrines and apparition sites and his Marian devotion is truly remarkable. In his book, "Crossing The Threshold of Hope," the pope writes: "I think what I have said sufficiently explains the Marian devotion of the present Pope and, above all, his attitude of total abandonment to Mary - his Totus Tuus." [Note 35]

Pope John Paul II believes that if victory comes to the Universal Church it will be brought by Mary. In his book, "Crossing The Threshold of Hope," he makes this unexpected statement:
After my election as Pope, as I became more involved in the problems of the universal Church, I came to have a similar conviction: On this universal level, if victory comes it will be brought by Mary. Christ will conquer through her, because he wants the Church's victories now and in the future to be linked to her.
I held this conviction even though I did not yet know very much about Fatima. I could see, however, that there was a certain continuity among La Salette, Lourdes, and Fatima - and, in distant past, our Polish Jasna Gora.
And thus we come to May 13, 1981, when I was wounded by gunshots fired in St. Peter's Square. At first, I did not pay attention to the fact that the assassination attempt had occurred on the exact anniversary of the day Mary appeared to the three children at Fatima in Portugal and spoke to them the words that now, at the end of this century, seem to be close to their fulfillment. [Note 36]

The pope credits the apparition of Our Lady of Fatima with saving his life during the 1981 assassination attempt. [Note 37] Shortly after the assassination attempt, Pope John Paul II, consecrated the entire world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. [Note 38] The pope's consecration was done in response to the request made by Our Lady of Fatima.

Furthermore, in October, 2000, the pope ordered the miraculous statue of Our Lady of Fatima to the Vatican for the Great Jubilee. On Sunday October 8th, Pope John Paul with 1500 bishops - the largest group to assemble since Vatican II - entrusted humanity and the 3rd millennium to Our Lady of Fatima! [Note 39]

The Queen's Agenda

As history comes to a close, the Queen of Heaven, who is counterfeiting the Mary of the Bible, has a specific agenda. She has made several remarkable predictions, but perhaps none so controversial as her proclamation that the Roman Catholic Church will declare her Coredemptrix. The Lady of All Nations, as she is called by the faithful, made this remarkable prediction to visionary Ida Peerdeman:
Once more I am here - The Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate is now standing before you. I have chosen this day: on this day the Lady will be crowned. Theologians and apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, listen carefully: I have given you the explanation of the dogma. Work and ask for this dogma. You should petition the Holy Father for this dogma.… On this date "the Lady of All Nations" will receive Her official title of "Lady of All Nations." [Note 49]

Pope John Paul II Refers to Mary as "Co-Redemptrix"

Additionally, the present pontiff, Pope John Paul II has applied the title "Co-Redemptrix" to the Blessed Virgin Mary on at least five occasions, including papal teachings accompanied by profound theological treatments on the unique participation of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the redemption of humanity by Jesus Christ. [Note 50] It is rumored that the pope may announce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix" very soon. [Note 51]

According to many Marian theologians, the Co-Redemptrix doctrine will be the last and final Marian dogma, and it will usher in her triumphant reign promised at Fatima. Authors Ted and Maureen Flynn explain what they and many other Marian theologians believe will soon take place.
The last major event will be the proclamation of the Blessed Mother as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate - the last and final Marian dogma of the Catholic Church. [Note 52]

Dogma, then Peace

As we have briefly highlighted, the Queen has promised to bring peace and unity to all her children. This will not occur, however, until she is proclaimed the Coredemptrix.
** When the dogma, the last dogma in Marian history, has been proclaimed, "the Lady of All Nations" will give peace, true peace to the world. The nations, however, must say My prayer in union with the Church. They must know that "the Lady of All Nations" has come as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. So be it! [Note 53]

Once she is proclaimed Co-Redemptrix by the Pope, the Queen will unite all religions under her mantle.

