Mary Queen of Heaven? What?

[DHK]

We have been through this numerous times, DHK. I insist that the Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace, through faith. You just come back with 'the Catholic Church doesn't have a clue what grace means'. I don't find your position convincing nor one that has existed in the early Church.

And that is precisely why you avoid the question:
What does it mean to be born again (John 3:3)

 

[lori4dogs]

And that is precisely why you avoid the question:
What does it mean to be born again (John 3:3)

I don't avoid it, I have stated before that I agree with the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox Catholic, Anglican, etc. teaching on John 3:3.

Have I repented of my sins, turned to Jesus Christ, trusted in his atonement on the cross and accepted Him as my Lord and Savior, yes I most certainly have. Do I believe that baptism is necessary, yes again.

 

[Alive in Christ]

DHK...

"I have quoted to you from a Catholic Encyclopedia, the RCC Catechism. In the past I have quoted articles from Vatican II. I have quoted from reliable history sources. I have done much more than you have."

I have too. The heresy of Catholicism, proved strait from the horses mouth. The Catholic Encylopedia, the Catholic Catichism, the councils, etc. In context. Properly presented.

You see, the problem is that when WE quote from those sources...it doesnt count. Because its US quoting. That means it doesnt mean what it clearly says...because WE quoted the material.

Now...if THEY quote from those sources...then it DOES count. THEN...and ONLY then...does it count. Because THEY are quoting.

Now do you understand?

:BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:

 

[Matt Black]

Well, Matt that's just it. Traditions being held as they are by the RCC, OC, Copts, and the Anglican church we then question the validity of their authority. If you chose to say you only hold to the "Traditions" of the undivided Church we can assertain 2 things. 1) that the view of the Real Presence was held in the undivided church - however how that is defined is up for grabs. 2) that most of what I read of the Patristics are, for a lack of a better term, regurgitated views of the Apostles as writen down in the NT. Therefore what extra biblical traditions were actually held by the Apostles and passed down? Certainly Marian Veneration would have been mentioned in Scripture apart from Gabriel's saluation "Ave Maria gratia plena Domimus Tecum" and Elizabeth's acknowledgement of Jesus' presence in his mother's womb thus "Benedicta fructus ventris tui" or what Mary says about herself "Magnificat anima mea Dominum" These seem to recognize whom Jesus is not veneration of Mary for even Mary says " Exsultavit spiritus meus in Deo salvatore meo" Which has a whole list of implications apart from what the Orthodox, Catholics, and Copts being the oldest Christian expressions in existance today. So this line of questioning gets to the very heart of tradition. Would it be fair to say that what the apostles leave in writings is the whole of tradition they wanted to impart?

If you mean just the NT, then, no; amongst many other things, you would be discarding the Seven Great Ecumenical Councils, to which I as an Anglican subscribe.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If you mean just the NT, then, no; amongst many other things, you would be discarding the Seven Great Ecumenical Councils, to which I as an Anglican subscribe.

But if you take it down to its roots. The ecumminical councils do not reflect apostolic teaching as such. It does provide fuller meanings but for the sake of argument one could say they established new doctrine or doctrinal views based on election or a democratic process and thus have nothing to do with the apostles.

 

[RAdam]

I don't avoid it, I have stated before that I agree with the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox Catholic, Anglican, etc. teaching on John 3:3.

Have I repented of my sins, turned to Jesus Christ, trusted in his atonement on the cross and accepted Him as my Lord and Savior, yes I most certainly have. Do I believe that baptism is necessary, yes again.

Then you put the thief on the cross in hell. He wasn't baptized.

 

[Matt Black]

But if you take it down to its roots. The ecumminical councils do not reflect apostolic teaching as such. It does provide fuller meanings but for the sake of argument one could say they established new doctrine or doctrinal views based on election or a democratic process and thus have nothing to do with the apostles.

Depends what your understanding is of Apostolic Succession and the role that that may or may not play in Tradition, I suppose.

 

[annsni]

We have been through this numerous times, DHK. I insist that the Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace, through faith. You just come back with 'the Catholic Church doesn't have a clue what grace means'. I don't find your position convincing nor one that has existed in the early Church.

The Catholic church DOES teach that we are saved by grace but the means of that grace is the sacraments. They also teach that we can lose our salvation over and over again so in reality, the salvation that the Church says we obtain is actually through the Catholic Church. Here are some quotes:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as "the universal sacrament of salvation" (CCC 774–776), and states: "The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men" (CCC 780).

Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.

Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

These can be saved by what later came to be known as "baptism of blood" or " baptism of desire" (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best tract, The Necessity of Baptism).

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God.

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

Fulgentius of Ruspe

"Anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the sacrament, he will not have, if he has had the sacrament outside the Catholic Church [and remains in deliberate schism]. He must therefore return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the sacrament of baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who, even with the sacrament of baptism, remains estranged from the Catholic Church" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

Augustine

"Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" (Letters, 141:5).

Lactantius


"It is, therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the domicile of faith; this, the temple of God. Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from there, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. . . . Because, however, all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, let it be known that this is the true Church, in which there is confession and penance and which takes a health-promoting care of the sins and wounds to which the weak flesh is subject" (Divine Institutes 4:30:11–13 [A.D. 307]).


Cyprian of Carthage


"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress [a schismatic church] is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 6, 1st ed. [A.D. 251]).

"Let them not think that the way of life or salvation exists for them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and priests, since the Lord says in the book of Deuteronomy: ‘And any man who has the insolence to refuse to listen to the priest or judge, whoever he may be in those days, that man shall die’ [Deut. 17:12]. And then, indeed, they were killed with the sword . . . but now the proud and insolent are killed with the sword of the Spirit, when they are cast out from the Church. For they cannot live outside, since there is only one house of God, and there can be no salvation for anyone except in the Church" (Letters 61[4]:4 [A.D. 253]).

"When we say, ‘Do you believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the holy Church?’ we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church" (ibid., 69[70]:2 [A.D. 253]).

"[O]utside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism" (Treatise on Rebaptism 10 [A.D. 256]).

from http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Depends what your understanding is of Apostolic Succession and the role that that may or may not play in Tradition, I suppose.

This is the way I understand it from what I know of Catholicism. There are two points of Apostolic Teaching. 1) Their writings in combination with OT scripture or The Scriptures. 2) The teachings that the apostles dispensed to all believers such as a) how to interpret scripture b) established procedure for worship c) application of the Good news to faith and Morals or all of it known as Tradition or Oral Traditon. Certainly there is for the most part an overlap between Scrpture and Tradition.
Now Authority that God gave Jesus; Jesus then gave to the Apostles who then passed this authority to their successors. However, if I am to understand it right; this doesn't provide for any new teaching or new revelation. In fact as apostolic successor they can only affirm their faith and maintian only what has been consistently taught from the aposltes themselves or the Deposit of Faith. This may provide for a clearer understanding or more appropiate insight into a practice or tradition. But this can never be used in such a way as to bring about a new revelation . As far as binding and loosing if the apostolic successors wish to implement a new practice in accordance with the affor mentioned Deposit of Faith (as it must) it becomes a requirement for the faithful. But it may never be contrary to the initial deposit. Do I have it right?

 

[Matt Black]

That's my understanding, yes; therefore Marian teaching put forth in Tradition may only be an explanation or expansion of what has gone before eg: the passages of Scripture concerning her from which you have already quoted. My problem with the Rosary is that, whilst it may be plausibly argued (at a stretch I guess) that it is just such an extrapolation, it is not the product of a unified Tradition and, to my mind, represents a unilateral addition to Marian theology and praxis by only the Western half of the Church; likewise 'co-redemptrix', the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That's my understanding, yes; therefore Marian teaching put forth in Tradition may only be an explanation or expansion of what has gone before eg: the passages of Scripture concerning her from which you have already quoted. My problem with the Rosary is that, whilst it may be plausibly argued (at a stretch I guess) that it is just such an extrapolation, it is not the product of a unified Tradition and, to my mind, represents a unilateral addition to Marian theology and praxis by only the Western half of the Church; likewise 'co-redemptrix', the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

I would further your disagreement by saying a study of Marian veneration does not really seem to be an apostolic deposit.

 

[billwald]

>. . . it is not the product of a unified Tradition and, to my mind, represents a unilateral addition . . . .

People who agree should logically accept the ecumenical creeds as binding and reject statements of faith invented by local congregations.

 

[DHK]

I don't avoid it, I have stated before that I agree with the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox Catholic, Anglican, etc. teaching on John 3:3.

Have I repented of my sins, turned to Jesus Christ, trusted in his atonement on the cross and accepted Him as my Lord and Savior, yes I most certainly have. Do I believe that baptism is necessary, yes again.

