Posted on 12/09/2018 7:45:01 AM PST by Salvation
How good and how pleasant it is, dwelling in unity. I hope this lasts more than 30 seconds, or whenever the next urge to post hits us!
Yes...salvation is from the Jews. They were originally to be the priests...but we know how that worked out.
We have salvation because of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
An individual has to either accept or reject that....on an individual level.
Can we help that lost unsaved individual by sharing the Gospel? Yes. We are called to do that.
The error comes if someone fails to see that we are stewards of grace, stewards of salvation, and instead misinterpret us a rivals or competitors of Christ, or usurpers of His prerogatives. Nothing could be further from the truth.,/I>
At the individual level we do this. We don't have a bank of salvation we can give to one or another. Your salvation is your own.
For instance, to interpret most Christians' veneration of Mary as idolatry, as if she were being put up as a kind of goddess, a fourth-person-of-the-Trinity, is to miss that actually "salvation is from the Jews" and Jesus is from Mary, His Jewish Mother (which is what makes Him a Jew!) And the Incarnation proceeded because of her handmaidenly cooperation, to be mother of Incarnate God.
Yet that is exactly what Roman Catholicism has done. Mary has been elevated to the fourth person of the Trinity though just not dogmatically....yet. The fifth marian dogma will just about do that when it's passed.
Yes....Roman Catholics do worship Mary as amply demonstrated in these threads. They have accorded to her many of the same titles as Christ:
mediatrix v mediator;
co-redemptrix v redeemer;
advocatrix v advocate
reliance upon Mary for salvation v reliance upon Christ for salvation;
praying TO Mary v praying TO Christ;
Morning Star v Bright and Morning star;
These are but a few....and trust me....there are plenty more.
Consider this prayer to Mary:
My most beloved Lady, I thank thee for having delivered me from Hell as many times as I have deserved it by my sins. Miserable creature that I was, I was once condemned to that prison, and perhaps already, after the first sin, the sentence would have been put into execution, if thou, in thy compassion hadst not helped me. http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/hope3.htm
TAKEN FROM THE GLORIES OF MARY by St. Alphonsus Liguori Redemptorist Fathers, 1931 with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur Published on the Web with Permission
Now, compare that falsehood with the Word of God:
1I will extol You, O LORD, for You have lifted me up, And have not let my enemies rejoice over me. 2 O LORD my God, I cried to You for help, and You healed me. 3 O LORD, You have brought up my soul from Sheol; You have kept me alive, that I would not go down to the pit. Psalm 30:1-3 NASB
God delivers the sinner from Hell....not Mary. The Scriptures are crystal clear on this.
Yes....Roman Catholics do worship Mary in word and deed.
Consistent with (what evidenced best supports) the most ancient OT canon, and thus with the tripartite canon Christ affirmed as "all the Scriptures," and the NT church, and with many Catholic scholars down thru history and right into Trent, which provided the first indisputable canon for RCs.
For those who want to protest, read here first, RC propaganda has been refuted time and again here on FR by the grace of God.
Excerpts:
The strongest evidence shows the apocryphal books were not included in the Hebrew Canon of Jesus day. The Palestinian canon from before the earliest (late century) conciliar lists Roman Catholics point to is held by many as being identical to the Protestant Old Testament, differing only in the arrangement and number of the books, while the Alexandrian canon, referred to as the Septuagint is seen as identical to the Catholic Old Testament. Ancient evidence as well as the Lord's affirmation of a tripartite canon in Lk. 24:44 weighs in favor of the Palestinian canon — if indeed there was a strict separation — being what He held to. Note that the so-called “Council” of Jamnia, and see below , is considered to be theoretical, with some scholars arguing that the Jewish canon was fixed during the Hasmonean dynasty (140 and c. 116 B.C.). — (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia) The Catholic Encyclopedia itself affirms the Palestinian canon as consisting of the same books.
“The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
Manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.
Nor is there agreement between the codices which the Apocrypha include...Moreover, all three codices [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], according to Kenyon, were produced in Egypt, yet the contemporary Christian lists of the biblical books drawn up in Egypt by Athanasius and (very likely) pseudo-Athanasius are much more critical, excluding all apocryphal books from the canon, and putting them in a separate appendix. (Roger Beckwith, [Anglican priest, Oxford BD and Lambeth DD], The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Eerdmans 1986], p. 382, 383; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/01/legendary-alexandrian-canon.html)
Edward Earle Ellis writes, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-35.
British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)
Clear evidence though it will be rejected by Roman Catholics....most are too deep to see their error.
