Mary Queen of Heaven? What?

[BobRyan]

The Catholic position as I understand it is that he wasn't baptised in water and didn't need to be; there is this term used called 'baptism of desire' whereby a convert desires all things which go with baptism but is physically prevented from being baptised in water before death, as was the case with the thief. In such circumstances, the Catholic Church effectively deems him to be baptised through his desire to be so.

ok - but it is unclear to me that that is a point of difference between Catholics and Baptists.

A battlefield conversion of a soldier who after accepting Christ - dies - does not prevent a Baptist chaplain from having prayed with him the sinner's prayer and confirming that he died a born again Christian.

Why is this a point of debate at this point?

What am I missing?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thus in the case above - we have Christian writing that 4 centuries "After the imagined fact" starts to invent ideas about "burning incense to the Queen of Heaven" -- coincidental to an INFLUX of pagans that were doing "that very thing" in their own pagan services.

Thus we have a practice condemned in the Word of God -- in the book of Jeremiah - being adopted by the Christian church 400 years after the supposed time when Christians were praying to the dead - praying to Mary as "the Queen of Heaven".



If "praying to the Heavenly Father" or even "burning incense to the Heavenly Father" were mentioned (and condemned) in the Word of God (let us say the book of Jeremiah for example) and then suddenly with an influx of pagans the time of Christ - the Jews began using that same worship practice - we would indeed have the problem you are trying to equivocate.

But that is fiction - nothing of that kind actually happened because there is no such thing as a Biblical command against "praying to the Heavenly Father".

Thus the problem with your analogy.



Indeed. but in the example you pick - there is no Biblical command against praying to or burning incense to "the Heavenly Father".

And there is no case where the NT Christian Church that introduced the "Father in Heaven" concept with the Teachings of Christ - claimed that pagan influences at the time of Christ's ministry were being rapidly adopted by Christ and his followers - the way that RC historians themselves claim that pagan worship practices were indeed being adopted by the RCC as the time that they suddenly come up with "buring incense to the queen of heaven".

Furthermore to truly equivocate between the two - we would have to have
1. NO mention at all of "Father in Heaven" by the NT
2. suddenly see the phrase "Father in Heaven" introduced 400 years after the NT times - and only after about a 100 years of admitting that "Pagan customs" where being adopted by the Christian church in worship.
3. Find OT texts that actually condemn the practice.

None of these characteristics apply to "Heavenly Father" but ALL of them are the confirmed history for "burning incense to the queen of heaven".



That is a leap of faith on your part - given that RC historians themselves admit to the adoption of pagan worship customs into the RC worship service at the very time that this "burning incense to the queen of heaven" idea creeps in.


in Christ,

Bob

Just a note on Catholic Historians. Not all of them are conservative Catholics. I think I've mentioned this before. Catholic Historians can and do have a liberal slant. So in fact you must admit to which Catholic Historians you are talking about. Not all agree. Unlike what most people think the Catholic Church does have a continuum line of thoughts about subjects. Ask Lori I think there are 22 rites in the Catholic Church. Some Catholics Support evolution, others do not. It really depends. Some agree with the vatican others disagree on points. Note John Cossian was at one time a Catholic historian. There are protestant historians that correlate horis mythologies with Christ but you don't seem to credit them. Should I?

 

[BobRyan]

I am more than happy to rely on Catholic Historians who are very much pro-Catholic in their views - being honest enough to admit to the "inconvenient details of history" that other Catholic historians might want to sweep under the rug.

I believe the historic record of the dark ages shows that kind of thing happening frequently.

I find nothing about that to come as a big surprise.

Thus it is not suprising that some Cathlics might want to "go after" one of their own historians who admits to a "less than flattering" fact in their history, but it does nothing to discredit that kind of "whistle blowing" because in fact it is done by someone who has every reason NOT to do it. Thus it has all the more weight given that the guy comes under fire from his own fellow hyper-conservative RC Christians for daring to admit what he admits about documented history.

I am actually very happy with that kind of objectivity.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[lori4dogs]

Just a note on Catholic Historians. Not all of them are conservative Catholics. I think I've mentioned this before. Catholic Historians can and do have a liberal slant. So in fact you must admit to which Catholic Historians you are talking about. Not all agree. Unlike what most people think the Catholic Church does have a continuum line of thoughts about subjects. Ask Lori I think there are 22 rites in the Catholic Church. Some Catholics Support evolution, others do not. It really depends. Some agree with the vatican others disagree on points. Note John Cossian was at one time a Catholic historian. There are protestant historians that correlate horis mythologies with Christ but you don't seem to credit them. Should I?

