Dualhunter
New Member
How does one come to the conclusion that the Magisterium is correct without personal interpretation?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Church as the Kingdom of God
- Thread starter Carson Weber
- Start date
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
How does one come to the conclusion that the Magisterium is correct without personal interpretation?
We don't judge the Magisterial statements and then come to our personal conclusion as to whether they are correct - and then accept or reject them. That's the role of a Protestant, who does not practice the virtue of faith by submitting but rather believes in himself. Such trust in one's own light is not faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith.
We accept the teachings of the Magisterium in faith because the bishops in union with Peter have divine authority to guard (cf. 1 Tim 6:20) and expound the revelation (cf. Mt 28:20) once and for all delivered unto the saints (cf. Jude 3).
"For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained" (Pope Pius XI, Enyclical Letter Mortalium Animos, 1928).
We don't judge the Magisterial statements and then come to our personal conclusion as to whether they are correct - and then accept or reject them. That's the role of a Protestant, who does not practice the virtue of faith by submitting but rather believes in himself. Such trust in one's own light is not faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith.
We accept the teachings of the Magisterium in faith because the bishops in union with Peter have divine authority to guard (cf. 1 Tim 6:20) and expound the revelation (cf. Mt 28:20) once and for all delivered unto the saints (cf. Jude 3).
"For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained" (Pope Pius XI, Enyclical Letter Mortalium Animos, 1928).
Of course I agree wholeheartedly, Carson!
But a different approach, a more simplified one for one seeking Christ's true Church, had me envolved in the following steps in my search for that Church:
1. That I basically believed in Jesus Christ as the "true religion" of God, the new covenant built upon the old, when God promised all of those good things to Abraham.
2. That in that belief in Jesus Christ, that I acknowledge He built a Church with awesome authority. I need only refer to Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18, John 20:22-23 and finally, Matthew 28:19 (among several) to see the great commissioning of a great "human" Church, led by fallible men, to be a church with infallible authority per Christ's own words.
3. This is the simple part: Look for the only Church who can trace her history back to the occasions of Christ establishing and commissioning that Church.
Printed-out your paper for further reading. Looks great, Carson!
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Rome has spoken, case is closed.
Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.
I think somebody missed the point.
How does someone not born into the catholic church come to the conclusion that the catholic church is 'the' church except through private interpretation?
We will give you time....this question will not be easy to answer.
BTW, your constant harping on catholics having the virtue of faith and non-catholics having faith in themselves is quite obnoxious. In reality, you have no idea where anyone places their faith, catholic or not. To do so is judging someone; something you have preaced against in the past.
Truth be told, I really don't have much faith in myself in many areas. I am completely honest about my abilities, my strenghts and my weaknesses. I recognize the utter insiginificance that is me with regard to the vastness of God and His creation. I place my trust and faith in Him and Him alone.
In Christ,
jason
I hope you don't mind my butting-in here, but as a convert, I can give you an answer.
In some ways, I did indeed use "private interpretation" to come to the conclusion to the truth of Catholicism! It is indeed, possible for one to find the truth on one's own!
The problem is, how do you know what you have concluded is the truth?
For me, it took several years after becoming a Catholic for it to really sink in, but I really and truly believe that I found the truth!
It comes from years and years of defending the faith, which I did from the git go, even while under instruction in the faith, while still a Protestant, by my encounters with others who were trying to talk me out of it....
Well, while I sincerely believe that I found the truth, I cannot stand up and say "here is the proof of my faith" and at the same time, declare that I have seen all of the truth. In other words, in my apologetics, I must always expose myself to a possible "truth" I have overlooked. In other words, convince me otherwise of my arguments for my position! I must be open to the possibility that I have not yet found it!
So my question to you is, are you willing to have an open mind to what may just hit you in the head as THE truth? I am not questioning your sincerely, my brother in Christ; I certainly believe that you are sincere. I also know how hard it is to put aside your pre-conceived notions. God knows I have pre-conceived notions! I have developed them with great relish!
So it is not an easy task I ask of you - it is difficult for me as well....
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!
CatholicConvert
New Member
God's new covenant was not to restore Adam and Eve...what would that gain..? He'd already sent a savior to be our intermediary. The sacrifice that Jesus made is one that will wash away all sin and rejection if we will only believe. I could not hope to add upon that truth.
Your answer betrays your lack of covenantal thinking, yet all of the Bible speaks to covenant as God's manner of dealing with mankind. The word "covenant" appears over 280 times in both OT and NT, therefore, it is an important and foundational principle by which God deals with mankind.
I would ask you what it means that God calls Jesus "the Last Adam" in Scripture (1 Corin. 15:45). Words mean things, and for God to give Jesus this title has some meaning, if we are looking for it. What does that title mean to you?
You quote what has been taught to you from the straits of Catholicism....not the bible.
Au contraire....you need to know who I am and why I am. I was a very anti-catholic Protestant for 25 years, so much so that I made my ole buddy DHK look like a rosary totin' Franciscan friar. Bob Jones, Jerry Falwell, and Jack Chick were my heroes for the first 12 years of this, then John Calvin and the Reformers after that. In all cases, I believed and spoke my mind in public that all Catholics, and ESPECIALLY that son of Satan, the pope, had box seat tickets in hell. Therefore, any conclusions which I arrived at regarding the correctness of the Catholic Faith were done so by my studying the Bible to try to prove the Catholics wrong. I got hooked in these forums about 3 1/2 years ago and in my attempts to prove the Catholic Faith wrong, I found it correct.
I must hasten to add that this would not have been possible had I not come to a deep appreciation of covenantalism which was nurtured in the Presbyterian church. Covenantalism, properly understood, is the foundation and cornerstone of understanding the Catholic Faith.
My studies in this area began with Ray Sutton's book on the covenant THAT YOU MAY PROSPER -- Dominion by Covenant and continued with a plethora of books, again written by Reformed Protestants, regarding the establishment of the kingdom upon Christ's return in AD 70.
The real defining moment came when I read an article by Dr. Michael Horton, another Presbyterian, on the Lord's Supper. While Dr. Horton had absolutely no intention of presenting a validation of the Eucharist, when I finished the article, I was thinking in those terms, and began to refer to our communion elements as "the Body and Blood of the Lord" (not knowing, of course, that it takes valid orders to confect the Lord's Body and Blood from bread and wine).
Any teaching which I received from Catholic sources came along well after I was on the road Home to Rome and simply validated the 2 + 2 I had already put together. Therefore, your assumption is quite invalid.
Salvation is offered to individual souls.....not to groups organized under a presumed name.
Nope. Sorry. Wrong again. This is another Protestant fallacy, along with "private interpretation" "faith alone salvation" and other things which smack of individualism over the family of God.
Scripture says that Christ came to die for "His people, Israel." God's salvational dealings in both the Old and New Covenant have to do with the "eklessia" -- i.e., the people of God, the "gathering."
Christ died for His Bride, the Church, and salvation is found in being intimately united to Him through Her. The analogy is marriage, not the single life.
Again, work your typologies from OT to NT and you will begin to see these things.
Cordially in Christ,
Brother Ed
Your answer betrays your lack of covenantal thinking, yet all of the Bible speaks to covenant as God's manner of dealing with mankind. The word "covenant" appears over 280 times in both OT and NT, therefore, it is an important and foundational principle by which God deals with mankind.
I would ask you what it means that God calls Jesus "the Last Adam" in Scripture (1 Corin. 15:45). Words mean things, and for God to give Jesus this title has some meaning, if we are looking for it. What does that title mean to you?
You quote what has been taught to you from the straits of Catholicism....not the bible.
Au contraire....you need to know who I am and why I am. I was a very anti-catholic Protestant for 25 years, so much so that I made my ole buddy DHK look like a rosary totin' Franciscan friar. Bob Jones, Jerry Falwell, and Jack Chick were my heroes for the first 12 years of this, then John Calvin and the Reformers after that. In all cases, I believed and spoke my mind in public that all Catholics, and ESPECIALLY that son of Satan, the pope, had box seat tickets in hell. Therefore, any conclusions which I arrived at regarding the correctness of the Catholic Faith were done so by my studying the Bible to try to prove the Catholics wrong. I got hooked in these forums about 3 1/2 years ago and in my attempts to prove the Catholic Faith wrong, I found it correct.
I must hasten to add that this would not have been possible had I not come to a deep appreciation of covenantalism which was nurtured in the Presbyterian church. Covenantalism, properly understood, is the foundation and cornerstone of understanding the Catholic Faith.
My studies in this area began with Ray Sutton's book on the covenant THAT YOU MAY PROSPER -- Dominion by Covenant and continued with a plethora of books, again written by Reformed Protestants, regarding the establishment of the kingdom upon Christ's return in AD 70.
The real defining moment came when I read an article by Dr. Michael Horton, another Presbyterian, on the Lord's Supper. While Dr. Horton had absolutely no intention of presenting a validation of the Eucharist, when I finished the article, I was thinking in those terms, and began to refer to our communion elements as "the Body and Blood of the Lord" (not knowing, of course, that it takes valid orders to confect the Lord's Body and Blood from bread and wine).
Any teaching which I received from Catholic sources came along well after I was on the road Home to Rome and simply validated the 2 + 2 I had already put together. Therefore, your assumption is quite invalid.
Salvation is offered to individual souls.....not to groups organized under a presumed name.
