• 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!

What is the hold?

Status
Not open for further replies.

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The only issue we will continue to butt heads is faith alone doesn't dictate where allegiance is, faith can still be used for EVIL as Good.
You are the one playing word games with the issue of faith here. Anytime this topic of faith alone comes up EVERYONE knows it is faith alone IN Jesus Christ and ALL that encompasses Jesus Christ which includes good works and love. James explains a "said faith" does not save. Only a TRUE faith in Jesus Christ/God which is evident by good works/love. You just like playing the word game.

If you were to state that it is a faith in allegiance with God which would imply a love of God, this whole matter would be settled very quickly.
This is common knowledge anytime this is debated here. So you should not have any problem when we say faith alone saves because we all understand we are talking about a TRUE faith evidenced by good works/love.

No it doesn't. We both agree works alone does not save a person
I'm not sure we do. In the past on other threads you declared that faith in Jesus Christ was not necessary for salvation. You said a person could be a good Samaritan, reject Jesus Christ is Lord, and still be saved. Now you say the Good Samaritan clause alone does not save???
 

Zenas

Active Member
There is nothing...absolutely nothing...about Mary in Revelation 11. You have to pull a rabbit out of your hat to manufacture such a ludicrous allegory.

Revelation 11:15-19
[15]Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices shouting in heaven: “The world has now become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever.”
[16]The twenty-four elders sitting on their thrones before God fell with their faces to the ground and worshiped him.
[17]And they said, “We give thanks to you, Lord God, the Almighty, the one who is and who always was, for now you have assumed your great power and have begun to reign.
[18]The nations were filled with wrath, but now the time of your wrath has come. It is time to judge the dead and reward your servants the prophets, as well as your holy people, and all who fear your name, from the least to the greatest. It is time to destroy all who have caused destruction on the earth.”
[19]Then, in heaven, the Temple of God was opened and the Ark of his covenant could be seen inside the Temple. Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and roared, and there was an earthquake and a terrible hailstorm.

Chapter 12 has nothing to do with Mary's vaginal canal being the Ark of the Covenant. How strange can the Roman church get?

Revelation 12:1-18
[1]Then I witnessed in heaven an event of great significance. I saw a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars on her head.
[2]She was pregnant, and she cried out because of her labor pains and the agony of giving birth.
[3]Then I witnessed in heaven another significant event. I saw a large red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, with seven crowns on his heads.
[4]His tail swept away one-third of the stars in the sky, and he threw them to the earth. He stood in front of the woman as she was about to give birth, ready to devour her baby as soon as it was born.
[5]She gave birth to a son who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. And her child was snatched away from the dragon and was caught up to God and to his throne.
[6]And the woman fled into the wilderness, where God had prepared a place to care for her for 1,260 days.
[7]Then there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels.
[8]And the dragon lost the battle, and he and his angels were forced out of heaven.
[9]This great dragon—the ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world—was thrown down to the earth with all his angels.
[10]Then I heard a loud voice shouting across the heavens, “It has come at last— salvation and power and the Kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters has been thrown down to earth— the one who accuses them before our God day and night.
[11]And they have defeated him by the blood of the Lamb and by their testimony. And they did not love their lives so much that they were afraid to die.
[12]Therefore, rejoice, O heavens! And you who live in the heavens, rejoice! But terror will come on the earth and the sea, for the devil has come down to you in great anger, knowing that he has little time.”
[13]When the dragon realized that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.
[14]But she was given two wings like those of a great eagle so she could fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness. There she would be cared for and protected from the dragon for a time, times, and half a time.
[15]Then the dragon tried to drown the woman with a flood of water that flowed from his mouth.
[16]But the earth helped her by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that gushed out from the mouth of the dragon.
[17]And the dragon was angry at the woman and declared war against the rest of her children—all who keep God’s commandments and maintain their testimony for Jesus.
[18]Then the dragon took his stand on the shore beside the sea.
Oh please! Of course Revelation 11 doesn't mention Mary. I didn't say it did and it's very irritating when someone represents I said something that I neither said nor implied. Very rude also and a very weak augument practice. Reminds me of how the mainstream media represents what Donald Trump says. But I digress. At the end of Revelation John sees the ark in Heaven. In the very next sentence, Rev. 12:1, he describes the magnificent woman. There is a connection, and that connection is that John is portraying Mary as the ark of the New Covenant. As for the birth canal thing, you are mixing your metaphors. Again, you are being dishonest in your argument. I say dishonest because I think you are too smart not to grasp what I have said. You know that metaphor is in Ezekiel, not Revelation.
 

