Important thing to to have her trusting in jesus ALINE as way to be right with God!You folks are never going to brow beat this women to moving away from her church.....this may come in time through the power of the HG.....or it wont. But be of good cheer, she believes in Christ & she believes in the Trinity. I would say she is far removed from a common walking around atheist. She will need your love, she will need your patience, your prayers, your concern for her spiritual well being. That will go a long way to making her a disciple.
-
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?
- Thread starter steaver
- Start date
- Status
Brother....its Christ that saves, not the Church. The church points the way but it doesnt save.
True, hopefully she understands that!
You folks are never going to brow beat this women to moving away from her church.....this may come in time through the power of the HG.....or it wont. But be of good cheer, she believes in Christ & she believes in the Trinity. I would say she is far removed from a common walking around atheist. She will need your love, she will need your patience, your prayers, your concern for her spiritual well being. That will go a long way to making her a disciple.
If you are talking about me, I am of the male persuasion.
I already said that there is no chapter or verse of what you want me to point out, is that not an acceptable answer? Like I said before, you are a Sola Scriptura believer and if it is not written down I guess it never happened, right? (Even though the Scriptures themselves say not everything was written down)
Look, I take the Church's word on this issue and that is that. It is no big deal to me one way or the other, but I will err on the side of believing that the spouse of the Holy Spirit remained unviolated by a mortal man as orthodox teaching says she had remained for her entire life. If you don't believe this fine, but don't kid yourself, in the end all you are doing is believing someone else's ideas on this.
Oh good grief! The NT Canon was not around as we know it until the 4th century. They were the ones who were introducing the traditions that would be passed on. Say this three times: There was no New Testament Canon during the times of the Apostles. Say it and believe it, because that is the truth!
If Mary's perpetual virginity was such a big deal, it would have been written down. So...since it isn't and brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned in the Gospels...well...that's that.
Adonia, it isn't about following some church. It's about God giving life to our dead spirit through unmerited favor, simply because God chose to give us life. Life does not come through following a set of rules, which is why you can find unredeemed people at any church you attend.
People refuse to believe that their works won't save them. It goes counter to their own rational thought. It bothers them to have God redeem them even while they they were yet sinners.
If Mary were a perpetual virgin then James and Jude couldn't be Jesus brothers...or both would have to be perfect, like Jesus. That sure leads to some wild heresy...and a Monty Python movie...
???
Ever read 1 Corinthians 15?
Ever read Peter's letter where he calls Paul's writing "Scripture?"
Perhaps you might consider rethinking this position.
Maybe they were his step brothers, you know sons that Joseph had in a previous marriage.
Most teaching was oral at the time, and the letters written to the various churches by Paul were admonitions from the central authority. Those outlying churches were not allowed to determine their own doctrines. So you see, there was a religious hierarchy that Jesus did indeed establish.
Not all the Scriptures existed then, so how could they?
On the other hand, Tradition is Scriptural: it is, for example, mentioned by Paul, particularly to the church of the Thessalonians:
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions you were taught whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thess 2:15)
Notice that Paul doesn't elevate one mode of receiving the Tradition--his oral word or his written epistle--above the other; the authority is the same. Though we can't be sure that the content is exactly the same in every single detail of the oral and written forms, we can surmise that they testify to the same material Truth and therefore don't contradict one another. From another one of Paul's letters, this time to Timothy, it seems that this oral Tradition at the very least refers to (and consists of) the specific body of teaching and doctrine that was handed down by the Apostles:
"Hold fast the sound pattern of words which you have heard from me." (2 Tim 1:13)
So, there was a "sound pattern" of oral teaching recognizable to Timothy (and presumably to the others taught by the Apostles) which was to be kept and by which the early Christians could recognize truth from error. By this "sound pattern" the early Christians could therefore "rightly divide" the word of truth. On the other hand those who did not hold fast the "sound pattern of words" received orally from the Apostles could be considered "untaught and unstable" (2 Peter 3:16) and were liable to misinterpret the Apostle's writings (and the other Scriptures) and thus to "twist the Scriptures to their own destruction".
What's more is that Paul expects Timothy to be able to transmit orally that which he received from Paul: "And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2). Notice here that the "things" Timothy received were not exclusive or private but were heard "among many witnesses", and how the faithful men to whom Timothy committed these "things" were to teach others as well (that's four generations of oral transmission). The public reception of the Tradition in the community could thus serve as a "check" or "balance" on those who would deviate from the "sound pattern" while claiming (ie like the Gnostics did) to be handing down some new teaching allegedly received "secretly" from the Apostles.
If one can be in any doubt as to the Scriptural basis of this idea of Tradition, and its corollary, Apostolic Succession, then there are ample examples to support it:
Paul ordains presbyters in Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch in Acts 14:23 and bishops at Ephesus in Acts 20:28 to carry on his work in those places; later, Timothy is bishop at Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) having been ordained (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) and Paul gives him instructions on how to select bishops and deacons (1 Tim 3) and also to keep the Tradition of teaching given to him orally by Paul (2 Tim 1:13-14; 3:14) as well as Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-17); similarly, Paul writes to Titus, to whom he has delegated his authority to appoint presbyters in Crete (Titus 1:5-6) and here he gives similar 'selection instruction' as to Timothy, also referring (Titus 1:7-9) to qualifications for a bishop, including "holding fast to the Word of God as he was taught it" in order to pass on sound doctrine to others (Tradition). It is likely that in the Pastoral letters the references to qualifications for 'bishops' are first and foremost to Timothy and Titus personally, in their capacities as bishops of Ephesus and Crete respectively. In any event, here we have the following elements in these passages:-
1. Paul, an Apostle, appoints bishops and presbyters to continue his work in the various congregations he has founded or helped set up.