Nope. Sorry. Wrong again. This is another Protestant fallacy, along with "private interpretation" "faith alone salvation" and other things which smack of individualism over the family of God.
Scripture says that Christ came to die for "His people, Israel." God's salvational dealings in both the Old and New Covenant have to do with the "eklessia" -- i.e., the people of God, the "gathering."
Christ died for His Bride, the Church, and salvation is found in being intimately united to Him through Her. The analogy is marriage, not the single life.
Again, work your typologies from OT to NT and you will begin to see these things.
Cordially in Christ,
Brother Ed
Dualhunter
New Member
No, I mean in an absolute sense. How do you come to the conclusion that the Magisterium will always be correct (in matters of faith and morals) without any personal interpretation?
SolaScriptura in 2003
New Member
The church is the kingdom of God? Of course it is. That's absolutely true! The only problem is that the RCC is not the church: the church of Christ doesn't forbid to marry and command to abstain from meats. The church of Christ doesn't ordain celibate men as bishops when the apostles clearly taught that such a man must be married and have faithful children. The church of Christ does not fight in carnal warfare like the crusades because Christ said My kingdom is not of this world, therefore my servants do not fight. The church of Christ does not bow before images of which God says thou shalt not bow to them, neither shalt thou serve them. The church of Christ does not transgress Christ's plainest command: call no man father. The church of Christ does not pretend that sprinkling is a burial. The church of Christ does not look to the glory of cities as if it showed the approval of God. The church of Christ was never so hated by it's own members that it's service began to be called by the word that signified the end of the service!!!!!!!
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Jason, you asked, "How does someone not born into the catholic church come to the conclusion that the catholic church is 'the' church except through private interpretation?"
I don't know how they would be able to avoid private interpretation. In fact, it's quite necessary for such an individual. I continue to practice private interpretation as a Catholic quite often; in fact, it's the authority of the Church, which enables me to think for myself and for my reason to be elevated by the light of faith.
It's that my private interpretation does not suplant the dogmatic decrees of the Church. I do not interpret contrary to the analogy of faith because the Christian faith is based upon one deposit of divine revelation guarded by one Magisterium as it has been revealed by one God in manifold ways.
Sola, you wrote, "The only problem is that the RCC is not the church"
Would you mind reading and critiquing my paper, which is the subject of this thread?
[ April 27, 2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
I don't know how they would be able to avoid private interpretation. In fact, it's quite necessary for such an individual. I continue to practice private interpretation as a Catholic quite often; in fact, it's the authority of the Church, which enables me to think for myself and for my reason to be elevated by the light of faith.
It's that my private interpretation does not suplant the dogmatic decrees of the Church. I do not interpret contrary to the analogy of faith because the Christian faith is based upon one deposit of divine revelation guarded by one Magisterium as it has been revealed by one God in manifold ways.
Sola, you wrote, "The only problem is that the RCC is not the church"
Would you mind reading and critiquing my paper, which is the subject of this thread?
[ April 27, 2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
SolaScriptura in 2003
New Member
Up to the point that you said Peter was the rock, I generally agreed with you, but had three questions:
</font>
Besides the well known prophesies against offering oblations to the "Queen of Heaven," the fact that when confronted by a woman who said "Blessed are the breasts that gave you suck" Jesus said "Much more blessed are those that do the will of God" and on another occasion when it was said "Your mother and brothers are outside" he said "Those who do God's will are my mother and sisters and brothers" proves that he did not seek to exalt his mother to royal status as queen as supposed by Rome, nor did he command his disciples to worship her as a deity as supposed by Mohammed (who received this insane idea from Catholics, no doubt)! It should also be noted that no Old Testament prophecy mentions anything about there being a queen over the house of David in the future as it does about their being a King, nor does any New Testament writer point to any nonexistent prophecy of this sort and apply it to Mary. The passage about the virgin birth says much about what the son will do, but nothing of what the mother will do save conceive the son, bear him, and call him Immanuel. Furthermore, Mary is not even mentioned after the gospels except in the phrase "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law" (Gal 4:4) and we know that the apostles would not have been able to keep from using the title "Queen of Heaven" with reference to Mary in their writings if such a title were lawful and true.
Furthermore, The statement that the vision of the woman in chapter 12 is the Ark of the Covenant is unfounded; it is nowhere stated in the chapter nor is it necessary to infer that it is the Ark. It is furthermore obvious that this woman was driven into the wilderness for a specified amount of time that Mary was not. The woman in Revelation 12 is no doubt Israel, both Israel of old in one sense and the church in another, for the Christ was born from this woman (national Israel) and this woman (the church) is also persecuted for Christ's birth.
Furthermore, as far as the idea of an Ark of the Covenant is concerned, it would be far more logical to call the cup the Ark of the Covenant for of it the Lord says "this cup is the New Testament (Covenant) in My blood." If He calls it the New Covenant then it ought to be first choice to be called the Ark of the Covenant, don't you think?
So, in conclusion, your paper was pretty good until you went off into all the unfounded Romish insanity.
[ April 27, 2003, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]
</font>
- Carson, when you say "Son of David by grace and Son of God by nature" are you denying that Christ is both fully God and fully man?</font>
- In 2 Samuel 7:19, can you comment on why some translations render it as a statement and as others as a question?</font>
- Do you believe the gospel of Matthew is inspired? You seem ambiguous here.</font>
Besides the well known prophesies against offering oblations to the "Queen of Heaven," the fact that when confronted by a woman who said "Blessed are the breasts that gave you suck" Jesus said "Much more blessed are those that do the will of God" and on another occasion when it was said "Your mother and brothers are outside" he said "Those who do God's will are my mother and sisters and brothers" proves that he did not seek to exalt his mother to royal status as queen as supposed by Rome, nor did he command his disciples to worship her as a deity as supposed by Mohammed (who received this insane idea from Catholics, no doubt)! It should also be noted that no Old Testament prophecy mentions anything about there being a queen over the house of David in the future as it does about their being a King, nor does any New Testament writer point to any nonexistent prophecy of this sort and apply it to Mary. The passage about the virgin birth says much about what the son will do, but nothing of what the mother will do save conceive the son, bear him, and call him Immanuel. Furthermore, Mary is not even mentioned after the gospels except in the phrase "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law" (Gal 4:4) and we know that the apostles would not have been able to keep from using the title "Queen of Heaven" with reference to Mary in their writings if such a title were lawful and true.
Furthermore, The statement that the vision of the woman in chapter 12 is the Ark of the Covenant is unfounded; it is nowhere stated in the chapter nor is it necessary to infer that it is the Ark. It is furthermore obvious that this woman was driven into the wilderness for a specified amount of time that Mary was not. The woman in Revelation 12 is no doubt Israel, both Israel of old in one sense and the church in another, for the Christ was born from this woman (national Israel) and this woman (the church) is also persecuted for Christ's birth.
Furthermore, as far as the idea of an Ark of the Covenant is concerned, it would be far more logical to call the cup the Ark of the Covenant for of it the Lord says "this cup is the New Testament (Covenant) in My blood." If He calls it the New Covenant then it ought to be first choice to be called the Ark of the Covenant, don't you think?
So, in conclusion, your paper was pretty good until you went off into all the unfounded Romish insanity.
[ April 27, 2003, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Carson, when you say "Son of David by grace and Son of God by nature" are you denying that Christ is both fully God and fully man?
Of course not. I'm a Catholic, remember? Catholics believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man. In fact, it was the Catholic Church at Chalcedon in 451 that emphatically defined this dogma of faith. I'm saying that Jesus' Davidic pedigree through Joseph is one of adoption.
In 2 Samuel 7:19, can you comment on why some translations render it as a statement and as others as a question?
I suppose it is because numerous translators of the text are generally baffled by this response of David because it just doesn't make sense to them. The RSV places an exclamation point at the end, making the statement an emphatic remark - to which I agree.
Do you believe the gospel of Matthew is inspired? You seem ambiguous here.
Of course I do. I'm a Catholic, remember? Catholics believe that all 73 books of the Bible are inspired, and that the original autographs are inerrant.
Then you said that Peter is the rock and quoted a Baptist as your support.
Yes, one of numerous sources from which I could have pulled. The best of contemporary Biblical scholarship (most of which is found in Protestant circles) has reached the clear consensus that Peter is the rock upon which Christ is building his Church.
David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield wrote,
"It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church ... Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely" (The Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261).
so Peter is certainly not Eliakim
I'm not saying that Peter is Eliakim. I am saying that by use of typology, Matthew shows that Jesus, the New Solomon, is building the New Temple (the Church), upon the new eben shetinyah (rock of foundation). Is 22 isn't prophesying directly about Jesus or Peter; it's the Old Testament backdrop against which Matthew places Jesus' appointment of Peter as Prime Minister of the Kingdom.
once the door was opened, what further need would there be to open it?
The language "he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open" is a Semitic form of stating "You have rabbinical authority". It isn't to be taken literally, but literarily.
Besides the well known prophesies against offering oblations to the "Queen of Heaven"
Catholics do not sacrifice to Mary and they are forbidden to do so. That would constitute the sin of idolatry.
the fact that when confronted by a woman who said "Blessed are the breasts that gave you suck" Jesus said "Much more blessed are those that do the will of God" and on another occasion when it was said "Your mother and brothers are outside" he said "Those who do God's will are my mother and sisters and brothers" proves that he did not seek to exalt his mother to royal status as queen
Au contraire, mon ami. Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Mater overcomes this objection:
"But to the blessing uttered by that woman upon her who was his mother according to the flesh, Jesus replies in a significant way: 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it' (Lk. 11:28). He wishes to divert attention from motherhood understood only as a fleshly bond, in order to direct it towards those mysterious bonds of the spirit which develop from hearing and keeping God's word...