The fact that you just said "baptism is necessary" means that you don't believe salvation is by grace or by faith. Rather you believe it is by works. You can't have it both ways. The Bible makes that very clear. It is either by faith or works, and grace or works. Works are out of the picture. What part of the work of Christ did you play in salvation? How did you help Christ pay the penalty for your sins or ours? Are your works that good, that stupendous that they would actually merit part of work of salvation alongside Christ?

Is this what you are claiming baptism does? It takes the place of the blood of Christ; does it? This is blasphemy! John 19:30 says "It is finished." Jesus finished the work of salvation on the cross, and no man can add or take away from that work, including you.

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

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

 

[BobRyan]

I'm just trying to be fair. It seems to me that you're not being such with the RCC. I'll explain. Just because they give Mary the title "queen of heaven" you've made a correlation between the RCC and Pagan cult the Queen of heaven. My point is this is not necissarily so.

Actually I argue two points.

1. If you were interested in sola scriptura basis for a "Queen of heaven" argument then you have to go to the scripture that actually meantions "queen of heaven". Trying to avoid the scripture that actually mentions the idea that you are trying to promote is not a form of "sola scriptura testing". It would be like saying "I want to talk about an idea I have about Paradise - but I want to be sure and avoid the only three texts in all of scripture that actually mention Paradise".

That is not a form of "sola scriptura" anything.

2. My second point was that the RCC "did not come out of a vaccuum". Rather the context for the 5th century declaration was an RCC that has just been heavily influxed with pagan members and had just agreed to adopt a bevy of pagan forms into its worship liturgy (even by the accounts of Catholic historians themselves). So "pretending not to notice" that you have a church now filled with a bunch of congregants used to worshipping "the Queen of Heaven" but finding themselves now lacking said "queen" -- is just ignoring inconvenient "detail".

For instance. I can draw correlations between Christianity and Demeter, Mythras, Horis, etc.... The fact that there are similar type themes does not necisarrily connect the dots. If what you say is true than I must state that using the same reasoning you've applied to Mary I can apply to Christ. And we must then admit that Jesus Christ is a Type of Demeterm, or a type of Mythras or a type of Horis. That the myths that permiated about these ancient mystery Gods became adopted and expressed about a Jewish Preacher named Jesus and that Christianity is not really a faith founded on the Blood of Jesus Christ but a purpetrated mythos going all the way back to Egypt.

That does not work because Jesus existed as a real historic character - was really crucified and really resurrected with eye witnesses still living at the time of the writing.

there is no mention at all by the NT sources of "queen of heaven" anything.

The equivocation does not work because the cases are not similar.

To make them similar - you would have to re-invent history such that "Jesus was a carpenter and very normal - then 4oo years later the RCC made up a story about him simmilar to Horis".

then as long as you have no historic sources debunking that wild claim you could indeed have a string to hang your hat on.

But the level of historic revisionism needed to carry off that equivocation cannot be supported.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

I would further your disagreement by saying a study of Marian veneration does not really seem to be an apostolic deposit.

Ah yes: at what point do extrapolation, explanation and expansion become deviation?

 

[Matt Black]

>. . . it is not the product of a unified Tradition and, to my mind, represents a unilateral addition . . . .

People who agree should logically accept the ecumenical creeds as binding and reject statements of faith invented by local congregations.

Agree with you there.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ah yes: at what point do extrapolation, explanation and expansion become deviation?

That's a very good question.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Ah yes: at what point do extrapolation, explanation and expansion become deviation?

That's a very good question

Vincent's 'canon' would be useful here in my opinion.

Also, the idea that DOGMA (ie belief generally required for salvation) should only be based on the clear warrants of Scripture (which is what the church fathers taught, by the way), especially as it relates to the original Apostolic kerygma.

What I mean by the latter is that, for example, although certain Marian doctrines (ie virgin birth and Theotokos) flow from the clear warrants of Scripture about who Christ is, based on the earliest evidence (eg: the sermons in Acts; primitive hymns in Phil 2 for instance; Gospel narratives) the Apostles publically preached God's salvation for man in the crucified and resurrected Christ and not the role that the Virgin Mary may or may not have in the Church. Certainly other doctrines (eg IC, Assumption, 'co-redemptrix', etc) are even more speculative and have much less warrant (if any) in Scripture, antiquity, universality and consent.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Actually I argue two points.