2. These officers have been grounded in the Scriptures but also taught orally by Paul. They are thus steeped in both Scripture and Tradition.
3. They are charged with teaching others the above and also with pastoral care of the flock
4. They are also charged with ordaining others to similarly carry on that work and are given criteria for selection of those successors.
Therefore, we have Scripture and Tradition plus Apostolic Succession in a nascent form within the pages of the NT.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions you were taught whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thess 2:15)
Notice that Paul doesn't elevate one mode of receiving the Tradition--his oral word or his written epistle--above the other; the authority is the same. Though we can't be sure that the content is exactly the same in every single detail of the oral and written forms, we can surmise that they testify to the same material Truth and therefore don't contradict one another. From another one of Paul's letters, this time to Timothy, it seems that this oral Tradition at the very least refers to (and consists of) the specific body of teaching and doctrine that was handed down by the Apostles:
"Hold fast the sound pattern of words which you have heard from me." (2 Tim 1:13)
So, there was a "sound pattern" of oral teaching recognizable to Timothy (and presumably to the others taught by the Apostles) which was to be kept and by which the early Christians could recognize truth from error. By this "sound pattern" the early Christians could therefore "rightly divide" the word of truth. On the other hand those who did not hold fast the "sound pattern of words" received orally from the Apostles could be considered "untaught and unstable" (2 Peter 3:16) and were liable to misinterpret the Apostle's writings (and the other Scriptures) and thus to "twist the Scriptures to their own destruction".
What's more is that Paul expects Timothy to be able to transmit orally that which he received from Paul: "And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2). Notice here that the "things" Timothy received were not exclusive or private but were heard "among many witnesses", and how the faithful men to whom Timothy committed these "things" were to teach others as well (that's four generations of oral transmission). The public reception of the Tradition in the community could thus serve as a "check" or "balance" on those who would deviate from the "sound pattern" while claiming (ie like the Gnostics did) to be handing down some new teaching allegedly received "secretly" from the Apostles.
If one can be in any doubt as to the Scriptural basis of this idea of Tradition, and its corollary, Apostolic Succession, then there are ample examples to support it:
Paul ordains presbyters in Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch in Acts 14:23 and bishops at Ephesus in Acts 20:28 to carry on his work in those places; later, Timothy is bishop at Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) having been ordained (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6) and Paul gives him instructions on how to select bishops and deacons (1 Tim 3) and also to keep the Tradition of teaching given to him orally by Paul (2 Tim 1:13-14; 3:14) as well as Scripture (2 Tim 3:15-17); similarly, Paul writes to Titus, to whom he has delegated his authority to appoint presbyters in Crete (Titus 1:5-6) and here he gives similar 'selection instruction' as to Timothy, also referring (Titus 1:7-9) to qualifications for a bishop, including "holding fast to the Word of God as he was taught it" in order to pass on sound doctrine to others (Tradition). It is likely that in the Pastoral letters the references to qualifications for 'bishops' are first and foremost to Timothy and Titus personally, in their capacities as bishops of Ephesus and Crete respectively. In any event, here we have the following elements in these passages:-
1. Paul, an Apostle, appoints bishops and presbyters to continue his work in the various congregations he has founded or helped set up.
2. These officers have been grounded in the Scriptures but also taught orally by Paul. They are thus steeped in both Scripture and Tradition.
3. They are charged with teaching others the above and also with pastoral care of the flock
4. They are also charged with ordaining others to similarly carry on that work and are given criteria for selection of those successors.
Therefore, we have Scripture and Tradition plus Apostolic Succession in a nascent form within the pages of the NT.
There is zero indication that Joseph had been previously married with kids. That would mean Jesus is not the first born in the family.
Can you imagine Joseph and the sexual tension he has when he's with his beautiful bride?
We know that Jesus had brothers and sisters. The conclusion is that Joseph and Mary were glorifying God by having God ordained and approved sexual relations as husband and wife. Sex within the confines of marriage is an act of worship and obedience. God is pleased. There should be no question that God was pleased to see Mary and Joseph celebrate the love God had given them.
Ever read Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. Each church had their own unique problems brought by the culture around them.
Paul wrote on his own authority by inspiration of God. He even tells us that some thoughts are his own while others are commands of God.
The one central letter is found in Acts 15 after the Jerusalem council to determine if believers had to obey the Jewish laws. The meeting resulted in the answer of no.
Other than that letter, all the other writings are by individuals inspired by God to write.
Does she believe this because the RCC says so? Or does she believe because she has experienced the rebirth of Christ within herself?
I have been informed that the she is a he. Ask him yourself.
As for me (a RC for 34 years of my prior life before regeneration) it is Christ who saves.
Here are some words from Richard Rohr (a Franciscan Monk) about Loving the Church.
"God saves and the Church is that beautiful gift given by God to preach that word which will set you free. But when we preach "Church" and raise up "Church," we are not necessarily proclaiming the Lord. We often are preaching ourselves. Jesus never preached Israel, He preached Yahweh. He preached the absolute transcendence of Yehweh and fidelity and obedience to Yehweh."
"God saves and the Church is that beautiful gift given by God to preach that word which will set you free. But when we preach "Church" and raise up "Church," we are not necessarily proclaiming the Lord. We often are preaching ourselves. Jesus never preached Israel, He preached Yahweh. He preached the absolute transcendence of Yehweh and fidelity and obedience to Yehweh."
Proof?
- Status