"Now, when Jesus left Nazareth and began his public life throughout Palestine, he was completely and exclusively 'concerned with his Father's business' (cf. Lk. 2:49). He announced the Kingdom: the 'Kingdom of God' and 'his Father's business,' which add a new dimension and meaning to everything human, and therefore to every human bond, insofar as these things relate to the goals and tasks assigned to every human being. Within this new dimension, also a bond such as that of 'brotherhood' means something different from 'brotherhood according to the flesh' deriving from a common origin from the same set of parents. 'Motherhood,' too, in the dimension of the Kingdom of God and in the radius of the fatherhood of God himself, takes on another meaning. In the words reported by Luke, Jesus teaches precisely this new meaning of motherhood.
"Is Jesus thereby distancing himself from his mother according to the flesh? Does he perhaps wish to leave her in the hidden obscurity which she herself has chosen? If this seems to be the case from the tone of those words, one must nevertheless note that the new and different motherhood which Jesus speaks of to his disciples refers precisely to Mary in a very special way. Is not Mary the first of 'those who hear the word of God and do it'? And therefore does not the blessing uttered by Jesus in response to the woman in the crowd refer primarily to her? Without any doubt, Mary is worthy of blessing by the very fact that she became the mother of Jesus according to the flesh ('Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked'), but also and especially because already at the Annunciation she accepted the word of God, because she believed it, because she was obedient to God, and because she 'kept' the word and 'pondered it in her heart' (cf. Lk. 1:38, 45; 2:19, 51) and by means of her whole life accomplished it. Thus we can say that the blessing proclaimed by Jesus is not in opposition, despite appearances, to the blessing uttered by the unknown woman, but rather coincides with that blessing in the person of this Virgin Mother, who called herself only 'the handmaid of the Lord' (Lk. 1:38). If it is true that 'all generations will call her blessed' (cf. Lk. 1:48), then it can be said that the unnamed woman was the first to confirm unwittingly that prophetic phrase of Mary's Magnificat and to begin the Magnificat of the ages.
"If through faith Mary became the bearer of the Son given to her by the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit, while preserving her virginity intact, in that same faith she discovered and accepted the other dimension of motherhood revealed by Jesus during his messianic mission. One can say that this dimension of motherhood belonged to Mary from the beginning, that is to say from the moment of the conception and birth of her Son. From that time she was 'the one who believed.' But as the messianic mission of her Son grew clearer to her eyes and spirit, she herself as a mother became ever more open to that new dimension of motherhood which was to constitute her 'part' beside her Son. Had she not said from the very beginning: 'Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word' (Lk. 1:38)? Through faith Mary continued to hear and to ponder that word, in which there became ever clearer, in a way 'which surpasses knowledge' (Eph. 3:19), the self-revelation of the living God. Thus in a sense Mary as Mother became the first 'disciple' of her Son, the first to whom he seemed to say: 'Follow me,' even before he addressed this call to the Apostles or to anyone else (cf. Jn. 1:43)."
nor did he command his disciples to worship her as a deity
The Catholic Church forbids worship of Mary as a deity.
It should also be noted that no Old Testament prophecy mentions anything about there being a queen over the house of David in the future as it does about their being a King
The very institution of the office of the Gebirah by Solomon is a prophecy of the Queen Mother. Since Jesus is the Davidic King of the Davidic Kingdom, his mother automatically fills the office of Queen Mother, whose chair has been empty for as long as the chair of the Davidic King has been empty. It's a perpetual institution of the kingdom, and so we should expect to find it in the kingdom's restoration - and we do; this is why Mary is presented the way she is in Revelation 12 by St. John the Seer in his Apocalypse.
The passage about the virgin birth says much about what the son will do, but nothing of what the mother will do save conceive the son
Which is why, if you have Jewish eyes and ears, you would immediately recognize Mary's role as the Gebirah. The authors of Sacred Scripture (Luke, in this instance) did not have to explicitly point out every little detail because their very wording of the Gospels is done in such a way as to strikingly evoke truths that are assumed and therefore implicitly stated.
Furthermore, Mary is not even mentioned after the gospels
As I've shown in my paper, Mary is presented as the Ark of the Covenant, the New Eve, and the Archetype of the Church in Revelation 12 (though in my paper, I only delve on the first of the three).
The statement that the vision of the woman in chapter 12 is the Ark of the Covenant is unfounded; it is nowhere stated in the chapter nor is it necessary to infer that it is the Ark.
But that's to miss the entire literary illustration accomplished by St. John!
Imagine that you are a first-century reader, raised as a Jew. You have never seen the ark, but all your religious and cultural upbringing has taught you to long for its restoration in the Temple. John builds anticipation, so that he almost seems to be teasing such readers by describing the sound and fury accompanying the ark. The dramatic tension becomes nearly unbearable. The reader wants to see the ark, as John sees it.
What follows, then is jarring. In our modern-day Bibles, after all that build-up, the passage suddenly comes to a screeching halt as chapter eleven concludes. John promises us the ark, but then seems to bring his scene to an abrupt end. We must keep in mind, however, that the chapter divisions in Revelation - as in all the books of the Bible - are artificial, imposed by scribes in the middle ages. There were no chapters in John's original Apocalypse; it was one continuous narrative.
Thus the special effects at the end of chapter eleven served as an immediate prelude for the image that now begins chapter twelve. We can read those lines together as describing a single event: "Then Gods' temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of His covenant was seen ... And a greater portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery."
John has shown us the ark of the covenant - and it's a woman.
It is furthermore obvious that this woman was driven into the wilderness for a specified amount of time that Mary was not.
Some commentators believe that this depicts Mary's divine protection from sin and from diabolical influence. Some, too, have seen it as a stylized narrative of the light into Egypt (cf. Mt 2:13-15), where the Holy Family was driven by the Herodian beast.
The woman in Revelation 12 is no doubt Israel, both Israel of old in one sense and the church in another, for the Christ was born from this woman (national Israel) and this woman (the church) is also persecuted for Christ's birth.
The woman can also be seen as Mary serving as an archetype for the Church. She represents the Church, which labors to give birth to believers in every age (cf. Rev 12:17).
If you look at footnote 18 at this point in my paper, I refer the reader to Scott Hahn, “Venerators of the Lost Ark: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Revelation 11-12,” Scripture Matters, Vol. 3, Issue 1, in Envoy Magazine, Jan/Feb 2000.
It is here that we read:
"Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman has offered one compelling argument for why personification doesn't sufficie as a reading of Revelation 12: 'The image of the woman, according to general Scripture usage, is too bold and prominent for a mere personification. Scripture is not fond of allegories. We have indeed frequent figures there, as when the sacred writers speak of the arm or sword of the Lord. So, too, when they speak of Jerusalem or Samaria in the feminine, or of the Church as a bride or as a vine. But they are not much given to dressing up abstract ideas or generalizations in personal attributes. This si the classical rather than the scriptural style. Xenophon places Hercules between Virtue and Vice, represented as women.'
"Mere personification doesn't seem to fit John's method throughout the episode with the woman for he introduces other fantastic characters, who may embody certain ideas, but there can be no doubt that they are also real persons.
"For example, few interpreters question the identity of the 'male child' the woman brings forth (cf. Rev 12:5). Given the context in Revelation, this male child could only be Jesus Christ. John tells us the child is 'to rule all the nations with a rod of iron' (Rev 12:6), and this clearly is a reference to Ps 2:9, which describes the messianic king promised by God. John also adds that this child 'was caught up to God and to His throne,' which can only refer to Jesus who ascended to heaven.
"What is true for the male child is also true for His enemy, the dragon. John states plainly that the dragon is not only an allegory but a specific person: 'that ancient serpent who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world' (Rev 12:9).
"In the same way, the dragon's ally, the 'beast rising out of the sea' (Rev 13:1), also corresponds to real people. Let's look at that hideous beast and then look back into history, to see what John saw. The best as 'ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns upon its horns and a blasphemous name upon its heads.' We know from the Book of Daniel (cf. Dan 7) that, in prophecy, such beasts usually represent dynasties. Horns, for example, are a common symbol of dynastic power.
"We should ask ourselves, then: In the first century, what dynasty was most threatened by the rise of the messanic king from David's line? Matthew's Gospel (Ch. 2) makes that clear. It was the dynasty of Herod, the Herodians. Herod, after all, as a non-Jew, appointed by the Romans to rule Judea. In order to shore up his illegitimate reign, the Romans wiped out all heirs of the Jews' Hasmonean dynasty. Yet Herod claimed to be king in Jerusalem, and even went so far as to rebuild the Temple on a grand scale. A charismatic leader, Herod - even though he was a Gentile - earned by turns, the fear, gratitude and even worship of his subjects throughout his bloody reign. This first of the Herods murdered his own wife, three of his sons, his mother-in-law, a brother-in-law, and an uncle, not to mention all the infants of Bethlehem.