Queen Over All

Marian advocates often quote Saint Louis de Montfort, who was a great devotee of Our Lady. Saint Louis de Montfort predicted that:
The power of Mary over all devils will be particularly outstanding in the last period of time. She will extend the Kingdom of Christ over the idolators and Moslems, and there will come a glorious era in which Mary will be ruler and queen of human hearts. [Note 54]

Catholic visionary Mary of Agreda, who wrote the classic "Mystical City of God," conveyed what was told to her about the final era of peace:
Before the Second Coming of Christ, Mary must, more than ever, shine in mercy, might and grace in order to bring unbelievers into the Catholic Faith. The powers of Mary in the last times over demons will be very conspicuous. Mary will extend the reign of Christ over the heathens and Mohammedans, and it will be a time of great joy when Mary, as Mistress and Queen of Hearts is enthroned. [Note 55]

Rome will Rule

When the apparition of Mary speaks of unity, she means unity under the Roman Catholic Church. It is under the Church of Rome that "Mary" wishes to establish world unity.
Both humanity [the whole world] and the Church [the Roman Catholic Church] will experience this new era.… you will as of today see my light becoming stronger and stronger, until it encircles the whole earth, ready now to open itself to the new day, which will begin with the Triumph of my Immaculate Heart in the world. [Note 56]

A true reunification of Christians is not possible unless it be in the perfection of truth. And truth has been kept intact only in the Catholic Church, which must preserve it, defend it and proclaim it to all without fear. [Note 57]

Furthermore, Pope Pius IX made this remarkable prediction in 1878 concerning Mary's role to establish the world under her Church, the Roman Catholic Church:

We expect that the Immaculate Virgin and Mother of God, Mary, through her most powerful intercession, will bring it about that our Holy Mother the Catholic Church… will gain in influence from day to day among all nations and in all places, prosper and rule from ocean to ocean, from the great stream to the ends of the earth; that she will enjoy peace and liberty… and there will be then one fold and one shepherd. [Note 58]

These exerpts came from www.catholicconcerns.com

I realise that the CC claims that it isnt "Mary Worship" because the word is "this" rather than "that", but cant you see how that argument can seem kind of hollow, in light of material like this? This is just the proverbial "tip of the iceberg".

Its like the old saying..."If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...ITS A DUCK!"

And I might add, you can call it a horse all you want...its a DUCK.

Peace,

"D"

[ November 29, 2002, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: D28guy ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi D,

You wrote, "I was raised Catholic...Mass every sunday, 8 years of parochial school, religion class, and CCD classes..."

I was raised Catholic; my family attended Mass every Sunday; I went through 7 years of parochial school; I had religion class through my Senior year in high school.

Yet, when I arrived at college, I did not have a prayer life, I did not understand even the basics of the Catholic faith, and I was living in sin.

I hope to demonstrate to you that your "past" does not substantiate your past Catholicity. The parochial education system and the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine program have lain in ruin since the 1960's, and this is why Catholics need to be reevangelized throughout the United States most especially.

You wrote, "I was born again in 1982 when I had a life changing encounter with Jesus Christ. I am now an evangelical christian, and I attend a non-denominational evangelical/charismatic church."

I understand that you had a profound spiritual conversion, and I do not question the authenticity of your conversion. I have had identical experiences in the Catholic Church, and subsequently, I have endured a life filled with the charisms of the Holy Spirit (I attend an evangelical and charismatic Catholic university), a faithful prayer life, and a desire to give my life to the service of Jesus.

"Born again" is a term that is derived from the Bible in a specific place (i.e. John, Chapter 3), and so to properly equate this term with the reality it bespeaks of requires an authentic understanding of the Biblical record, and this term has been interpreted to refer to Baptism throughout the history of Christianity up until the 16th century.

Unless if you can show me where this passage was interpreted as you do in the first 15 centuries of Christianity, you are relying upon a novel interpretation of the Bible.

Thank you for sharing these Marian apparitions with me. Everything that you have copied and pasted, I am already familiar with. In fact, I have the "Lady of all Nations" messages to Ida upstairs on my bookshelf, as I'm taking a graduate course from one of the world's leading Marian scholars.

You wrote, "I realise that the CC claims that it isnt "Mary Worship" because the word is "this" rather than "that", but cant you see how that argument can seem kind of hollow, in light of material like this?"

No, I cannot.

Mary is not God and she is not worshipped. How would you feel if I were to not accept what you said you believed and told you instead that you believed what you claim you don't believe? How then would you feel and how truthful would my conversation with you be? Would you want to continue to speak with me?

Mary is the Queen of Heaven and Earth, and she shares in Christ's kingship, as we all will.

Jesus told his Apostles, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Mt 19:28)

Mary, being the Mother of the King, is the Queen Mother of the New Covenant, as foreshadowed by the Queen Mother of the Davidic Kingdom in the Old Testament. She is very real; she is very alive in the workings of history; and she really is our Queen alongside her Son, Jesus Christ, the King of the Universe.

