Mary Queen of Heaven? What?

[Thinkingstuff]

You did not make your case. The text of Romans 10 is very clear in what "results in salvation" it does not matter WHO follows those steps (Jew or Gentile) -- it is not as if there is one means of salvation for Jews and another for Gentiles - so that Romans 10 only applies to unsaved Jews and the steps THEY must go through to become saved.

Your point does not appear to be supported in that regard.

in Christ,

Bob

You only say that because you ignore the text in the context of the chapter. Read the whole thing not pick and choose.

1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.

This introductory passage indicates Paul's desire to have all Israelites saved yet they have no knowledge. Why you may ask? Well because how they understood righteousness

Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

They attempted a self righteousness rather than submit themselves to God's requirement of righteousness. Which btw is

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

is in christ. Righteousness is not salvation entire but an aspect of it. This particular aspect is a "stumbling block to the Jews. So the context has to do with how to consider proper righteousness. He/Paul goes on to explain (the topic of righteousness)

5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."

In other words this is what moses says about it but note the next passage

6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming

he's comparing what moses says by the Law singularily (with regard only to righteousness aspect) contrasting it with Faith. Then he furthers the righteous aspect by showing how it is exemplified.

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."[f]

And this is where you ended missing the next passage as part of his explanation

14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?

Since you like using color. Paul contrast and compares the righteousness of the Jews and their understanding to the true understanding which comes by faith that if you call on God you are placed in the boat or camp of salvation which is just one aspect of salvation. Salvation continues on. The comparison continues on with a quote from Isaiah and two important question are asked which is also part of the context

Did God reject his people?

and

Did God reject his people?

in both cases Paul states

Not at all!

However he concludes his point in chapter 12

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

which is also a part of salvation.

 

[BobRyan]

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 if you confess 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 with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.


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".


Thus you did not make your case as to why we should not notice how Romans 10 says salvation comes about for the individual. The text of Romans 10 is very clear in what "results in salvation" it does not matter WHO follows those steps (Jew or Gentile) -- it is not as if there is one means of salvation for Jews and another for Gentiles - so that Romans 10 only applies to unsaved Jews and the steps THEY must go through to become saved.

Your point does not appear to be supported in that regard.

You only say that because you ignore the text in the context of the chapter. Read the whole thing not pick and choose.
This introductory passage indicates Paul's desire to have all Israelites saved

As already noted - there is only ONE Gospel (Gal 1:6-11) and so it does not matter who is getting saved by the Romans 10 steps - we all do it the same way.

BTW - the letter to Romans includes both Jews and Gentiles.

So the context has to do with how to consider proper righteousness.

How odd that the text then does not say to believe and confess "in order to consider proper righteousness".

I am going to stick with the text itself in this case - because Paul is calling for those who are lost to become saved - it matters not if the lost is Jew or Gentile.

The fact that righteousness comes only through the Gospel model of salvation is a point Paul makes repeatedly. The fact that the condition Paul addresses in Romans 10 is the lost condition (and it matters not that they are lost Jews - given that there is only ONE way of salvation) is also clear in the text itself.

Paul states that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God in Rom 10 -- again a principle that applies to both Jew and Gentile.

So the fact that Paul is identifying failures of the Jews to convince them that they LIKE Gentiles need salvation does nothing to "change salvation" or to change what "results in salvation" since we all know that both Jew and Gentile must "believe" and must "confess".

These are necessary steps common to all the lost who seek salvation.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

However he concludes his point in chapter 12
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual[a] act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
which is also a part of salvation

Hold the phone!

You do recall Steaver's "Bacon" thread right? (My last two or three posts there may be of interest as they apply to this topic as well)

I am an Arminian that accepts not only the principle of "perseverance of the saints" as a necessary step for saints - but I also accept the Arminian free will concept that flatly reject the man-made tradition of OSAS.

I argue that we come to Christ, gain Justification, are born again, are accepted by Christ, are saved - via the steps of Romans 10.

However Romans 2:6-7 makes it clear that once saved we must "persevere in doing good" to remain in that condition.

In Romans 8 we are to walk by the Spirit "putting to death the deeds of the flesh" in order to have that witness from the Holy Spirit that "we are the children of God".

As soon as we decide to turn away from that walk of the saints - we enter into the Matt 18 condition of "forgiveness revoked".