"Morever, Herod had insinuated the Temple preists into his dynasty's governance. Whom did Herod consult, after all, when he sought the newborn Messiah? The Herodian dynasty, then was a satanic counterfeit of the House of David. Like David's true heir, Solomon, Herod had built up the Temple. He had also, with help from the Romans, unified the lands of Israel for the first time in centuries.
"The Herods, then, would make themselves the greatest obstacle to the reign of the Davidic king. Read the history further, and you'll learn that there were seven Herods. Read further still, and you'll learn that there were ten Ceasers in Rome's imperial line from Julius to Titus. The beast with ten horns and seven crowned heads perfectly correspondst o the seven corwned Herods who drew their power to rule from the dynasty of the ten Caesears.
"To claim that Revelation 12 is an exercise in personification would be a gross over-simplification. John's vision, though rich in symbolism, also describes real history and real people, though from a heavenly perspective."
Of course not. I'm a Catholic, remember? Catholics believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man. In fact, it was the Catholic Church at Chalcedon in 451 that emphatically defined this dogma of faith. I'm saying that Jesus' Davidic pedigree through Joseph is one of adoption.
In 2 Samuel 7:19, can you comment on why some translations render it as a statement and as others as a question?
I suppose it is because numerous translators of the text are generally baffled by this response of David because it just doesn't make sense to them. The RSV places an exclamation point at the end, making the statement an emphatic remark - to which I agree.
Do you believe the gospel of Matthew is inspired? You seem ambiguous here.
Of course I do. I'm a Catholic, remember? Catholics believe that all 73 books of the Bible are inspired, and that the original autographs are inerrant.
Then you said that Peter is the rock and quoted a Baptist as your support.
Yes, one of numerous sources from which I could have pulled. The best of contemporary Biblical scholarship (most of which is found in Protestant circles) has reached the clear consensus that Peter is the rock upon which Christ is building his Church.
David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield wrote,
"It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church ... Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely" (The Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261).
so Peter is certainly not Eliakim
I'm not saying that Peter is Eliakim. I am saying that by use of typology, Matthew shows that Jesus, the New Solomon, is building the New Temple (the Church), upon the new eben shetinyah (rock of foundation). Is 22 isn't prophesying directly about Jesus or Peter; it's the Old Testament backdrop against which Matthew places Jesus' appointment of Peter as Prime Minister of the Kingdom.
once the door was opened, what further need would there be to open it?
The language "he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open" is a Semitic form of stating "You have rabbinical authority". It isn't to be taken literally, but literarily.
Besides the well known prophesies against offering oblations to the "Queen of Heaven"
Catholics do not sacrifice to Mary and they are forbidden to do so. That would constitute the sin of idolatry.
the fact that when confronted by a woman who said "Blessed are the breasts that gave you suck" Jesus said "Much more blessed are those that do the will of God" and on another occasion when it was said "Your mother and brothers are outside" he said "Those who do God's will are my mother and sisters and brothers" proves that he did not seek to exalt his mother to royal status as queen
Au contraire, mon ami. Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Mater overcomes this objection:
"But to the blessing uttered by that woman upon her who was his mother according to the flesh, Jesus replies in a significant way: 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it' (Lk. 11:28). He wishes to divert attention from motherhood understood only as a fleshly bond, in order to direct it towards those mysterious bonds of the spirit which develop from hearing and keeping God's word...
"Now, when Jesus left Nazareth and began his public life throughout Palestine, he was completely and exclusively 'concerned with his Father's business' (cf. Lk. 2:49). He announced the Kingdom: the 'Kingdom of God' and 'his Father's business,' which add a new dimension and meaning to everything human, and therefore to every human bond, insofar as these things relate to the goals and tasks assigned to every human being. Within this new dimension, also a bond such as that of 'brotherhood' means something different from 'brotherhood according to the flesh' deriving from a common origin from the same set of parents. 'Motherhood,' too, in the dimension of the Kingdom of God and in the radius of the fatherhood of God himself, takes on another meaning. In the words reported by Luke, Jesus teaches precisely this new meaning of motherhood.
"Is Jesus thereby distancing himself from his mother according to the flesh? Does he perhaps wish to leave her in the hidden obscurity which she herself has chosen? If this seems to be the case from the tone of those words, one must nevertheless note that the new and different motherhood which Jesus speaks of to his disciples refers precisely to Mary in a very special way. Is not Mary the first of 'those who hear the word of God and do it'? And therefore does not the blessing uttered by Jesus in response to the woman in the crowd refer primarily to her? Without any doubt, Mary is worthy of blessing by the very fact that she became the mother of Jesus according to the flesh ('Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked'), but also and especially because already at the Annunciation she accepted the word of God, because she believed it, because she was obedient to God, and because she 'kept' the word and 'pondered it in her heart' (cf. Lk. 1:38, 45; 2:19, 51) and by means of her whole life accomplished it. Thus we can say that the blessing proclaimed by Jesus is not in opposition, despite appearances, to the blessing uttered by the unknown woman, but rather coincides with that blessing in the person of this Virgin Mother, who called herself only 'the handmaid of the Lord' (Lk. 1:38). If it is true that 'all generations will call her blessed' (cf. Lk. 1:48), then it can be said that the unnamed woman was the first to confirm unwittingly that prophetic phrase of Mary's Magnificat and to begin the Magnificat of the ages.
"If through faith Mary became the bearer of the Son given to her by the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit, while preserving her virginity intact, in that same faith she discovered and accepted the other dimension of motherhood revealed by Jesus during his messianic mission. One can say that this dimension of motherhood belonged to Mary from the beginning, that is to say from the moment of the conception and birth of her Son. From that time she was 'the one who believed.' But as the messianic mission of her Son grew clearer to her eyes and spirit, she herself as a mother became ever more open to that new dimension of motherhood which was to constitute her 'part' beside her Son. Had she not said from the very beginning: 'Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word' (Lk. 1:38)? Through faith Mary continued to hear and to ponder that word, in which there became ever clearer, in a way 'which surpasses knowledge' (Eph. 3:19), the self-revelation of the living God. Thus in a sense Mary as Mother became the first 'disciple' of her Son, the first to whom he seemed to say: 'Follow me,' even before he addressed this call to the Apostles or to anyone else (cf. Jn. 1:43)."
nor did he command his disciples to worship her as a deity
The Catholic Church forbids worship of Mary as a deity.
It should also be noted that no Old Testament prophecy mentions anything about there being a queen over the house of David in the future as it does about their being a King
The very institution of the office of the Gebirah by Solomon is a prophecy of the Queen Mother. Since Jesus is the Davidic King of the Davidic Kingdom, his mother automatically fills the office of Queen Mother, whose chair has been empty for as long as the chair of the Davidic King has been empty. It's a perpetual institution of the kingdom, and so we should expect to find it in the kingdom's restoration - and we do; this is why Mary is presented the way she is in Revelation 12 by St. John the Seer in his Apocalypse.
The passage about the virgin birth says much about what the son will do, but nothing of what the mother will do save conceive the son
Which is why, if you have Jewish eyes and ears, you would immediately recognize Mary's role as the Gebirah. The authors of Sacred Scripture (Luke, in this instance) did not have to explicitly point out every little detail because their very wording of the Gospels is done in such a way as to strikingly evoke truths that are assumed and therefore implicitly stated.
Furthermore, Mary is not even mentioned after the gospels
As I've shown in my paper, Mary is presented as the Ark of the Covenant, the New Eve, and the Archetype of the Church in Revelation 12 (though in my paper, I only delve on the first of the three).
The statement that the vision of the woman in chapter 12 is the Ark of the Covenant is unfounded; it is nowhere stated in the chapter nor is it necessary to infer that it is the Ark.
But that's to miss the entire literary illustration accomplished by St. John!
Imagine that you are a first-century reader, raised as a Jew. You have never seen the ark, but all your religious and cultural upbringing has taught you to long for its restoration in the Temple. John builds anticipation, so that he almost seems to be teasing such readers by describing the sound and fury accompanying the ark. The dramatic tension becomes nearly unbearable. The reader wants to see the ark, as John sees it.
What follows, then is jarring. In our modern-day Bibles, after all that build-up, the passage suddenly comes to a screeching halt as chapter eleven concludes. John promises us the ark, but then seems to bring his scene to an abrupt end. We must keep in mind, however, that the chapter divisions in Revelation - as in all the books of the Bible - are artificial, imposed by scribes in the middle ages. There were no chapters in John's original Apocalypse; it was one continuous narrative.
Thus the special effects at the end of chapter eleven served as an immediate prelude for the image that now begins chapter twelve. We can read those lines together as describing a single event: "Then Gods' temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of His covenant was seen ... And a greater portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery."
John has shown us the ark of the covenant - and it's a woman.
It is furthermore obvious that this woman was driven into the wilderness for a specified amount of time that Mary was not.
Some commentators believe that this depicts Mary's divine protection from sin and from diabolical influence. Some, too, have seen it as a stylized narrative of the light into Egypt (cf. Mt 2:13-15), where the Holy Family was driven by the Herodian beast.
The woman in Revelation 12 is no doubt Israel, both Israel of old in one sense and the church in another, for the Christ was born from this woman (national Israel) and this woman (the church) is also persecuted for Christ's birth.
The woman can also be seen as Mary serving as an archetype for the Church. She represents the Church, which labors to give birth to believers in every age (cf. Rev 12:17).
If you look at footnote 18 at this point in my paper, I refer the reader to Scott Hahn, “Venerators of the Lost Ark: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Revelation 11-12,” Scripture Matters, Vol. 3, Issue 1, in Envoy Magazine, Jan/Feb 2000.