And, the Catholic Church is still the Church of Jesus Christ. She is still the spiritual mother of all Christians, whether they recognize her or not, and the Pope is still the Vicar of Christ. Nothing has changed, and I thank Jesus every day for blessing me with his Church and the gift of faith, hope, and love as a Christian who recognizes this reality and longs to live in his will.

God bless you,

Carson

[ November 29, 2002, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
"Born again" is a term that is derived from the Bible in a specific place (i.e. John, Chapter 3), and so to properly equate this term with the reality it bespeaks of requires an authentic understanding of the Biblical record, and this term has been interpreted to refer to Baptism throughout the history of Christianity up until the 16th century.

Unless if you can show me where this passage was interpreted as you do in the first 15 centuries of Christianity, you are relying upon a novel interpretation of the Bible.

Carson, I have explained this to ONENESS, to MEE, to Frank, and perhaps to you also but I can't remember for sure. First of all one doesn't need to go back to the Church Fathers for an explanation of "born again," for the Bible itself is very explicit. It is mentioned in more places than just once.
One thing we need to clarify right from the very beginning is this. In John 3:5, when Jesus said: "Ye must be born of water and of the Spirit," he was NOT speaking of water baptism. Baptism is not mentioned in this context at all. The word is water. Water is mentioned literally hundreds of times in the Bible, but is not always referring to baptism. It does not refer to baptism here either. That much is obvious. He was talking to Nicodemus about the New Birth, being born from above, not baptism.

John 3:1-8
3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Three times in this passage does Jesus say that a man must be born again. It is important then that you be born again. Every man is born once. Verse 6 says that which is born of the flesh is flesh. We are all born of the flesh. Then he says: that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Not everyone is born of the Spirit; thus you need to be born of the Spirit of God.

How is this accomplished? By recognizing what Christ has done on the cross for you and receiving Him as your Saviour.

John 1:11-13
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
--As many as received Christ (as their Saviour) they became the children of God. How? By believing on His name. More specifics are given in verse 13:
Which were born not of blood--you cannot be born a Christian. Just because your family is a Christian doesn't make you one.
Not of the will of man--not by your own works: baptism, the sacraments, etc.
But are born of God. You must be born again of God, and of God alone. That is the only way to become a part of God's family, God's child--is to receive Christ as your Saviour--accept Him by faith and by faith alone.

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

It was of the will of God, not of the will of man, not of works, that God begat us with the word of truth. In other words we are born again through the Word of God.

1Pet.1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
--Here is says very plainly that one must be born again BY the Word of God. The Word of God is an agent by which we are born of God. It is one of two agents used by which one is born again. We are born again by the Spirit of God, and of the Word of God.

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
--Here Jesus says that the Word of God cleanses us. He uses it as a comparison. Water is a cleansing agent. The Word is a cleansing agent.

Now go back to John 3:5 and understand that when Jesus spoke of being born of water and the Spirit, water was symbolic of the Word, as is spoken of in John 15:3. Remeber there are only two agents by which one is born again according to verse five. One we definitely know is the Holy Spirit. The other, water, is symbolic of the Word of God. The Scripture does not contradict itself. 1Pet.1:23 plainly says: "Being born again of the Word of God." One is born again of the Word of God and of the Spirit of God. Baptism plays no part in this picture. Accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour by faith. That gospel message is given to us in the Word of God. Receive Him (John 1:12) and be born again into God's family, by the Holy Spirit entering into your heart and life.
DHK

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "In John 3:5, when Jesus said: "Ye must be born of water and of the Spirit," he was NOT speaking of water baptism. Baptism is not mentioned in this context at all."

Au contraire, mon ami.

Baptism is mentioned in the context of John 3:5. You simply refuse to acknowledge this fact because of your tradition of men.

(1) In John 1, we see Jesus' baptism by John in the Jordan River

(2) In John 2, Jesus changes the water in the jars used for Jewish purification rites into the best wine, and these purification rites are spelled out in Numbers 19, where the word used for the purification is baptism!

(3) In John 3, Jesus speaks of being born again by "water and spirit".

(4) In John 4, the chapter begins with an account of Jesus' disciples baptizing!

Justin Martyr bespeaks of the universal Christian teaching concerning baptism in his appeal to the Emperor Titus on the behalf of Christianity:

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father ... and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (First Apology 61, written A.D. 151).