(Just so we are clear on what my argument is in this case).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Agnus_Dei]

On the contrary - apostolic succession is dead given the RCC's own admitted history of multiple papal lines all with successors all active at the SAME time and all defrocked by Emperor Sigismund - who declared his OWN council of Cardinals to supercede all existing Papal lines. At that time EVERY Papal line was declared to be "antichrist" by its rival popes!

Don't forget, there's more than the Patriarchate of Rome...so even IF Apostolic succession died in the Roman Church (which btw didn't, as an Orthodox Christian we believe that Rome's Bishops orders are vaild), Christ's promise in Matthew 16:18 & 28:20, where Christ promised the "gates of hell would not prevail against the Church and that he Himself would be with the Apostles until the end of the age, would live on in the Orthodox Church...

(And that is if we ignore the fact that the NT provides no such thing as "apostolic succession")

From Holy Scripture:

No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. Acts 5:13 (Note: this shows that the early Christians had a reverence for them)​

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. Acts 15:24​

As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. Acts 16:4​

For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God. 2 Corinthians 2:17 (Note: this shows that the office they hold is more then self appointed authority).​

having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone Eph. 2:20 (Note: the word founation is used to describe "the apostles and prophets", not just St. Peter)​

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. Acts 20:28 (Note: this is a clear testimony that the Holy Spirit appointed the Twelve to be "oeverseers" and "shepherds of the church")​

As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. John 17:18 (Note: the Bible compares the ministry of Jesus to that of the Twelve)​

The testimony of the early Church:

Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry Clement I Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 A.D. 80​

When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord Hegesippus Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 A.D. 180​

It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:3:1 A.D. 189​

[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity Tertullian Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 A.D. 200​

In XC
-

 

[BobRyan]

From Holy Scripture:

No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. Acts 5:13 (Note: this shows that the early Christians had a reverence for them)​

That shows that the Spiritual Gift of being an "Apostle" (that we see in 1Cor 12) was highly respected as in fact is listed in 1Cor 12 as first among the gifts. But that gift required that you be someone who lived at the time of Christ and who was one of the 12 or so leaders starting the NT church.

That ended by the start of the 2nd century A.D.

Many OTHER non-Apostles were also evangelizing (Apollos, Silas, Barnabus, Timothy ... etc)

​

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. Acts 15:24​

This is a reference to non-Apostles that were in error.

However the Acts 15 council was attended by actual living Apostles to render a judgment.

As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. Acts 16:4
​

For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God. 2 Corinthians 2:17 (Note: this shows that the office they hold is more then self appointed authority).

That statement in now way limits itself to Apostles.

having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone Eph. 2:20 (Note: the word founation is used to describe "the apostles and prophets", not just St. Peter)

​

In Eph 2 there is no reference that new apostles will be raised up in every age. Only that the church is founded upon the work done by those that had already come along.

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. Acts 20:28 (Note: this is a clear testimony that the Holy Spirit appointed the Twelve to be "oeverseers" and "shepherds of the church")

This is a good text refuting the entire notion of Apostolic succession - because the statement in Acts 20 is being addressed to the Elders in the area of Ephesus.

Every church had an overseer, and Elder - (we would call them Elders and Pastors today). Nothing here about the church of Ephesus having its own resident apostles.

As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. John 17:18 (Note: the Bible compares the ministry of Jesus to that of the Twelve)

At the time of Christ speaking this in John 17 - (The Last Supper) Christ had sent BOTH the 70 and the 12 into the world. In John 17 Christ states explicitly that the pray said then applied NOT ONLY to the disciples but to ALL that should believe through them in all ages.

What is specifically missing from this list is any text at all saying that "so and so was given apostolic succession from James or from Peter" --

IN the OT there actually IS such a thing as High Priestly "succession" but nothing like that is documented in the NT.

in Christ,

Bob
​

 

[Matt Black]

You're missing the point, Bob, that all of these individuals (Silas, Timothy, the Ephesian presbyters etc) were appointed by our acting with the authorisation of the Apostles.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How odd that the text then does not say to believe and confess "in order to consider proper righteousness".

The text doesn't need to because he already prepped the argument and follows through with the contrast comparison.

 

[BobRyan]

You're missing the point, Bob, that all of these individuals (Silas, Timothy, the Ephesian presbyters etc) were appointed by our acting with the authorisation of the Apostles.