It is here that we read:
"Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman has offered one compelling argument for why personification doesn't sufficie as a reading of Revelation 12: 'The image of the woman, according to general Scripture usage, is too bold and prominent for a mere personification. Scripture is not fond of allegories. We have indeed frequent figures there, as when the sacred writers speak of the arm or sword of the Lord. So, too, when they speak of Jerusalem or Samaria in the feminine, or of the Church as a bride or as a vine. But they are not much given to dressing up abstract ideas or generalizations in personal attributes. This si the classical rather than the scriptural style. Xenophon places Hercules between Virtue and Vice, represented as women.'
"Mere personification doesn't seem to fit John's method throughout the episode with the woman for he introduces other fantastic characters, who may embody certain ideas, but there can be no doubt that they are also real persons.
"For example, few interpreters question the identity of the 'male child' the woman brings forth (cf. Rev 12:5). Given the context in Revelation, this male child could only be Jesus Christ. John tells us the child is 'to rule all the nations with a rod of iron' (Rev 12:6), and this clearly is a reference to Ps 2:9, which describes the messianic king promised by God. John also adds that this child 'was caught up to God and to His throne,' which can only refer to Jesus who ascended to heaven.
"What is true for the male child is also true for His enemy, the dragon. John states plainly that the dragon is not only an allegory but a specific person: 'that ancient serpent who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world' (Rev 12:9).
"In the same way, the dragon's ally, the 'beast rising out of the sea' (Rev 13:1), also corresponds to real people. Let's look at that hideous beast and then look back into history, to see what John saw. The best as 'ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns upon its horns and a blasphemous name upon its heads.' We know from the Book of Daniel (cf. Dan 7) that, in prophecy, such beasts usually represent dynasties. Horns, for example, are a common symbol of dynastic power.
"We should ask ourselves, then: In the first century, what dynasty was most threatened by the rise of the messanic king from David's line? Matthew's Gospel (Ch. 2) makes that clear. It was the dynasty of Herod, the Herodians. Herod, after all, as a non-Jew, appointed by the Romans to rule Judea. In order to shore up his illegitimate reign, the Romans wiped out all heirs of the Jews' Hasmonean dynasty. Yet Herod claimed to be king in Jerusalem, and even went so far as to rebuild the Temple on a grand scale. A charismatic leader, Herod - even though he was a Gentile - earned by turns, the fear, gratitude and even worship of his subjects throughout his bloody reign. This first of the Herods murdered his own wife, three of his sons, his mother-in-law, a brother-in-law, and an uncle, not to mention all the infants of Bethlehem.
"Morever, Herod had insinuated the Temple preists into his dynasty's governance. Whom did Herod consult, after all, when he sought the newborn Messiah? The Herodian dynasty, then was a satanic counterfeit of the House of David. Like David's true heir, Solomon, Herod had built up the Temple. He had also, with help from the Romans, unified the lands of Israel for the first time in centuries.
"The Herods, then, would make themselves the greatest obstacle to the reign of the Davidic king. Read the history further, and you'll learn that there were seven Herods. Read further still, and you'll learn that there were ten Ceasers in Rome's imperial line from Julius to Titus. The beast with ten horns and seven crowned heads perfectly correspondst o the seven corwned Herods who drew their power to rule from the dynasty of the ten Caesears.
"To claim that Revelation 12 is an exercise in personification would be a gross over-simplification. John's vision, though rich in symbolism, also describes real history and real people, though from a heavenly perspective."
SolaScriptura in 2003
New Member
I suppose you will also say that Solomon's being a polygamist was a prophesy that Christ would be too.
You've just invented a bunch of fantacy and tried to throw it into the Bible.
CHRIST'S CHURCH SUPPLANTED
CHAP. 1 THE ROCK
Matt 16:13-18 13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The verses above have been the topic of many a heated debate. The church of Rome contends that the above verses established the apostle Peter as the visible head of Christ's church here on earth. The Popes themselves being one continuous line of Peters successors. The writer contends, as so many already have, that the church of Rome has attempted to supplant the church of Christ. This she has done by literalizing many of the spiritual truths of the scriptures, and applying their literal interpretation toward the establishment of her own power. By putting Peter in the place of Christ, she begins to fulfill her purpose, which is to separate humanity from their Lord and only Savior Jesus Christ. It is the intention of the writer to examine the above verses, and many others, to reveal this deception practiced by the church of Rome.
The reader has a decision to make. Was Christ referring to Peter himself when he said, " thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ", or was he referring to what Peter had just said concerning Christ, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God "? Anyone who will study the scriptures, will understand that the church is built upon Christ. Even the church of Rome won't argue that one. The question is, did Christ hand some special power over to Peter above his brethren or not? Is Peter the rock that Christ is referring to, or is the spiritual and eternal truth that Christ is the Son of the living God, the rock that Christ mentions? The following verses pertaining to our Lord as a stone, or rock, will easily answer this question.
Ps 118:22-23 22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
23 This is the LORD's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.
Isa 28:16 16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Dan 2:34-35 34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
Matt 21:42 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Ps 18:2 2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.
Ps 18:31 31 For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?
Ps 18:46 46 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted.
Ps 28:1 1 Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, if thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit.
Ps 31:1-3 1 In thee, O LORD, do I put my trust; let me never be ashamed: deliver me in thy righteousness.
2 Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me.
3 For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me.
Ps 42:9 9 I will say unto God my rock, Why hast thou forgotten me? why go I mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?
Ps 62:1-2 1 Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation.
2 He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved.
Ps 62:6 6 He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved.
Ps 95:1 1 O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.
Isa 8:13-14 13 Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Isa 32:1-3 1 Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.
2 And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.
3 And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken.
1 Cor 10:4 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
The Lord is referred to as a rock, or stone all through the scriptures. There is no doubt then, that a rock, or stone is a symbol of Christ. This being the case, why would anyone assume that the rock referred to in the scriptures under examination, would be referring to Peter. The Lord Jesus Christ is indeed a rock, and a fortress, unmoving, unchanging, the same yesterday, today, and forever. Our Lord is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Why would He build His church upon a man who could not possibly be any of these things, in even the most minute sense? Peter himself demonstrated humanities inconsistency and wavering almost immediately after stating the eternal and spiritual truth that Christ was the Son of the living God. When Christ began to explain that he must suffer and die, Peter rebuked him, saying that these things would not happen. Our Lord's response was to tell Satan, ( Peter ) to get behind him.
Matt 16:21-23 21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Who knows, but that God in his foreknowledge, had this event recorded immediately following Christ's praise of Peter's acknowledgment of his divinity. If, what Papists claim is true, Peter went from being established by Christ as the visible head of the Lords church on earth, to being called Satan by Christ, in a matter of minutes. He went from speaking that which only the Father could have revealed to him, to speaking that which the father of lies, Satan himself, would purpose. This record, in and of itself, shows the complete fallacy of the Papal assertion of authority based upon these scriptures. This is not to mention the atrocities committed by, and the degradation to which the church of Rome descended, under the leadership of so many Popes.
The scriptures clearly reveal who the rock, or stone is, which the church is built upon.
Eph 2:18-22 18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
So it is, that the church of Rome disregards the biblical symbolism of Christ as the rock, in favor of a literal application of the verses under examination. She then uses this literal application as a bases for the establishment of herself as God's one and only true church on earth. In this manner she seats herself in a position of authority, with the Pope at her head. Thus beginning the separation of her followers from their only Savior Jesus Christ. Many of the Jews thought that because they could trace their lineage back to Abraham, they were God's chosen people. Just so the church of Rome thinks that because she claims to be able to trace a lineage of Popes back to the Apostle Peter, she is God's true church on earth. The following words of John the baptist to some of the Jews, may well be applied to the church of Rome.
Matt 3:7-10 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Much more can, and already has been said by others regarding this matter. For the purposes of this book however, it is sufficient to point out Rome's rejection of the spiritual, in favor of a literal, toward her own establishment, in the place of Christ. In the following chapters, we w We will also examine some of her teachings, and doctrines that undermine the gospel message, as well as examine some biblical prophecies that meet their fulfillment in her.
CHAP. 1 THE ROCK
Matt 16:13-18 13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The verses above have been the topic of many a heated debate. The church of Rome contends that the above verses established the apostle Peter as the visible head of Christ's church here on earth. The Popes themselves being one continuous line of Peters successors. The writer contends, as so many already have, that the church of Rome has attempted to supplant the church of Christ. This she has done by literalizing many of the spiritual truths of the scriptures, and applying their literal interpretation toward the establishment of her own power. By putting Peter in the place of Christ, she begins to fulfill her purpose, which is to separate humanity from their Lord and only Savior Jesus Christ. It is the intention of the writer to examine the above verses, and many others, to reveal this deception practiced by the church of Rome.
The reader has a decision to make. Was Christ referring to Peter himself when he said, " thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ", or was he referring to what Peter had just said concerning Christ, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God "? Anyone who will study the scriptures, will understand that the church is built upon Christ. Even the church of Rome won't argue that one. The question is, did Christ hand some special power over to Peter above his brethren or not? Is Peter the rock that Christ is referring to, or is the spiritual and eternal truth that Christ is the Son of the living God, the rock that Christ mentions? The following verses pertaining to our Lord as a stone, or rock, will easily answer this question.