Let he with eyes see, and he with ears hear.

You, DHK, are advocating a teaching that was unknown to the early Christian Church. May God bless you and lead you from your error.

yours in Christ,

Carson

[ November 29, 2002, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[D28guy]

Carson,

God has seen fit to give us the exact moment that Cornelious was sealed by the Spirit of God into the Body of Christ. It is clearly articulated for us in the scriptures. We know for sure because in this particular case Cornelius spoke in tongues as evidence. That...speaking in tongues...is not required of course, but in this case God granted it for a very good reason.

He was sealed into the body of Christ while he was sitting their listening to the message.

Afterwards, Peter said "Who can forbid water, that these should not be baptised, seeing that they have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have."

He wanted to make it abundantly clear that water baptism follows salvation.

"In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarentee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possesion."

God bless,

"D"

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

You wrote, "In John 3:5, when Jesus said: "Ye must be born of water and of the Spirit," he was NOT speaking of water baptism. Baptism is not mentioned in this context at all."

Au contraire, mon ami.

Baptism is mentioned in the context of John 3:5. You simply refuse to acknowledge this fact because of your tradition of men.

(1) In John 1, we see Jesus' baptism by John in the Jordan River

John records events, each to be taken in their own context. Did Jesus need remission of sins? Did He need to wash away His sins?

(2) In John 2, Jesus changes the water in the jars used for Jewish purification rites into the best wine, and these purification rites are spelled out in Numbers 19, where the word used for the purification is baptism!

Are you serious here? John 2 speaks of a wedding. Numbers 19 and purification rites has nothing to do with Jesus changing water into wine. I commend you for your imagination, but you need to rightly divide the word of truth.

(3) In John 3, Jesus speaks of being born again by "water and spirit".

So far, nothing has been said of baptism. The account is about Nicodemus and Jesus, remember?

(4) In John 4, the chapter begins with an account of Jesus' disciples baptizing![QB]

But Jesus Himself did not baptize. Yet the baptizing in this chapter has nothing to do with the explanation of Jesus to Nicodemus and his command "You must be born again."

[QB]

Justin Martyr bespeaks of the universal Christian teaching concerning baptism in his appeal to the Emperor Titus on the behalf of Christianity:

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father ... and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (First Apology 61, written A.D. 151).
Let he with eyes see, and he with ears hear.

"For the remission of sins that are PAST" "are regenerated" (past tense). The statements are somewhat ambiguous, and could equally be interpreted that Justin was teaching that one must be first regenerated (Born Again), and then baptized.

You, DHK, are advocating a teaching that was unknown to the early Christian Church.

An objective study of church history would show the same about yourself.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

Carson,

You seek to deflect the criticism regarding the worship of the saints and images and mariolotry by claiming that the honor shown to them - is merely the honor that is appropriate for humans - as some texts you quoted would seem to indicate.

From Carson
Carson
Another attempt to make clear the difference between the honor due to God and that due to humans has been to use the words adore and adoration

However the response to your argument removed the red herring that was setup - and showed that in fact EVEN the RCC itself does not allow that supposed "honor" to be given to any living human - only the dead.

From Bob
IF you were simply to pray to them and "Adore" them in the form we find for the dead in the RCC - the church ALSO forbids this.

Your claim that this is just the honor due a human - is rejected by the Cathoic Church.

But of course - you knew that. The point is although there is honor shown to our fellow humans - this is not in fact what the RCC is doing it it's prayers to the dead- NEITHER will it allow you to pray to the living and use such terms.

At this point your own argument is in dissarray - you need to show that these prayers to the dead (and many examples are available for posting here if you feel that would be helpful) - that EVEN the RCC forbids for the living - are simply the "honor due humans" as you have stated - or else concede the point.

Instead of that you completely ignore the point-counterpoint discussion, I guess in an attempt to change the subject?

Carson

Hi BobRyan,

You wrote, "First of all I don't blame Carson for wanting to avoid this topic."

I would just like to note, for the sake of posterity, my own foremost, that I did not avoid this topic. It has been explained, and your further accusations (such as my supposed wanting to avoid the topic) are straw men.

But, I understand that there are those who run around with earplugs in and blindfolds on, wishing to swing their metal baseball bat at anything they disdain, irregardless of what they are being "shown" or what is being "told" to them.