MennoSota

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oh please! Of course Revelation 11 doesn't mention Mary. I didn't say it did and it's very irritating when someone represents I said something that I neither said nor implied. Very rude also and a very weak augument practice. Reminds me of how the mainstream media represents what Donald Trump says. But I digress. At the end of Revelation John sees the ark in Heaven. In the very next sentence, Rev. 12:1, he describes the magnificent woman. There is a connection, and that connection is that John is portraying Mary as the ark of the New Covenant. As for the birth canal thing, you are mixing your metaphors. Again, you are being dishonest in your argument. I say dishonest because I think you are too smart not to grasp what I have said. You know that metaphor is in Ezekiel, not Revelation.
There is no connection. The Ark is the Ark. It's not Mary's vaginal canal.
 

MennoSota

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Please paste the words I used that caused you to believe I equated the Ark with Mary's vaginal canal.
You quoted Ezekiel 44 and you said she was the new Ark that carried Jesus into the world. Unless Mary had a C-section, God came down and out her vaginal canal. Based upon watching my children be born, I'm sure it was a bloody mess. We're the stirrups the archangels for the Ark?
Yes, this belief of yours is mock-worthy. The entire concept of perpetual virginity is silliness with no biblical merit. It's like veneration of bones...it's mystical mythology.
 

utilyan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are the one playing word games with the issue of faith here. Anytime this topic of faith alone comes up EVERYONE knows it is faith alone IN Jesus Christ and ALL that encompasses Jesus Christ which includes good works and love. James explains a "said faith" does not save. Only a TRUE faith in Jesus Christ/God which is evident by good works/love. You just like playing the word game.


This is common knowledge anytime this is debated here. So you should not have any problem when we say faith alone saves because we all understand we are talking about a TRUE faith evidenced by good works/love.


I'm not sure we do. In the past on other threads you declared that faith in Jesus Christ was not necessary for salvation. You said a person could be a good Samaritan, reject Jesus Christ is Lord, and still be saved. Now you say the Good Samaritan clause alone does not save???

No we don't say ALONE or faith being the sole only means.

This is easy to prove the Good Samaritan that Jesus presented and the Canaanite woman who by the way is doing it on behalf of a pagan daughter.


Rejecting the love of God is an EVIL WORK. The minute that switch is flipped off then your in good works.

A person can have FAITH and still have EVIL WORK rejecting God. James gives Demons as example.


Tell me about how much you hated God the moment and instant of your salvation. When you thought to yourself well I am saved and I hate God.


Sin doesn't work. The GOOD WORK of loving God would have to be present.

Show us FAITH devoid of the GOOD WORK of loving God, then you got a claim of "FAITH ALONE".




1 Corinthians 13

13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.


He could have wrote instead abide in faith alone the greatest of these is FAITH, he could have even added it has hope and love in it.

But it would be a FALSEHOOD. We abide in the three as scripture teaches.

It is Agape that forms faith. Without the good works Love faith is not even built.

22You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;

Ask yourself can a imperfect flawed faith save a man? If you say yes then I don't need to hear anyone whining about folks not accepting Jesus. If you say it has to be perfect, works does the perfecting.
 