Ps 118:22-23 22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
23 This is the LORD's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.
Isa 28:16 16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Dan 2:34-35 34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.
Matt 21:42 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Ps 18:2 2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.
Ps 18:31 31 For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?
Ps 18:46 46 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted.
Ps 28:1 1 Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, if thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit.
Ps 31:1-3 1 In thee, O LORD, do I put my trust; let me never be ashamed: deliver me in thy righteousness.
2 Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me.
3 For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name's sake lead me, and guide me.
Ps 42:9 9 I will say unto God my rock, Why hast thou forgotten me? why go I mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?
Ps 62:1-2 1 Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation.
2 He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved.
Ps 62:6 6 He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved.
Ps 95:1 1 O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.
Isa 8:13-14 13 Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Isa 32:1-3 1 Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.
2 And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.
3 And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken.
1 Cor 10:4 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
The Lord is referred to as a rock, or stone all through the scriptures. There is no doubt then, that a rock, or stone is a symbol of Christ. This being the case, why would anyone assume that the rock referred to in the scriptures under examination, would be referring to Peter. The Lord Jesus Christ is indeed a rock, and a fortress, unmoving, unchanging, the same yesterday, today, and forever. Our Lord is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Why would He build His church upon a man who could not possibly be any of these things, in even the most minute sense? Peter himself demonstrated humanities inconsistency and wavering almost immediately after stating the eternal and spiritual truth that Christ was the Son of the living God. When Christ began to explain that he must suffer and die, Peter rebuked him, saying that these things would not happen. Our Lord's response was to tell Satan, ( Peter ) to get behind him.
Matt 16:21-23 21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Who knows, but that God in his foreknowledge, had this event recorded immediately following Christ's praise of Peter's acknowledgment of his divinity. If, what Papists claim is true, Peter went from being established by Christ as the visible head of the Lords church on earth, to being called Satan by Christ, in a matter of minutes. He went from speaking that which only the Father could have revealed to him, to speaking that which the father of lies, Satan himself, would purpose. This record, in and of itself, shows the complete fallacy of the Papal assertion of authority based upon these scriptures. This is not to mention the atrocities committed by, and the degradation to which the church of Rome descended, under the leadership of so many Popes.
The scriptures clearly reveal who the rock, or stone is, which the church is built upon.
Eph 2:18-22 18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
So it is, that the church of Rome disregards the biblical symbolism of Christ as the rock, in favor of a literal application of the verses under examination. She then uses this literal application as a bases for the establishment of herself as God's one and only true church on earth. In this manner she seats herself in a position of authority, with the Pope at her head. Thus beginning the separation of her followers from their only Savior Jesus Christ. Many of the Jews thought that because they could trace their lineage back to Abraham, they were God's chosen people. Just so the church of Rome thinks that because she claims to be able to trace a lineage of Popes back to the Apostle Peter, she is God's true church on earth. The following words of John the baptist to some of the Jews, may well be applied to the church of Rome.
Matt 3:7-10 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Much more can, and already has been said by others regarding this matter. For the purposes of this book however, it is sufficient to point out Rome's rejection of the spiritual, in favor of a literal, toward her own establishment, in the place of Christ. In the following chapters, we w We will also examine some of her teachings, and doctrines that undermine the gospel message, as well as examine some biblical prophecies that meet their fulfillment in her.
9 THE NATURE OF CHRIST
Immaculate Conception
THE DOCTRINE
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
"The Blessed Virgin Mary . . ." The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.
". . .in the first instance of her conception . . ." The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.
". . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . ." The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining in her soul to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.
". . .by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race." The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.
Such is the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception."
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII Copyright © 1910
According to the church of Rome, in the above explanation of the Immaculate Conception, Mary was separated from the rest of humanity by God. She did not inherit that which all the rest of humanity inherited through Adam and Eve, when they fell in the garden. That is to say, she did not have a fallen, sinful nature. This doctrine is wholly extra biblical. It has no foundation in the scriptures at all, and for this reason, we will not even address the issue of wether it is biblical or not. We will examine however, it's effects upon the heart of the gospel message to this fallen world.
Luke 1:28-35 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
As is apparent from the scriptures above, the conception of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was unlike that of any other of the human race. God himself was Jesus' Father. This is the foundation of the mystery of Godliness. This truth is the salvation of humanity. However, it is not this truth alone that is our salvation, but also the truth that Christ's mother, was one of us. God became a man. Divinity and humanity were united in Christ, bridging the gap created between God and humanity through the disobedience of our first parents.
Gen 22:17-18 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Gen 26:4-6 4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
6 And Isaac dwelt in Gerar:
Acts 3:25-26 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
Rom 1:1-4 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
2 Tim 2:7-8 7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.
8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
Heb 2:14-16 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Christ took upon himself the seed of Abraham, and the seed of David, according to the flesh. These men did not have immaculate conceptions. They were sinners, just as you and I are. Yes, Just as Mary was also. If in fact, Mary was not one of us, then Christ did not unite himself to the entirety of the humane race, that was, is, and always will be, this side of heaven, in desperate need of salvation. The false doctrine of the immaculate conception is yet another doctrine of the church of Rome which separates humanity from their Savior. This doctrine completely undermines the entire gospel message.
Jesus Christ became one of us, in order to save us from the sinful flesh that we inherited from our first parents. This He did, by crucifying the deeds of the flesh, and allowing the deeds of his Father to be fulfilled within him. This is what makes it possible for us to pick up the cross and follow him. However, if Christ did not even have our flesh, how could he possibly have conquered the sins of the flesh that we struggle with, and ask us to follow him? He could not, and he would not. To the contrary, it was for this very purpose that he took upon himself our very own flesh, and nature, yet without sin. This is our salvation.
Heb 2:16-18 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Heb 4:14-16 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
As the book of Hebrews points out, it is the very fact that Jesus Christ became completely one of us, that qualifies him to be our high priest in the heavenly sanctuary. Because he knows and completely understands us, he ever liveth to make intercession for us. (Heb. 7: 25-27) Christ took upon himself our fallen natures, that he might redeem us from this very nature, or flesh if you will. He fought and won this battle with the flesh on our behalf, seeing that we could never have accomplished this victory. Although he took upon himself our fallen nature, Christ never sinned, and this is our salvation.
Rom 8:2-4 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Our Lord and Savior condemned sin in the flesh, by living in our very flesh, but never fulfilling the desires of the flesh. By depending completely on his heavenly Father, and the power of His Holy Spirit, Christ continually crucified the desires of the flesh, thereby fulfilling the will of his Father. This he did until it lead him to the cross, where he was literally crucified for the sins of the world. Christ did not walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Now those who wish to do so, may lay down their lives at the foot of the cross with their Lord and Savior, and pick up the cross and follow Jesus. Christ condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in those who choose to follow him, and walk in the Spirit, instead of the flesh.
John 5:19 19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
John 5:30 30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
John 8:28 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
The Lord Jesus Christ did nothing of himself. For he was God, and man. If he lived by the strength of his own divinity, then he would not be our salvation, for we have no divinity from within ourselves to live with. If he lived, or walked by the flesh, then he could not be our salvation, for he would have lived, or walked in sin. But no, Christ lived, and walked by the Spirit, fulfilling the will of the Father. This is our salvation. Now we can do the same in Christ.
John 14:10-11 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
John 15:4-5 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
If we abide in Christ, first and foremost being crucified with him, then he may abide in us through the power of the Holy Spirit of God. Just as he abode in his Father as one of us, so may we abide in him unto salvation.
Phil 2:5-11 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Jesus crucified the deeds of the flesh all his life long, until it led him to the literal cross. The true Christians life, must begin, where Christ's ended, at the cross. When we die in Christ on the cross, we are justified. The law demands the death of the one who breaks it. Therefore Christ has made it possible for us to enter into his death, that the just demands of the law may be fulfilled. When we die with him, we are justified. When he lives in us, we are sanctified. The is the spiritual service of the Christian, to give their bodies as a living sacrifice unto the Lord, that he might dwell within them unto salvation.(Rom. 12:1&2)
Gal 5:17-25 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
The true Christian seeks to always walk in the Spirit, and not in the flesh. Of course, it is not possible to walk in the Spirit, unless you have first crucified the flesh. The Christian is only able to crucify the flesh in and through the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the one who took our sinful flesh, and crucified it's desires all his life long, resulting in his literal crucifixion. His flesh, was our flesh. If you take this truth away, you destroy the entire gospel message. What good would it do any of us, if Christ crucified some kind of flesh that we have no part of?
II Jn 1:7 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
The Lord Jesus Christ came in the flesh, our flesh. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception undermines this foundational truth of the gospel message. By teaching this false doctrine, the church of Rome manifest's the spirit of antichrist. This is only right of course, since her doctrines serve the purpose of separating humanity from God, while Christ came to do just the opposite. The scriptures no where indicate that the flesh Christ took upon himself was different from the flesh of the rest of humanity. The scriptures do point out that Christ was of the seed of Abraham, and of David according to the flesh, not of the seed of some human that had no original sin. we will close this chapter with the following verses.
John 1:1-14 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
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.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Immaculate Conception
THE DOCTRINE
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
"The Blessed Virgin Mary . . ." The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body.
". . .in the first instance of her conception . . ." The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.
". . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . ." The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining in her soul to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.
". . .by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race." The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.
Such is the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception."