1. If you were interested in sola scriptura basis for a "Queen of heaven" argument then you have to go to the scripture that actually meantions "queen of heaven". Trying to avoid the scripture that actually mentions the idea that you are trying to promote is not a form of "sola scriptura testing". It would be like saying "I want to talk about an idea I have about Paradise - but I want to be sure and avoid the only three texts in all of scripture that actually mention Paradise".

Your primary premise is faulted in that you attempt to extrapolate from a text in a vacuum. The bible was not writen in a vacuum nor was the word of God given to us in a vacuum. Note Hebrews 1:1

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways

. Therefore the scripture was given to us in the context of the time and culture it was spoken. So to take a title in the bible "Queen of Heaven" with out the cultural context is misleading. And to be honest it seems to take a bible term or specifically a title that has its origins in Hebrew or Greek and their cultural context and apply it univerally to all contexts and cultures seem ludicrious. For instance the bible suggest that we seek advise from wise men (termed fathers) at the gates of our cities. Now its ridiculous to go to our city find an old man at the entry way to seek wisdom in our culture. You might be advised to buy him a bottle of Mad dog 20/20. There are several differences. 1) we don't have walled cities and 2) commerse is conducted everywhere not just at the city gates any more. Just to name two. You must translate that into our context of today and seek community leaders in our cities (if you must) to get sage advice. However, if we treat the bible as you suggest we would find ourselves doing very ridiculous things. So in the case of the Queen of Heaven you must take the cultural context of that term and apply it appropiately. Not just willy nilly apply the term because some one has a similar term. In which case I must ask my children to repent for calling me father because they have no father save God in heaven. Yeah, right. (sarcasm here)

2. My second point was that the RCC "did not come out of a vaccuum". Rather the context for the 5th century declaration was an RCC that has just been heavily influxed with pagan members and had just agreed to adopt a bevy of pagan forms into its worship liturgy (even by the accounts of Catholic historians themselves). So "pretending not to notice" that you have a church now filled with a bunch of congregants used to worshipping "the Queen of Heaven" but finding themselves now lacking said "queen" -- is just ignoring inconvenient "detail".

Your second point is confusing. First of all I agree the Roman Catholic Church did not come out of a vacuum. Neither was it started by a 5th century declaration. Your history is shady. Think about it at the end of the 200 and the start of the 300 one of the worst persecutions of Christianity occured under the Emperor Diocletian. In an attempt to wipe out Christianity from the empire he tried christians everywhere, took their property, gave them a choice to offer oblations (a pinch of salt offering to the emperor god) receive a certificate or be killed. Many chose both. Once Diocletian died. Christians weren't as heavily persecuted and begun to ask the question of whether those who "cowardly" offered oblations or hid should be allowed to particpate in Christian practices such as communion. The Donatist didn't think so and thus the many christians still left in the Empire errupted against each other. You have to understand people rioted in the streets. Constantine the new emperor (actually at this point co-regent) sought to have peace with in his empire so he jointly in 312 wrote a document called the Eddict of Milan which allowed for Christian tollerance. It did not CREATE A CHURCH. This is what the document actually says

When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I, Licinius Augustus, fortunately met near Mediolanurn (Milan), and were considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought, among other things which we saw would be for the good of many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are placed under our rule. And thus by this wholesome counsel and most upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts) may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. Therefore, your Worship should know that it has pleased us to remove all conditions whatsoever, which were in the rescripts formerly given to you officially, concerning the Christians and now any one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation. We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made we that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion.

In fact it seems he wanted people of all religions to feel free to worship as seems best to them. If you Constantine "created the RCC" theory panned out it would say everyone had to be christian and they could not hold government office with out having done so. It says nothing like that in the edict. So not only do you have your century wrong but neglect to acknowledge that there were "Catholic" things believed in the Christian realm long before the 5th century such as the Eucharist believed by Justin Martyr in early 200 AD as well as Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD. There are signs of Marian veneration in the 200's as well. So your creation of the RCC theory is just historically inaccurate. And next you also forget that the Catholic Church is a mixed bag. There is the "official teaching of the Church or magesterium and there is everyones own opinion. Having been raised catholic I understand this very well. There are priest and Scholars who hold a modernistic view of scriptures. Note John Crossian of the Jesus Seminar started as a priest before leaving the RCC to teach is modernistic view of Jesus which basically was that he was ineffective. His apostles corrupted his teaching and the resurrection is based on the fact that Jesus' body was eaten by dogs in the pit his body was thrown in. These priest do not teach magersterium but their own ideas. Just like many protestant seminaries are inundated by liberal teachers who don't believe the bible (in the autographs) is inerrant. So no its not ignoring an inconvientient detail. Their are many details you've indeed ignored. I'm suggesting you look at the detail. The Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah is a specific deity not a general one because Jeremiah wasn't writen in a vacuum either.