Zenas

Active Member
You quoted Ezekiel 44 and you said she was the new Ark that carried Jesus into the world. Unless Mary had a C-section, God came down and out her vaginal canal. Based upon watching my children be born, I'm sure it was a bloody mess. We're the stirrups the archangels for the Ark?
Yes, this belief of yours is mock-worthy. The entire concept of perpetual virginity is silliness with no biblical merit. It's like veneration of bones...it's mystical mythology.
I have advanced two different doctrines of Mary on this thread: (1) her perpetual virginity, and (2) her being portrayed in scripture as the ark of the New Covenant. You have deliberately conflated them and now you mock them based on your conflation. I asked you to post the words I used that caused you to believe I equated the ark with Mary’s vaginal canal. You didn’t do it because you can’t do it. Instead, you went off and once again lied about what I have said. Mennosota, you are a liar and a fraud.. You can’t debate. All you can do is take things out of context, conflate issues, post cartoon characters and tell lies. You have yet to make even one reasoned rebuttal to anything I have said. I know there are other interpretations to the scripture I have quoted but you haven’t raised even one of them. Maybe I was wrong about you. Maybe you are really a nitwit who knows very little but would like to be a comedian. But I doubt it, your grammar is too good for that. Therefore, you are probably just plain evil. May God have mercy on your soul.
 

MennoSota

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have advanced two different doctrines of Mary on this thread: (1) her perpetual virginity, and (2) her being portrayed in scripture as the ark of the New Covenant. You have deliberately conflated them and now you mock them based on your conflation. I asked you to post the words I used that caused you to believe I equated the ark with Mary’s vaginal canal. You didn’t do it because you can’t do it. Instead, you went off and once again lied about what I have said. Mennosota, you are a liar and a fraud.. You can’t debate. All you can do is take things out of context, conflate issues, post cartoon characters and tell lies. You have yet to make even one reasoned rebuttal to anything I have said. I know there are other interpretations to the scripture I have quoted but you haven’t raised even one of them. Maybe I was wrong about you. Maybe you are really a nitwit who knows very little but would like to be a comedian. But I doubt it, your grammar is too good for that. Therefore, you are probably just plain evil. May God have mercy on your soul.
This is not a debate. You have no biblical stance for the views you are presenting. You have butchered the Bible to make it say whatever you want it to mean. You are pulling allegories out of a hat and calling them legitimate claims. It's like listening to a child who claims Santa Clause is on the rooftop in July because the roofers are a type of Santa. It's beyond belief to hold on to such a view and imagine that it holds any legitimacy.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Alone means Alone, Basic math here Grace + Faith that is 2 things.

Grace Alone works inside grace love and faith can be found. Faith alone does not because it has no bearing on allegiance.

"Faith working through Love" Galatians 5:6

If you don't indicate any allegiance or loyalty to God this is negated. As James says even demons believe.

If Faith alone was a packaged word where inside it contains love of God, that would pass.

Faith devoid of a love of God would fail.


As is, faith alone is failure, a dead body.
Saving faith in jesus will be evidenced by good works, as they are the result, but no the cause nor part of getting us saved!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have advanced two different doctrines of Mary on this thread: (1) her perpetual virginity, and (2) her being portrayed in scripture as the ark of the New Covenant. You have deliberately conflated them and now you mock them based on your conflation. I asked you to post the words I used that caused you to believe I equated the ark with Mary’s vaginal canal. You didn’t do it because you can’t do it. Instead, you went off and once again lied about what I have said. Mennosota, you are a liar and a fraud.. You can’t debate. All you can do is take things out of context, conflate issues, post cartoon characters and tell lies. You have yet to make even one reasoned rebuttal to anything I have said. I know there are other interpretations to the scripture I have quoted but you haven’t raised even one of them. Maybe I was wrong about you. Maybe you are really a nitwit who knows very little but would like to be a comedian. But I doubt it, your grammar is too good for that. Therefore, you are probably just plain evil. May God have mercy on your soul.
Neither viewpoint supported by the scriptures themselves, as you MUST get that from RCC erroneous not inspired traditions of men!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oh please! Of course Revelation 11 doesn't mention Mary. I didn't say it did and it's very irritating when someone represents I said something that I neither said nor implied. Very rude also and a very weak augument practice. Reminds me of how the mainstream media represents what Donald Trump says. But I digress. At the end of Revelation John sees the ark in Heaven. In the very next sentence, Rev. 12:1, he describes the magnificent woman. There is a connection, and that connection is that John is portraying Mary as the ark of the New Covenant. As for the birth canal thing, you are mixing your metaphors. Again, you are being dishonest in your argument. I say dishonest because I think you are too smart not to grasp what I have said. You know that metaphor is in Ezekiel, not Revelation.
Jesus is to get the glory in all things, as mary was just the same as me, a sinner that needed to be saved by Messiah!
 