Certainly we can all agree that the NT leaders were at that time - being directed by the Acts 15 Jerusalem council and that the evangelists they sent out (including Barnabus, Mark, Silas and yes even Paul) were setting up churches wherever they went.

But after the death of the last of the Apostles -- the church continues under some kind of order - but without any Apostles.

And there is nothing in the NT about "apostolic succession".

Which of course - would be impossible anyway - given the 3 competing lines of Popes ALL of them having successors and ALL of them terminated by Emperor Sigismund.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The text doesn't need to because he already prepped the argument and follows through with the contrast comparison.

Here is what the text "does" say -

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 if you confess 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 with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.


And since there is only ONE Gospel (Gal 1:6-11) and thus only ONE way of salvation - the salvation above applies to both Jew and Gentile.


Paul makes no argument at all in Romans 10 that Jews are saved one way and gentiles saved an entirely different way.

Thus when Paul indentifies the actions resulting in salvation the point is crytstal clear.

Paul points out in Romans 10 that the Jews need that salvation every bit as much as gentiles. But that does nothing to change the form of the solution that is provided - and the fact that it applies to all lost people.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Certainly we can all agree that the NT leaders were at that time - being directed by the Acts 15 Jerusalem council and that the evangelists they sent out (including Barnabus, Mark, Silas and yes even Paul) were setting up churches wherever they went.

But after the death of the last of the Apostles -- the church continues under some kind of order - but without any Apostles.

And there is nothing in the NT about "apostolic succession".

Which of course - would be impossible anyway - given the 3 competing lines of Popes ALL of them having successors and ALL of them terminated by Emperor Sigismund.

in Christ,

Bob

To take your last point first, Apostolic Succession isn't just (or even primarily) about Popes - I think you'll find Agnus Dei would have something to say if it was! It's about bishops. The members of the two, later three, lists of Popes during the Rome-Avignon schism were all validly consecrated bishops, whether or not they were valid Popes. And it was the Council of Constance, comprised of bishops which ended the schism.

I would also question your assertion that the concept of AS is not found in the pages of the NT. We've hashed this out here before, but there is, for example, Paul's injunction to Timothy: "And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2). (There are other examples as well, but time does not permit right now.)

 

[BobRyan]

1. Please show where any Catholic or (other denomination) claims that Bishops are all "Apostles".

2. Please show where the Bible states that Timothy - or anyone Timothy appointed - was "an Apostle".

3. Please show that Paul EVER claimed to bestow the 1Cor 12 gift of being an Apostle on ANYONE!

4. Please show that the 1Cor 12 gift of being an Apostle - is bestowed through election to church leadership as a deacon or elder.

This appears to be the key weakness in the argument you described.

I find many references in RCC literature to Popes sitting in Peter's chair - as Apostles via some mythical concept of Apostolic succession - but nothing about all Bishops or all Cardinals being "Apostles". Thus the defrocking of ALL Popes at the time of Sigismund is another "wall" blocking those claims.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Re #1, #2 and #3, we are talking about successors to the Apostles, not the Apostles themselves. And the RCs, Orthodox and Anglicans certainly do claim that their Bishops are the successors of the Apostles. Re #4, I don't see what that has to do with the debate.

 

[dcorbett]

Christ is Risen!

I'm not sure if this thread is about the Roman Catholic "Rosary" or about Mary's title as "Queen of Heaven"...since I'm Orthodox Christian and we don't recite a "Rosary",...I'll just comment on the "Queen of Heaven...

Here's what Orthodox Church Teaches:

A) The Queenship of Mary refers to Mary’s royal dignity as Mother of the King of Kings, Jesus Christ. It is a simple, straightforward relationship, found in the pages of scripture. That title takes nothing away from Jesus’ Kingship, but rather is a consequence of it.

1) Psalm 45:9 refers to the Queen Mother standing at the king’s right hand, arrayed in gold. Hebrews 1:8-9 applies this psalm to Jesus as Messianic King. By extension, Psalm 45:9 would then apply prophetically to the Messianic King’s Mother, Mary.

2) The New Testament: These texts provide the Old Testament background to Mary’s role in the New Testament. At the Annunciation, the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would conceive and bear a son whom she would name Jesus. Then Gabriel declared, The Lord God will give him the throne of his David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end (Lk 1:32-33). Since Jesus is certainly the Messianic King, it follows that Mary’s role is that of the Queen Mother of the Messianic King. This explains why St. Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, would say to her younger cousin, Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Lk 1:43).