That does not work because Jesus existed as a real historic character - was really crucified and really resurrected with eye witnesses still living at the time of the writing.

You're wrong. Nothing in my quote suggest that Jesus isn't real. It suggest that upon a real person a mythos was attached. Jesus being a simple Jewish Rabbi was unfairly given a mythos that resembles Mythras. I say this not because I think this is the case but suggesting that your reasoning about the "queen of heaven" is equivilant to that suggestion and in fact if you believe the myth of the Queen of heaven by applying scripture of it out of context in the current age you must also believe that Jesus is a composit of a real rabbi and Mythras mythos. Which of course is ridiculous.

 

[BobRyan]

Jeremiah 7:18
The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger.

Jeremiah 44:17
We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm.

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Actually I argue two points.

1. If you were interested in sola scriptura basis for a "Queen of heaven" argument then you have to go to the scripture that actually meantions "queen of heaven". Trying to avoid the scripture that actually mentions the idea that you are trying to promote is not a form of "sola scriptura testing". It would be like saying "I want to talk about an idea I have about Paradise - but I want to be sure and avoid the only three texts in all of scripture that actually mention Paradise".

Your primary premise is faulted in that you attempt to extrapolate from a text in a vacuum. The bible was not writen in a vacuum nor was the word of God given to us in a vacuum. Note Hebrews 1:1

On the contrary - Heb 1 is not a funny kind of "exegesis" for Jeremiah. It does nothing for the argument that wants to add "burning incense to the Queen of Heaven" as a practice for Christians - to then argue that you must ignore the only text in the Bible that mentions it!

Such practices are not even remotely a "sola scriptura" test of doctrine.

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways
Therefore the scripture was given to us in the context of the time and culture it was spoken. So to take a title in the bible "Queen of Heaven" with out the cultural context is misleading.

Turns out - there is nothing misleading about admitting to the fact that the pagans at the time of the 5th century were well aware of the ancient "Queen of Heaven" cult of worship and that those very pagans were being moved into the church when the RCC itself then came up with the idea of having Christians "burn incense to the Queen of Heaven" as well as adopting other forms of paganism in their liturgy.

And to be honest it seems to take a bible term or specifically a title that has its origins in Hebrew or Greek and their cultural context and apply it univerally to all contexts and cultures seem ludicrious.

Actually - in terms of the Bible - it merely points out that IF one is going to "go to the Bible" looking for support for the idea of "burning incense to the queen of heaven" there is only the book of Jeremiah that speaks to it.

The "other choice" is to "ignore the Bible on that subject" and then call it "sola scriptura testing" -- which obviously - makes no sense at all.

For instance the bible suggest that we seek advise from wise men (termed fathers) at the gates of our cities. Now its ridiculous to go to our city find an old man at the entry way to seek wisdom in our culture.

Again your illustration fails to help your case.

Recall that scenario 1 is a reference to "sola scriptura testing" of a proposed idea. So to make your illustration equivalent it would be like someone PROPOSING that we "go to the seat of judgment" in a given city to seek counsel just as was done in the OT. It would be like PROPOSING that those who sit in judgment in a given city must "sit at the gate of the city" -- and then going to the Bible to try to find examples of such a thing.

But making those proposals - and then insisting that we IGNORE THE BIBLE when it speaks to that very subject is hardly a kind of "sola scriptura test".

This point keeps stopping your argument.

So in the case of the Queen of Heaven you must take the cultural context of that term and apply it appropiately. Not just willy nilly apply the term because some one has a similar term.

Again a point where your argument fails because in the cause of "burning incense" we are talking about the same thing. In the case of "burning incense TO a personage as part of worship" we are talking about the same thing. In the case of claiming that such person is "Queen of Heaven" we are talking about the same concept.

Your insistence that we look at the principles involved only weakens your argument against it.

And it highlights the fact that IF the intent is to go to scripture to find out what IT SAYS about "burning incense to the Queen of Heaven" there is a very GOOD place to go.

IF the intent is to show that that same scripture was available as a point of reference for the RCC when it introduced this idea to Christians - then again it simply refutes your point.

in Christ,

Bob