Zenas

Active Member
This is not a debate. You have no biblical stance for the views you are presenting. You have butchered the Bible to make it say whatever you want it to mean. You are pulling allegories out of a hat and calling them legitimate claims. It's like listening to a child who claims Santa Clause is on the rooftop in July because the roofers are a type of Santa. It's beyond belief to hold on to such a view and imagine that it holds any legitimacy.
I have not butchered the Bible to make it say whatever I want it to mean. These views were held by the church for 1,500 years before anyone ever questioned the perpetual virginity of Mary, As I said earlier, the Ezekiel 4 interpretation was developed by Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine--not exactly lightweights on scripture although not everyone agrees with them. Nothing I have said contradicts scripture in any way and if these views are beyond belief to you, maybe you ought to get out more.

And despite your somewhat softened stance in this post, you said, "You have no biblical stance for the views your are presenting." You know that is a lie. I gave overwhelming scriptural support for these views. Just because you don't like them doesn't give you the license to say there is no biblical stance.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have not butchered the Bible to make it say whatever I want it to mean. These views were held by the church for 1,500 years before anyone ever questioned the perpetual virginity of Mary, As I said earlier, the Ezekiel 4 interpretation was developed by Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine--not exactly lightweights on scripture although not everyone agrees with them. Nothing I have said contradicts scripture in any way and if these views are beyond belief to you, maybe you ought to get out more.

And despite your somewhat softened stance in this post, you said, "You have no biblical stance for the views your are presenting." You know that is a lie. I gave overwhelming scriptural support for these views. Just because you don't like them doesn't give you the license to say there is no biblical stance.
There are no scriptures that support your view when they would be understand in their proper fashion, and not as RCC tradition has them !.
And has luther Himself state very well, We must be all doctrines upon the scriptures themselves only, regardless of what church father/council ever stated!
 

MennoSota

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have not butchered the Bible to make it say whatever I want it to mean. These views were held by the church for 1,500 years before anyone ever questioned the perpetual virginity of Mary, As I said earlier, the Ezekiel 4 interpretation was developed by Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine--not exactly lightweights on scripture although not everyone agrees with them. Nothing I have said contradicts scripture in any way and if these views are beyond belief to you, maybe you ought to get out more.

And despite your somewhat softened stance in this post, you said, "You have no biblical stance for the views your are presenting." You know that is a lie. I gave overwhelming scriptural support for these views. Just because you don't like them doesn't give you the license to say there is no biblical stance.
The church fathers made this one up out of thin air, Zenas. You know...they were human...they made mistakes...they butchered the Bible once in awhile. This concept of Mary is an obvious butchering of the Bible that needs to be sunk into the sea of forgetting and never remembering again. It has lead to idolizing Mary as being more than she was. What was she? A flawed human whom God gave faith to obey His will. She had other children, she enjoyed traveling and going to weddings. She was never an Ark of the Covenant.

Let such a foolish belief in Mary go. View her as the Bible actually portrays her. There is no allegory taking place in the passages you have quoted. The early church fathers are wrong.
 

Zenas

Active Member
There are no scriptures that support your view when they would be understand in their proper fashion, and not as RCC tradition has them !.
And has luther Himself state very well, We must be all doctrines upon the scriptures themselves only, regardless of what church father/council ever stated!
“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb… This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. . . . Christ… was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him.” Martin Luther.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top