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII Copyright © 1910
According to the church of Rome, in the above explanation of the Immaculate Conception, Mary was separated from the rest of humanity by God. She did not inherit that which all the rest of humanity inherited through Adam and Eve, when they fell in the garden. That is to say, she did not have a fallen, sinful nature. This doctrine is wholly extra biblical. It has no foundation in the scriptures at all, and for this reason, we will not even address the issue of wether it is biblical or not. We will examine however, it's effects upon the heart of the gospel message to this fallen world.
Luke 1:28-35 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
As is apparent from the scriptures above, the conception of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was unlike that of any other of the human race. God himself was Jesus' Father. This is the foundation of the mystery of Godliness. This truth is the salvation of humanity. However, it is not this truth alone that is our salvation, but also the truth that Christ's mother, was one of us. God became a man. Divinity and humanity were united in Christ, bridging the gap created between God and humanity through the disobedience of our first parents.
Gen 22:17-18 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Gen 26:4-6 4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
6 And Isaac dwelt in Gerar:
Acts 3:25-26 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
Rom 1:1-4 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
2 Tim 2:7-8 7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.
8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
Heb 2:14-16 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Christ took upon himself the seed of Abraham, and the seed of David, according to the flesh. These men did not have immaculate conceptions. They were sinners, just as you and I are. Yes, Just as Mary was also. If in fact, Mary was not one of us, then Christ did not unite himself to the entirety of the humane race, that was, is, and always will be, this side of heaven, in desperate need of salvation. The false doctrine of the immaculate conception is yet another doctrine of the church of Rome which separates humanity from their Savior. This doctrine completely undermines the entire gospel message.
Jesus Christ became one of us, in order to save us from the sinful flesh that we inherited from our first parents. This He did, by crucifying the deeds of the flesh, and allowing the deeds of his Father to be fulfilled within him. This is what makes it possible for us to pick up the cross and follow him. However, if Christ did not even have our flesh, how could he possibly have conquered the sins of the flesh that we struggle with, and ask us to follow him? He could not, and he would not. To the contrary, it was for this very purpose that he took upon himself our very own flesh, and nature, yet without sin. This is our salvation.
Heb 2:16-18 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Heb 4:14-16 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
As the book of Hebrews points out, it is the very fact that Jesus Christ became completely one of us, that qualifies him to be our high priest in the heavenly sanctuary. Because he knows and completely understands us, he ever liveth to make intercession for us. (Heb. 7: 25-27) Christ took upon himself our fallen natures, that he might redeem us from this very nature, or flesh if you will. He fought and won this battle with the flesh on our behalf, seeing that we could never have accomplished this victory. Although he took upon himself our fallen nature, Christ never sinned, and this is our salvation.
Rom 8:2-4 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Our Lord and Savior condemned sin in the flesh, by living in our very flesh, but never fulfilling the desires of the flesh. By depending completely on his heavenly Father, and the power of His Holy Spirit, Christ continually crucified the desires of the flesh, thereby fulfilling the will of his Father. This he did until it lead him to the cross, where he was literally crucified for the sins of the world. Christ did not walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Now those who wish to do so, may lay down their lives at the foot of the cross with their Lord and Savior, and pick up the cross and follow Jesus. Christ condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in those who choose to follow him, and walk in the Spirit, instead of the flesh.
John 5:19 19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
John 5:30 30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
John 8:28 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
The Lord Jesus Christ did nothing of himself. For he was God, and man. If he lived by the strength of his own divinity, then he would not be our salvation, for we have no divinity from within ourselves to live with. If he lived, or walked by the flesh, then he could not be our salvation, for he would have lived, or walked in sin. But no, Christ lived, and walked by the Spirit, fulfilling the will of the Father. This is our salvation. Now we can do the same in Christ.
John 14:10-11 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
John 15:4-5 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
If we abide in Christ, first and foremost being crucified with him, then he may abide in us through the power of the Holy Spirit of God. Just as he abode in his Father as one of us, so may we abide in him unto salvation.
Phil 2:5-11 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Jesus crucified the deeds of the flesh all his life long, until it led him to the literal cross. The true Christians life, must begin, where Christ's ended, at the cross. When we die in Christ on the cross, we are justified. The law demands the death of the one who breaks it. Therefore Christ has made it possible for us to enter into his death, that the just demands of the law may be fulfilled. When we die with him, we are justified. When he lives in us, we are sanctified. The is the spiritual service of the Christian, to give their bodies as a living sacrifice unto the Lord, that he might dwell within them unto salvation.(Rom. 12:1&2)
Gal 5:17-25 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
The true Christian seeks to always walk in the Spirit, and not in the flesh. Of course, it is not possible to walk in the Spirit, unless you have first crucified the flesh. The Christian is only able to crucify the flesh in and through the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the one who took our sinful flesh, and crucified it's desires all his life long, resulting in his literal crucifixion. His flesh, was our flesh. If you take this truth away, you destroy the entire gospel message. What good would it do any of us, if Christ crucified some kind of flesh that we have no part of?
II Jn 1:7 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
The Lord Jesus Christ came in the flesh, our flesh. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception undermines this foundational truth of the gospel message. By teaching this false doctrine, the church of Rome manifest's the spirit of antichrist. This is only right of course, since her doctrines serve the purpose of separating humanity from God, while Christ came to do just the opposite. The scriptures no where indicate that the flesh Christ took upon himself was different from the flesh of the rest of humanity. The scriptures do point out that Christ was of the seed of Abraham, and of David according to the flesh, not of the seed of some human that had no original sin. we will close this chapter with the following verses.
John 1:1-14 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
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.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
I suppose you will also say that Solomon's being a polygamist was a prophesy that Christ would be too.
Sola, of course I wouldn't say that. I'm saying that Christ is restoring, renewing, elevating, and transforming the Davidic Covenant in the New Covenant. This means that the office of Davidic King is renewed, transformed and elevated by Christ (our King). So is the Todah - the thank offering - sacrifice of the Temple (Eucharist). So is the Temple (the Christian in grace and the Trinity in glory). So is Jerusalem (the Church). So is the Queen Mother (Mary). So is the cabinet of ministers (Apostles). So is the Prime Minister (Peter).
Hi Kamoroso,
I see that you're willing and able to post globs of information on this thread, esp. regarding the Immaculate Conception. Are you also willing to read my paper and comment upon it, which is the purpose of this thread?
This thread is a place for dialogue - not for random postings that are completely arbitrary and off-topic.
You asked and commented, "Was Christ referring to Peter himself when he said, " thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ", or was he referring to what Peter had just said concerning Christ, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God "? Anyone who will study the scriptures, will understand that the church is built upon Christ."
No, not anyone. Much of contemporary Protestant Biblical scholarship disagrees emphatically with you.
For example, Protestant Biblical scholar Oscar Cullman, writing in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, writes:
"The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra [petra] and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected" (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968], 6:98, 108).
David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield writes:
"It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. . . . Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely" (The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 261).
The question is, "Are you open to contemporary Biblical scholarship?"
why would anyone assume that the rock referred to in the scriptures under examination, would be referring to Peter.
Because Kepha (cf. John 1:42) means "rock". It's pretty simple. Your criticism shouldn't be directed towards Catholics but towards Jesus, who himself renamed Simon to Kepha in his native tongue.
Our Lord is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Why would He build His church upon a man who could not possibly be any of these things, in even the most minute sense?
Why would Jesus appoint Apostles - mere sinful men - to make disciples of all nations if God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient? Can't he do it on his own? What's a poor deity to do?
Sola, of course I wouldn't say that. I'm saying that Christ is restoring, renewing, elevating, and transforming the Davidic Covenant in the New Covenant. This means that the office of Davidic King is renewed, transformed and elevated by Christ (our King). So is the Todah - the thank offering - sacrifice of the Temple (Eucharist). So is the Temple (the Christian in grace and the Trinity in glory). So is Jerusalem (the Church). So is the Queen Mother (Mary). So is the cabinet of ministers (Apostles). So is the Prime Minister (Peter).
Hi Kamoroso,
I see that you're willing and able to post globs of information on this thread, esp. regarding the Immaculate Conception. Are you also willing to read my paper and comment upon it, which is the purpose of this thread?
This thread is a place for dialogue - not for random postings that are completely arbitrary and off-topic.
You asked and commented, "Was Christ referring to Peter himself when he said, " thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ", or was he referring to what Peter had just said concerning Christ, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God "? Anyone who will study the scriptures, will understand that the church is built upon Christ."
No, not anyone. Much of contemporary Protestant Biblical scholarship disagrees emphatically with you.
For example, Protestant Biblical scholar Oscar Cullman, writing in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, writes:
"The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra [petra] and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected" (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968], 6:98, 108).
David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield writes:
"It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. . . . Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely" (The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 261).
The question is, "Are you open to contemporary Biblical scholarship?"
why would anyone assume that the rock referred to in the scriptures under examination, would be referring to Peter.
Because Kepha (cf. John 1:42) means "rock". It's pretty simple. Your criticism shouldn't be directed towards Catholics but towards Jesus, who himself renamed Simon to Kepha in his native tongue.
Our Lord is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Why would He build His church upon a man who could not possibly be any of these things, in even the most minute sense?
Why would Jesus appoint Apostles - mere sinful men - to make disciples of all nations if God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient? Can't he do it on his own? What's a poor deity to do?