There are 23 rites in the Eastern Catholic Church alone. There are three in the Latin Rite (Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic) There is also an Anglican Rite that has been approved for Anglican Use Churches that have entered the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am more than happy to rely on Catholic Historians who are very much pro-Catholic in their views - being honest enough to admit to the "inconvenient details of history" that other Catholic historians might want to sweep under the rug.

I believe the historic record of the dark ages shows that kind of thing happening frequently.

I find nothing about that to come as a big surprise.

Thus it is not suprising that some Cathlics might want to "go after" one of their own historians who admits to a "less than flattering" fact in their history, but it does nothing to discredit that kind of "whistle blowing" because in fact it is done by someone who has every reason NOT to do it. Thus it has all the more weight given that the guy comes under fire from his own fellow hyper-conservative RC Christians for daring to admit what he admits about documented history.

I am actually very happy with that kind of objectivity.

in Christ,

Bob

Would you admit to the objectivity of a Protestant historian that makes a correlation between Horis and Jesus? Would you champion this "Whistle blowing" kind of professor such as Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher? I'm curious. BTW I'm SB not Catholic. I don't buy into Maryology. My extensive knowledge of Catholicism comes from the fact that I was raised in it. My family continues to try and "re-convert" me back and because of it am extensively read on the subject matter. My personal view of Mary is Catholics give too much veneration and protestants not enough. I believe she played a significant pivital role that could be done by no one else.
And that her Obedience is often down played in protestant circles. I am certain she prays for the church in her current state but its not required to request that of her by prayer nor would she welcome it. I believe her call is the same that she gave the servers at the wine in Cana "do what ever he (Jesus) tells you". It seems the title queen of heaven is an issue of over veneration not one of combination of paganism. The fact is the bible is silent on the positions that are held in heaven. It is clear that those who serve other will be held in high esteem. Those are my personal thoughts on the subject matter.

 

[BobRyan]

Would you admit to the objectivity of a Protestant historian that makes a correlation between Horis and Jesus? Would you champion this "Whistle blowing" kind of professor such as Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher? I'm curious.

To my knowledge - no protestant historian (someone who is actually a Christian of the Protestant flavor" has yet to make the case that the first century eye-witnesses of Christ did not proclaim him to be the Son of God - nor did they promote worship to God the Father - but rather that this "myth" came up several centuries after the time of Christ.

To my knowledge NO protestant historian makes the case that pagans entered into Christianity during the life time of Christ and because of this he adopted the language about "our Father in Heaven".

Thus in my view the "details" do matter in this case.

BTW I'm SB not Catholic. I don't buy into Maryology.

I acknowledge that - I do not think you are making this case either because you believe in the Horis myth or because you are Catholic. My understanding is that you are simply trying to sound out the objectivity in noticing the connection between "burning incense to the Queen of heaven" vs any other negative associations that one "might make" when it comes to beliefs of Christians of any denomination.

I actually think it is a fair exercise.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

ok - but it is unclear to me that that is a point of difference between Catholics and Baptists.

A battlefield conversion of a soldier who after accepting Christ - dies - does not prevent a Baptist chaplain from having prayed with him the sinner's prayer and confirming that he died a born again Christian.

Why is this a point of debate at this point?

What am I missing?

in Christ,

Bob

I think the point of difference is that, for Catholics, baptism is usually soteriologically necessary whereas for Baptists it isn't.

 

[BobRyan]

Ok - but in that case both groups are arguing for cases where it is not necessary (extreme circumstances) so both appear to agree in the thief on the cross?

 

[Matt Black]

In practice, yes, but for different theological reasons: Baptists say it was unnecessary for the thief to have been baptised in order to be saved; Catholics say that the thief needed to be baptised to be saved but was effectively baptised through his desire to be so even though he wasn't given the opportunity to be baptised.

 

[Grace&Truth]

In practice, yes, but for different theological reasons: Baptists say it was unnecessary for the thief to have been baptised in order to be saved; Catholics say that the thief needed to be baptised to be saved but was effectively baptised through his desire to be so even though he wasn't given the opportunity to be baptised.

So are you are saying that the RCC is using this explaination to explain away one of the proof text of Scripture that teach Baptism does not save? If so then in essense their (the RCC) tradition is making the "Word of God" of none affect. This is my understanding of what is being said here. Am I wrong?

 

[lori4dogs]

So are you are saying that the RCC is using this explaination to explain away one of the proof text of Scripture that teach Baptism does not save? If so then in essense their (the RCC) tradition is making the "Word of God" of none affect. This is my understanding of what is being said here. Am I wrong?

I believe plenty of other Christians other than the RCC have the same position regarding the thief on the cross. I have talked to Lutherans and Anglicans who also agree with 'baptism of desire'.