I’m gonna put on a iron shirt (under the white robe!)
“Max Romeo - Chase The Devil”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9oLSMSW4SI
I’ll publicly say that it isn’t a teaching of the church. I already did say that.
I’ll publicly say that bringing up issues that have nothing to do with the thread, but to start an argument is trolling. Get a hobby besides eating chips and berating Catholics.
If it's not a teaching then why are so many Roman Catholics believing it??
If it is not a teaching then everyone who is supporting/encouraging this, needs to publicly say this is false teaching.
Unless the Vatican is doing that they're not denying this to be a false teaching.
I’ll publicly say that bringing up issues that have nothing to do with the thread, but to start an argument is trolling. Get a hobby besides eating chips and berating Catholics.
Based on the extensive writings on this issue I'd say it is pertinent to the thread topic.
He's making the point I'm making....
Hence everything is distorted, but distorted in the same direction.
For instance, I posit that everything aboutMary is premised in her being a creature, a handmaid of the Lord, the first indeed to accept Jesus as her personal Savior ("my spirit rejoices in God my Savior") --- you posit that we Catholic regard her as a goddess to be adored on a par with God. It's simply not true.
This distortion makes sense to you because you claim to know better than Catholics, what Catholics actually believe.
To a person who holds such an astonishing presumption I could say, "But stop right there,that is not what I believe," and expect the rejoinder, "Hush, I know what you believe. You don't."
I say, go ahead with what you may call a dialog, but leave me out of it. Your kind of dialog runs smoother when you do it on your own.
Hence everything is distorted, but distorted in the same direction.
For instance, I posit that everything aboutMary is premised in her being a creature, a handmaid of the Lord, the first indeed to accept Jesus as her personal Savior ("my spirit rejoices in God my Savior") --- you posit that we Catholic regard her as a goddess to be adored on a par with God. It's simply not true.
This distortion makes sense to you because you claim to know better than Catholics, what Catholics actually believe.
To a person who holds such an astonishing presumption I could say, "But stop right there,that is not what I believe," and expect the rejoinder, "Hush, I know what you believe. You don't."
I say, go ahead with what you may call a dialog, but leave me out of it. Your kind of dialog runs smoother when you do it on your own.
Hence everything is distorted, but distorted in the same direction.
For instance, I posit that everything aboutMary is premised in her being a creature, a handmaid of the Lord, the first indeed to accept Jesus as her personal Savior ("my spirit rejoices in God my Savior") --- you posit that we Catholic regard her as a goddess to be adored on a par with God. It's simply not true.
This distortion makes sense to you because you claim to know better than Catholics, what Catholics actually believe.
To a person who holds such an astonishing presumption I could say, "But stop right there,that is not what I believe," and expect the rejoinder, "Hush, I know what you believe. You don't."
I say, go ahead with what you may call a dialog, but leave me out of it. Your kind of dialog runs smoother when you do it on your own.
I have no idea why my reply went out in triplicate. That’s OK. It takes no extra effort to ignore it three times.
For instance, I posit that everything aboutMary is premised in her being a creature, a handmaid of the Lord, the first indeed to accept Jesus as her personal Savior ("my spirit rejoices in God my Savior") --- you posit that we Catholic regard her as a goddess to be adored on a par with God. It's simply not true.
Rome's own writings are saying it for anyone who is willing to look at it objectively.
The best scholarship I've ever read abut the formation of the Canon was "Whose Bible Is It?" by Jaroslav Pelikan.
Pelikan's immersion in Protestant and Jewish Scriptural studies, and his knowedge of Greek and Latin, and of Hebrew and other Ancient Middle Eastern languages is daunting: the "Whose Bible" book is good point of entry.
Pelikan began his theological research career as a Reformation scholar. His dissertation was on Luther and the Confessio Bohemica and he remained a Lutheran and a Reformation expert through the first seven decades of his life, before being received into the Orthodox Church at, I think, the age of 75.
I relate all this about Pelikan because the one thing he never was in his life, is a Catholic. And he's my main source.
Since I'm no scholar myself (my Hebrew doesn't go beyond "Baruch ata Adonai Eloheinu, melekh ha'olam") I have to rely on various people who are.
At this point, any discussion between you and me on the canon, would be volleys of paragraph-long quotes from people we consider good scholars, the first salvoes of which you have already lobbed over the wall. Since you have pre-judged and pre-rejected my own position as "Catholic propaganda," I do not sense much likelihood of open, respectful discussion.
So I here I must say bye, I have sweet potatoes to mash.
That Mary is a created being compounds the error of Roman Catholicism.