The question is, "Are you open to contemporary Biblical scholarship?"
That’s a big fat negative Carson. You quote your scholars, I quote mine, bla bla bla. I have a bible which I have been studying for many years now. I also have two knees to pray upon for the guidance of the Holy Spirit as I study the word. We could find as many different beliefs among the so called scholars, as anywhere else, so why bother with them. Let us dig into the word of God for ourselves, for my Lord and Savior made this promise.
James 1:5-6 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
John 16:13-14 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
I’m sorry to jump into your thread without reading from the beginning. I must confess, time to read it all from the beginning does not exist for me. I will however attempt as soon as possible to check out your site.
“Why would Jesus appoint Apostles - mere sinful men - to make disciples of all nations if God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient? Can't he do it on his own? What's a poor deity to do?”
He didn’t use mere sinful men, he used men filled with the Holy Spirit of God. This is what a poor deity does. He transforms mere sinful men into servants of God filled with his Spirit. By that Spirit he convicts and converts sinners. There is no glory for man in the gospel of the kingdom. All glory and honor goes to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.
I’ll catch you later. It’s past my bedtime. Bye for now.
Y. B. in C. Keith
That’s a big fat negative Carson. You quote your scholars, I quote mine, bla bla bla. I have a bible which I have been studying for many years now. I also have two knees to pray upon for the guidance of the Holy Spirit as I study the word. We could find as many different beliefs among the so called scholars, as anywhere else, so why bother with them. Let us dig into the word of God for ourselves, for my Lord and Savior made this promise.
James 1:5-6 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
John 16:13-14 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
I’m sorry to jump into your thread without reading from the beginning. I must confess, time to read it all from the beginning does not exist for me. I will however attempt as soon as possible to check out your site.
“Why would Jesus appoint Apostles - mere sinful men - to make disciples of all nations if God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient? Can't he do it on his own? What's a poor deity to do?”
He didn’t use mere sinful men, he used men filled with the Holy Spirit of God. This is what a poor deity does. He transforms mere sinful men into servants of God filled with his Spirit. By that Spirit he convicts and converts sinners. There is no glory for man in the gospel of the kingdom. All glory and honor goes to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.
I’ll catch you later. It’s past my bedtime. Bye for now.
Y. B. in C. Keith
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
That’s a big fat negative Carson.
So, those who have studied the actual Greek and Hebrew - as well as the semantic, linguistic, and grammatical nuances of the Scriptures - have nothing to say to us about Matthew 16:16-19 that is worthwhile?
I have a bible which I have been studying for many years now. I also have two knees to pray upon for the guidance of the Holy Spirit as I study the word.
Moi aussi, mon ami.
I must confess, time to read it all from the beginning does not exist for me.
I wouldn't expect for you to.. just to stick with the thread's purpose.
He didn’t use mere sinful men, he used men filled with the Holy Spirit of God.
So, you're saying that the Apostles were immaculate once Pentecost came? They didn't sin?
He transforms mere sinful men into servants of God filled with his Spirit.
Like Peter, for instance.
Remember, you based a portion of your argument on the fact that before Pentecost, Peter "himself demonstrated humanities inconsistency and wavering almost immediately after stating the eternal and spiritual truth that Christ was the Son of the living God."
So, those who have studied the actual Greek and Hebrew - as well as the semantic, linguistic, and grammatical nuances of the Scriptures - have nothing to say to us about Matthew 16:16-19 that is worthwhile?
I have a bible which I have been studying for many years now. I also have two knees to pray upon for the guidance of the Holy Spirit as I study the word.
Moi aussi, mon ami.
I must confess, time to read it all from the beginning does not exist for me.
I wouldn't expect for you to.. just to stick with the thread's purpose.
He didn’t use mere sinful men, he used men filled with the Holy Spirit of God.
So, you're saying that the Apostles were immaculate once Pentecost came? They didn't sin?
He transforms mere sinful men into servants of God filled with his Spirit.
Like Peter, for instance.
Remember, you based a portion of your argument on the fact that before Pentecost, Peter "himself demonstrated humanities inconsistency and wavering almost immediately after stating the eternal and spiritual truth that Christ was the Son of the living God."
Hello Carson
You said “So, those who have studied the actual Greek and Hebrew - as well as the semantic, linguistic, and grammatical nuances of the Scriptures - have nothing to say to us about Matthew 16:16-19 that is worthwhile?”
I’m sure that understanding Greek and Hebrew is a wonderful plus to bible study. I wish I understood them. However, regardless of how great ones knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is, this can never replace the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit can reveal the truth of God. No amount of earthly education can bring one to a correct understanding of the word of God. To be sure, knowing Greek and Hebrew could be a big plus, but it is no guarantee of a correct understanding of God’s word. I have read debates between people who understood these languages concerning this subject. It seems that understanding these languages didn’t change their views of what these verses meant.
As for me, understanding these languages or not, I find sufficient evidence in the scriptures to know that these verses are not saying that God’s church on earth would be built upon Peter.
1 Pet 2:3-8 3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
We are all lively stones, as Peter was. He was such because he accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as the chief corner stone. This is what the Lords church is built upon, Jesus Christ the chief corner stone. All that acknowledge him as such are themselves lively stones, and are themselves the church which Christ has built, and which the church is built upon. Not one individual, but all individuals in Christ, they the body, and he the head.
Eph 1:19-23 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Eph 2:18-22 18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
You also said “Moi aussi, mon ami.”
Uhhh. Duhhh. I have no earthly.
You also said “So, you're saying that the Apostles were immaculate once Pentecost came? They didn't sin?”
I Jn 1:10 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
“Like Peter, for instance.
Remember, you based a portion of your argument on the fact that before Pentecost, Peter "himself demonstrated humanities inconsistency and wavering almost immediately after stating the eternal and spiritual truth that Christ was the Son of the living God."
I’m not sure what your point was in the above, but yes Peter was certainly filled with the Holy Spirit, as were the rest of the Apostles.
It’s bed time again. Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith
You said “So, those who have studied the actual Greek and Hebrew - as well as the semantic, linguistic, and grammatical nuances of the Scriptures - have nothing to say to us about Matthew 16:16-19 that is worthwhile?”
I’m sure that understanding Greek and Hebrew is a wonderful plus to bible study. I wish I understood them. However, regardless of how great ones knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is, this can never replace the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit can reveal the truth of God. No amount of earthly education can bring one to a correct understanding of the word of God. To be sure, knowing Greek and Hebrew could be a big plus, but it is no guarantee of a correct understanding of God’s word. I have read debates between people who understood these languages concerning this subject. It seems that understanding these languages didn’t change their views of what these verses meant.
As for me, understanding these languages or not, I find sufficient evidence in the scriptures to know that these verses are not saying that God’s church on earth would be built upon Peter.
1 Pet 2:3-8 3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
We are all lively stones, as Peter was. He was such because he accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as the chief corner stone. This is what the Lords church is built upon, Jesus Christ the chief corner stone. All that acknowledge him as such are themselves lively stones, and are themselves the church which Christ has built, and which the church is built upon. Not one individual, but all individuals in Christ, they the body, and he the head.
Eph 1:19-23 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Eph 2:18-22 18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
You also said “Moi aussi, mon ami.”
Uhhh. Duhhh. I have no earthly.
You also said “So, you're saying that the Apostles were immaculate once Pentecost came? They didn't sin?”
I Jn 1:10 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
“Like Peter, for instance.
Remember, you based a portion of your argument on the fact that before Pentecost, Peter "himself demonstrated humanities inconsistency and wavering almost immediately after stating the eternal and spiritual truth that Christ was the Son of the living God."
I’m not sure what your point was in the above, but yes Peter was certainly filled with the Holy Spirit, as were the rest of the Apostles.
It’s bed time again. Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
However, regardless of how great ones knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is, this can never replace the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Okay, brother - then why don't you break out the Greek texts and start interpreting? Why start with an English text, which is already a translation and miss the word plays and nuances that appear only in the original languages?
You have the Holy Spirit - so go at it from the Greek and Hebrew. Don't tell me that you need someone to translate it into the English for you - because - as you've said - you have the Holy Spirit.
Or - are you going to affirm that perhaps you are in dire need and that you rely heavily upon Biblical scholars every time you pick up your translation of the Sacred Scriptures - with or without the Holy Spirit?
Have you read my paper yet?
Okay, brother - then why don't you break out the Greek texts and start interpreting? Why start with an English text, which is already a translation and miss the word plays and nuances that appear only in the original languages?
You have the Holy Spirit - so go at it from the Greek and Hebrew. Don't tell me that you need someone to translate it into the English for you - because - as you've said - you have the Holy Spirit.
Or - are you going to affirm that perhaps you are in dire need and that you rely heavily upon Biblical scholars every time you pick up your translation of the Sacred Scriptures - with or without the Holy Spirit?
Have you read my paper yet?
SolaScriptura in 2003
New Member
Carson, the problem with the RCC (and all other cults) is that it tries to establish doctrine from allegorical interpretations in opposition to plain statements. You can analize David's physical kingdom or Solomon's all you want, but typology never matches 100% and it's only the spirit of error that would prompt you to base doctrine off of a scanty typological basis. Now, typology is nice for confirming what is already known by a plain statement - for example, that not a bone of Jesus was broken on the cross - we can look back and see that in the passover lamb - BUT, we can't look back and say that the passover lamb proves Christ had hoolves!