And, I can't do much about that but allow them to swing the bat, irregardless of their sincerity, of which I highly doubt, but of which I am not the judge. We know who He is, and I have confidence in His judgement.

Your point would have been better served by addressing the argument that even the RCC denies your own position that these prayers to the dead represent only the "honor due humans". But perhaps you viewed the position as lost and indefensible. AS I said - I would not blame you for that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi D28guy,

You spoke of the incident in Acts 10 when Peter was preaching and the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles.

You approach the text with the presupposition that one must be saved before one can receive the charismata of the Holy Spirit. Put otherwise, you presuppose that one must be indwelt by the Holy Spirit before the Holy Spirit can pour forth his charismatic gifts upon that same person.

Let's analyze the passage a little closer.

"While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God."

One of the primary golden threads that runs throughout Acts is Luke's vindication of Paul's ministry to the Gentiles (the acceptance of Gentiles in the Church without requiring them to adhere to the Mosaic ritual law). And so, this instance is presented to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit has chosen the Gentiles to be incorporated into the Church just as the Jews.

"Then Peter declared, 'Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?'"

Now, since it is through baptism that receives the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit (which is extremely different than the manifestation of the charismata), the forgiveness of sins, and incorporation into the Church, baptism should not be forbidden for these Gentiles who are evidently vindicated by the movement of that same Spirit - which is the entire reason for Luke's rendition of the passage.

It is this same Peter who tells us that baptism saves us in 1 Peter 3:18-21:

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

Peter explicitly tells us that Baptism is the means by which we are saved just as the eight persons upon the Ark were saved through water. As the water of the Great Deluge destroyed the sin of the world and at the same time saved the passengers upon the Ark, so baptism destroys our sin and saves us by giving us the Holy Spirit.

This is not just a bath that removes dirt from the body, but it is actually an "appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

At Pentecost, Peter tells us exactly "what we must do", "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)

Baptism forgives sins and gives the Holy Spirit.

I also urge you to look at Acts 19 where Paul asks some disciples, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they replied, "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

So what is the next logical question for Paul to ask? Since Paul knows that we receive the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit through Baptism, he then asks, "Into what then were you baptized?" and they said, "Into John's baptism."

Paul, knowing that John's baptism was just a symbolic baptism that merely symbolized repentence, then informs them of Jesus and his baptism, which gives the Holy Spirit!

This is the historic 2,000 yr old faith of the Christian Church, and your symbolic, anti-sacramental interpretation of the Scriptures regarding Baptism is a novel one in the history of Christianity.

All of the early Christians who wrote after the New Testament understood Baptism to be our means of rebirth and regeneration by which we receive the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sin.

They are absolutely unanimous in this doctrine!

Justin Martyr, who wrote a vindicating letter to the Emperor Titus before being thrown to the lions in the Roman Colisseum for his Christian faith wrote, "Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: ‘In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,’ they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’" (First Apology 61:14–17 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus, the greatest Christian theologian of the 2nd century as well as the famous bishop of Gaul (modern day Lyons, France), wrote, "‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Faith is the cause of salvation while baptism is the instrument of salvation. Both go hand in hand, and the false dichotomy that your Anabaptist forefathers have handed down to you was unknown to the New Testament authors.

God bless,

Carson

[ November 30, 2002, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[D28guy]

Carson,

Yes, the "charismata" is optional, as I mentioned in my post. But, there is only one Holy Spirit, and while they we listening to the message, they recieved the Holy Spirit.

This we know for sure about the Holy Spirit...

"In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise"

What did Peter say to them?

"Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptised who have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have"

How had they recieved the Holy Spirit? They had not only recieved the "charismata", but they had been "sealed by the Holy Spirit" for salvation.

And Cornelius had recieved the same thing...salvation.

What did Phillip preach to the Ethiopian eunuch?

"Then Phillip opened his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached Jesus to Him"

He didnt preach baptism, he preached Jesus. And when the Ethiopian asked if he could be baptised, Phillip said only if He believed. Why? Scriptural baptism is "believers" baptism.

The Phillipian Jailer. What was he told?

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved."

Then, afterwards, he was baptised. Why? Scriptural baptism is "believers" baptism.

I dont know how you can believe that someone can be "sealed in the Holy Spirit", but not be saved.

I think you are complicating something that really is pretty simple.

Blessings,

"D"

[ November 30, 2002, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: D28guy ]