Rome is taking a created being and equating to that being goddess like abilities and is treating that being with the worship one would of a goddess.
Roman Catholics may try to dance around the issue by declaring Mary is not a god, as an eternal being, all knowing, etc....but that is pretty much how she is being treated.
The prayers TO Mary, the kneeling before idols of her, the multiple statements claiming one has to go through her to get to Jesus...or even have a shot at salvation, the feminized version of the titles ascribed reserved for Christ that have been ascribed to her....all those scream worship to one looking in on Roman Catholicism.
Romans 8:26 tells us the Holy Spirit is able to do hear and understand the prayer of every believer.
Roman Catholicism has equated to Mary the abilities of the Holy Spirit in her "ability" to hear, answer, and understand each and every prayer of the Roman Catholic....just as the Holy Spirit.
It that isn't error I don't know what else it.
Presuming there are 1,000,000,000 Roman Catholic and each one says one prayer a day....just one....that's 11,574 prayers a second Mary has to be able to hear, perfectly respond to and answer....and instruct Christ on what to do.
Still say she's not treated like a goddess in Roman Catholicism?
Now before you say God can grant anyone abilities if He desires, which He could, let us consider the following.
Roman Catholicism says He could not keep Jesus sinless while being birthed through Mary which gave rise to Rome introducing the error of the Immaculate Conception which as has been demonstrated is not supported by Scripture nor found in Scripture and contradicts Scripture.
Think about this....Rome is saying God can grant Mary the ability to handle prayers on a level with that of the Spirit....yet He cannot preserve His only begotten Son from being contaminated by sin while being carried by a being HE CREATED!!!
Below is but one of many Roman Catholic prayers to Mary....it is the "morning consecration prayer to Mary" compared to the Greatest Commandment.
An honest mind will the idolatry of the Roman Catholic prayer when compared to Scripture.
| Consecration to Mary | Greatest Commandment from Matthew 22:37-38 NASB |
| My Queen and my Mother, I give myself entirely to you; and to show my devotion to you, I consecrate to you this day my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being without reserve. Wherefore, good Mother, as I am your own, keep me, guard me, as your property and possession. Amen. |
37And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ 38“This is the great and foremost commandment. |
If you substituted any other name in the consecration prayer you would quickly identify the falseness of the prayer and denounce it. But because your denomination has said it's "ok" you don't question it.
The Roman Catholic is devoting their entire being to a created being....not the Creator....but the created.
Still say Roman Catholicism doesn't treat Mary like a goddess??
You have been deceived if you say no.
How do you propose to access salvation except through the Incarnate Christ?
How do you propose to have an Incarnate Christ except through Mary?
But we didn't, did we?
Now, if you give yourself entirely to Mary, what do you suppose she will do with you? Here's a hint: her final words recorded in Scripture, are: "Do whatever [Jesus] tells you".
How do you propose to access salvation except through the Incarnate Christ?
How do you propose to have an Incarnate Christ except through Mary?
The New Testament answers this.
How do you answer this statement by Christ?
1“Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. 2“In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3“If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. 4“And you know the way where I am going.” 5Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?”
6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
John 14:1-6 NASB
The Greek behind v6 makes it emphatically clear there is no way to the Father but through Him. No allowance is ever made in the NT that we have to go through Mary, or appeal to Mary, or count on Mary, for our salvation.
If we had to go through Mary as Roman Catholic writers have wrongly asserted then John, and Jesus, and the New Testament writers, never reveal that. That's a pretty important lapse in what is required for salvation.
More from John....
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:1-13 NASB
Still more.....
22At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem; 23it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of Solomon. 24The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him,
“How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
25Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me.
26“But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
29“My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
30“I and the Father are one.”
John 10:22-30 NASB
What is seen in the New Testament is the consistent requirement of believing in Christ for our salvation. There are no others we have to go through. Only HE is our mediator....no. one. else.
3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. 1 Timothy 2:3-6 NASB
We can freely approach Him anytime, anyplace for any reason and He will hear us and He will answer us.
But we didn't, did we?
It doesn't matter. That Roman Catholicism has the consecration prayer is the point. The consecration prayer is in contradiction of the Greatest Commandment. That's the point.
Now, if you give yourself entirely to Mary, what do you suppose she will do with you?
Nothing....for she has ZERO power over anyone. She is a created being.
The better question is how will God respond to this in light of the Greatest Commandment?
Here's a hint: her final words recorded in Scripture, are: "Do whatever [Jesus] tells you".
Yes! And what does Jesus say....
To believe in only Him for your salvation....no one else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.