 

[BillySunday1935]

So are you are saying that the RCC is using this explaination to explain away one of the proof text of Scripture that teach Baptism does not save? If so then in essense their (the RCC) tradition is making the "Word of God" of none affect. This is my understanding of what is being said here. Am I wrong?

My thoughts are that the idea of baptism by desire comes from the Church Fathers. However, there are plenty of places in scripture that show baptism to be a big part of the salvation process.

‡ Peace ‡

 

[Matt Black]

So are you are saying that the RCC is using this explaination to explain away one of the proof text of Scripture that teach Baptism does not save? If so then in essense their (the RCC) tradition is making the "Word of God" of none affect. This is my understanding of what is being said here. Am I wrong?

Which proof text are you talking about?

 

[Grace&Truth]

My thoughts are that the idea of baptism by desire comes from the Church Fathers. However, there are plenty of places in scripture that show baptism to be a big part of the salvation process.

‡ Peace ‡

The CF writings are not Inspired by God, and can only be interpreted in light of the Word of God as any other writings or teaching is or should be. Keep in mind that the RCC does just the opposite, they interpret the Word of God by what the CF and their tradition teach, this is wrong as the Word of God in many places tells us that their were already false teachers, false teachings, false apostles. This means that every writing outside of the Scriptures have to be examined in light of Scripture not the other way around. We know Scripture is True we don't know beyond that what is or what isn't.

As for your points about Baptism, the thief on the cross proves that Baptism does not save. So try to reasoning it away, make up a false pie in the sky reasoning but their is not one verse in the whole of Scriptures that teach such a thing. Either Baptism saves or it does not you can't have it both ways. The Scriptures teach when one truly Believes (trusts) Jesus finished work for his salvation, that person is saved. When they are also baptized immediately thereafter they are still saved but then also baptized. If one Believes and does not have time or opportunity to be baptized they are still saved. Baptism is a picture of Salvation, a public testimony of that which has already taken place in the heart (life) of that person. That is why those in the gospels were immediately Baptized, it was a testimony to the unbelievers (the unbelieving Jews) that they had believed. That is why John said, "Repent and be baptized, and why with some he told them to show fruit onto Repentance which means they were to have a change of heart or belief to show that they had Repented. John knew that they had not Repented therefore he would not Baptize them, "WHY, if it would have saved them?" Because it would not! Only Repentance which means to turn from trusting (or believing) anything else could save them, and turning and trusting that only Jesus could save them.

 

[Grace&Truth]

Which proof text are you talking about?

I believe the subject was referring to the thief on the cross, who was not baptized.

 

[Grace&Truth]

I believe plenty of other Christians other than the RCC have the same position regarding the thief on the cross. I have talked to Lutherans and Anglicans who also agree with 'baptism of desire'.

It really does not matter how many people or religions that we can quote that agree with what we believe, what matters is "Does the Word of God teach it."

 

[BillySunday1935]

The CF writings are not Inspired by God, and can only be interpreted in light of the Word of God as any other writings or teaching is or should be. Keep in mind that the RCC does just the opposite, they interpret the Word of God by what the CF and their tradition teach, this is wrong as the Word of God in many places tells us that there were already false teachers, false teachings, false apostles.

However, that doesn’t mean that they all were false teachers. Who do you think wrote in refutation of those false teachers and their doctrines? The Church Fathers!

This means that every writing outside of the Scriptures have to be examined in light of Scripture not the other way around. We know Scripture is True we don't know beyond that what is or what isn't.

That is because you hold to the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

As for your points about Baptism, the thief on the cross proves that Baptism does not save. So try to reasoning it away, make up a false pie in the sky reasoning but there is not one verse in the whole of Scriptures that teach such a thing.

No, there's not just one verse - there are many (I pulled this from my posting in the Shroud of Turin link, but its relevant here as well).

Ezekiel: 36 25-27:
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

What do we have here? We have someone sprinkled with water and through that action, they are made clean from their filthiness, and they receive God’s spirit. This passage from the Old Testament shows us that God, by his own design and not that of men, uses an outward sign to bring about an inward change in his people – a foreshadowing of Baptism in the New Testament. Notice how God in the old covenant was preparing us for what he gives us in the new covenant.

And now, let’s move on to the New Testament to see the correlation.

Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22:16 16And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Scripture plainly tells us that Baptism washes away sin; and through Baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:13
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body [the body of Christ], whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Galatians 3:27
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Clearly, baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ and thus is the entrance into the new covenant with God, just a circumcision was the entrance into the old covenant with God. Scripture makes this connection for us in the following.

Colossians 2:11-12
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the entrance into the new covenant as explicitly stated in the scripture above. So, is baptism salvific as the Catholic Church teaches? Once again, let’s go to scripture.