3) This is the language of the royal court, with the subordinate (Elizabeth) addressing a royal superior (Mary). Elizabeth was honored, not merely by the presence, in utero, of the child Jesus, but also by Mary herself. Elizabeth said, Who am I that the Mother of my Lord should come to me? Elizabeth was honored by the presence of Mary because she is the Queen Mother of the Messianic King, Elizabeth’s Lord.

In XC
-

Talk about reading all kinds of stuff into the scriptures and adding and embellishing unnecessarilly!!!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Talk about reading all kinds of stuff into the scriptures and adding and embellishing unnecessarilly!!!

With The Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Anglicans there is a key point of understanding with you miss out on when it comes to certain doctrine. In fact the reason they hold to these things rather than consider themselves to be "adding" or "embellishing" has to do with a very important Greek word. In all arguments between evangelicals and Classical Christians it all goes back to the consept inherent in the Greek word "Paradosis". How was the Church established? On Paradosis? On logos gegrammenos? Or on the written word.

 

[BobRyan]

Re #1, #2 and #3, we are talking about successors to the Apostles, not the Apostles themselves. And the RCs, Orthodox and Anglicans certainly do claim that their Bishops are the successors of the Apostles. Re #4, I don't see what that has to do with the debate.

BillySunday proposed it as a way to get the RCC back on top of the list of denominations -

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1538297#post1538297

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The only text in all of scripture mentioning the queen of heaven - and even "burning incense to the queen of heaven" is found in the book of Jeremiah and it is condemned there -- as a pagan practice.

turns out - it was a pagan practice "still" even in the 5th century AD when the RCC "baptized that practice" trying to come up with a way to coopt it and use it for a christian-ish idea.

I'm not sure if this thread is about the Roman Catholic "Rosary" or about Mary's title as "Queen of Heaven"...since I'm Orthodox Christian and we don't recite a "Rosary",...I'll just comment on the "Queen of Heaven...

Here's what Orthodox Church Teaches:

A) The Queenship of Mary refers to Mary’s royal dignity as Mother of the King of Kings, Jesus Christ. It is a simple, straightforward relationship, found in the pages of scripture. That title takes nothing away from Jesus’ Kingship, but rather is a consequence of it.

That is how they rationalized adoption of that particular pagan practice.

1) Psalm 45:9 refers to the Queen Mother standing at the king’s right hand, arrayed in gold. Hebrews 1:8-9 applies this psalm to Jesus as Messianic King. By extension, Psalm 45:9 would then apply prophetically to the Messianic King’s Mother, Mary.

There is no mention in Ps 45 at all of the title "Queen of Heaven" - and there is certainly no mention at all in Ps 45 that the queen being referenced "does not yet exist" as was the case with the yet-to-be-born Mary.

Further - there is no suggestion at all in scripture - that Christ married his mother!

2) The New Testament: These texts provide the Old Testament background to Mary’s role in the New Testament. At the Annunciation, the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would conceive and bear a son whom she would name Jesus. Then Gabriel declared, The Lord God will give him the throne of his David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end (Lk 1:32-33). Since Jesus is certainly the Messianic King, it follows that Mary’s role is that of the Queen

1. Jesus did not Marry his Mother.
2. Mary was not queen of anything before giving birth to Christ - and so could not even be "Queen mother" since that is how that title gets assigned.

3. Gabriel does not say to Mary "Hail queen of heaven" or "Hail queen of anything".

4. No NT author refers to Mary as queen of anything.

5. When Mary is "blessed" by someone speaking to Christ - Christ response is "ON THE CONTRARY - blessed are those who hear my Words and obey them".

Mother of the Messianic King. This explains why St. Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, would say to her younger cousin, Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Lk 1:43).

Elizabeth does not call Mary her queen - or queen of anything.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Zenas]

Talk about reading all kinds of stuff into the scriptures and adding and embellishing unnecessarilly!!!

How does that differ from the kind of exegesis practiced by dispensational premillennialists? They take a little bit here and a little bit there and pretty soon they have a whole new theory that is nowhere expressly stated in scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed that happens. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Exegesis is much better than simply inserting wild ideas into the text as it pleases your denomination.

in Christ,

Bob