1 Peter 3: 20-21
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Just as Noah and his family were saved by water, water baptism now saves us. There it is; explicitly stated in the Bible. Look at Jesus’ own word in John’s gospel…

John 3:5
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.

Water and the spirit. Hmmm.... Let’s read on in context as follows a few verses later, after Jesus finished his talk with Nicodemus…

John 3:22
22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

What did Jesus do immediately after telling Nicodemus how he can be saved? He went out baptizing with water. See the context? Baptism is the context in which one must be born of water and the spirit. Further, look at all of the accounts in the gospels about Jesus’ baptism. Jesus is baptized with water and look what happens to him when he comes up out of the water (or is sprinkled)... the spirit descends upon him – water and the spirit.

In Matthew 28:19 what did Jesus say in his final instructions to the apostles? Go therefore and make disciples of all nations getting them to accept me into their hearts as their personal lord and savior? No. It says:

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Why is baptism given such paramount importance in Jesus’ final instructions to the apostles if it is only symbolic? Because it is salvific!

Either Baptism saves or it does not you can't have it both ways. The Scriptures teach when one truly Believes (trusts) Jesus finished work for his salvation, that person is saved.

Let take this either/or construct a little further:

God is either one person or three persons – he can’t be both.

Jesus was either fully God or fully man – he cannot be both.

God CAN have it both ways - look at the scripture that I provided.

When they are also baptized immediately thereafter they are still saved but then also baptized. If one Believes and does not have time or opportunity to be baptized they are still saved. Baptism is a picture of Salvation, a public testimony of that which has already taken place in the heart (life) of that person. That is why those in the gospels were immediately Baptized, it was a testimony to the unbelievers (the unbelieving Jews) that they had believed. That is why John said, "Repent and be baptized, and why with some he told them to show fruit onto Repentance which means they were to have a change of heart or belief to show that they had Repented. John knew that they had not Repented therefore he would not Baptize them, "WHY, if it would have saved them?" Because it would not! Only Repentance which means to turn from trusting (or believing) anything else could save them, and turning and trusting that only Jesus could save them.

Much of what you are claiming in the above is not even in scripture and is itself derived by Protestant theologians based upon THEIR interpretation of scripture. And you wish to exclude what the Catholic Church has been writing about during apostolic times and thereafter?

‡ Peace ‡

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Grace&Truth
This means that every writing outside of the Scriptures have to be examined in light of Scripture not the other way around. We know Scripture is True we don't know beyond that what is or what isn't.

That is because you hold to the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Correction - the sola scriptura testing principle for all doctrine is seen "in practice" in Acts 17:11 where it is demonstrated that "even" nonChristians are able by God's grace to "study the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were SO".

Thus the practice is solidly "Biblical".

By contrast as we see in Mark 7 "in vain do they worship Me - teaching for doctrines the commandments of MEN.. setting aside the commandments of God for the sake of their traditions".

The Commandments of God - were recorded "in scripture". The commandments of men - were not.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As for your points about Baptism, the thief on the cross proves that Baptism does not save. So try to reasoning it away, make up a false pie in the sky reasoning but their is not one verse in the whole of Scriptures that teach such a thing. Either Baptism saves or it does not you can't have it both ways. The Scriptures teach when one truly Believes (trusts) Jesus finished work for his salvation, that person is saved.

A few points for the sake of clarity.

Romans 10 Shows salvation happening before baptism - at the moment that we believe and confess our belief.

Rom 10
8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that [b]if you confess[/b] with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, [b]you will be saved; [/b]
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and [b]with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [/b]



And in 1Peter 3 we see the saving aspect of baptism is NOT the holy touch of sacramental water to the skin - but RATHER the "appeal to God for a clean conscience".

However in this case "saved" means - "Justified by Faith", forgiven of sin and accepted by God - does not mean that at that moment you leave this earth and go to Heaven. So in a free-will universe that means that later - after being saved - one could experience the Matt 18 scenario of "forgiveness revoked".

But what is even more clear - is that infants "have no desire" to be baptized - and yet even the RCC says they are saved.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Grace&Truth]

However, that doesn’t mean that they all were false teachers. Who do you think wrote in refutation of those false teachers and their doctrines? The Church Fathers!

I can agree that not all that many of them taught was false, but just because they taught something does not mean it is True. What makes doctrine true is if it is found in the Word of God. The Scriptures are Inspired by God not the CFer's writings, they are just man's understanding of Scriptures but not Scripture itself. So what ever they teach must be true to the Word of God.


That is because you hold to the man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Well, the Bible says it is "The Inspired Word of God" I have not found any verses that say anything else is. So what are we left with?