Posted on 07/29/2014 4:02:28 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
Jessa Duggar is currently courting Ben Seewald, a very strong Christian with very strong views on things. His views on the Catholic faith, however, recently caused a social media scandal and Seewald deleted the comments he had posted to his Facebook page.
"Where Catholics depart from Scripture, I will in no way support, but will call them out because I love them and desire that they be turned from their deadly errors," Seewald wrote. He also noted that he disagreed with the claim that Jesus' mother Mary was a "sinless being. I have nothing against individuals who are Catholic," he continued. "I know a lot of Catholics who are great people. What I DO have a problem with is the teaching that man can merit God's favor through his own works or the works of other fallen men."
Seewald was still not through expressing his disappointment with the Catholic tradition.
"I DO have a problem with the teaching that man can come to God through Mary or any other person besides Jesus … I DO have a problem with the deification of Mary as a sinless being. Mary herself admitted her need for a Savior. If she had no sin, she would need no Savior," he concluded.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
How do you explain Jesus talking about it in the parable of the Rich man and Lazurus. The rich man is going through Father Abraham without mentioning Father God. All told by Jesus Christ.
LUKE 16:24 (RSV) And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz'arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.'
This is the Abraham of the Bible: long dead by that time, being asked to do something by a "rich man" (16:19, 22), traditionally known as Dives (which is simply a Latin word for "rich man"). His answer was, in effect, "no" (16:25-26). Thus failing in that request, he prays to him again for something else:
LUKE 16:27-28 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father [KJV: "I pray thee therefore, father"], to send him to my father's house, [28] for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'
His request is again declined (16:29). So, like any good self-respecting Jew (Moses even "negotiated" with God), he argues with Abraham (16:30). But Abraham states again that his request is futile (16:31).
This is from Dave Armstrong on his Facebook page.
IN THE BIBLE, DOES ANYONE EVER ASK [”PRAY TO”] A DEAD MAN TO INTERCEDE OR INTERVENE TO FULFILL A REQUEST?
Absolutely:
LUKE 16:24 (RSV) And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz’arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’
This is the Abraham of the Bible: long dead by that time, being asked to do something by a “rich man” (16:19, 22), traditionally known as Dives (which is simply a Latin word for “rich man”). His answer was, in effect, “no” (16:25-26). Thus failing in that request, he prays to him again for something else:
LUKE 16:27-28 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father [KJV: “I pray thee therefore, father”], to send him to my father’s house, [28] for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’
His request is again declined (16:29). So, like any good self-respecting Jew (Moses even “negotiated” with God), he argues with Abraham (16:30). But Abraham states again that his request is futile (16:31).
So, the next time anyone tells you that you can’t “pray to” or request intercession from a dead man, or anyone but God, show him this passage and let the fun begin!
It also shows (in a fascinating way) that not only can dead saints hear our requests, they also have some measure of power to carry them out on their own. Abraham is asked to “send” a dead man to appear to Dives’ brothers, in order for them to avoid damnation (yet another [potential] instance of dead men — like the prophet Samuel to Saul — communicating to those on the earth). Abraham doesn’t deny that he is able to potentially send Lazarus to do such a thing; he only denies that it would work, or that it is necessary (by the logic of “if they don’t respond to greater factor x, nor will they to lesser factor y”).
Therefore, it is assumed in the story that Abraham could have possibly done so on his own. And this is all told, remember, by our Lord Jesus. It is disputed whether it is a parable or not (several textual factors suggest that it is not; e.g., parables do not use proper names), but even if it is, it nevertheless cannot contain things that are untrue, lest Jesus be guilty of leading people into heresy by means of false illustrations or analogies within His common teaching tool: the parable.
Peace in Christ.
Of course I meant that she has passed from this earth, but I wouldn’t pray to her even if she hadn’t.
I don’t believe in praying to anyone, other than God our Father, through Christ the Son, our Saviour.
You said something that should be true, but sometimes, groups do not follow that, namely, that doctrine shouldn’t disagree with Scripture
peter is not the Rock Christ spoke of
neither was Mary sinless
The purification that takes place in purgatory is not done by ourselves, it's not something we do, it is something done to us.
That’s nice.
Plus a whole lot of OT prophecy
I wouldn't say this constitutes dispositive, or shall we say "mathematics-syle" proof (which you never get in Biblical foretelling and foreshadowing) but rather converging lines of evidence implying a reasonable conclusion.
What's really dispositive is the Church's authoritative conclusion from the evidence, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Before you dismiss this last one, consider that this is the same authority which established the basic Christology and the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity --- also derived by reasonable inferences from Scripture and confirmed by the authority of the Church --- which are accepted by all Christians (with the exception of he Mormons.)
that's as good as I can do before eight in the morning. Have a blessed day!
The saints in Rev chapter 8 verse 4 are the same ones in chapter 7 (cf Rev 7:14-16), who are the martyred saints who “...are before the throne of God” (verse 15) and they shall “ no longer hunger nor thirst: neither shall the sun fall on them, nor any heat.” (Verse 16). So they are in heaven.
Prediction: you are going to say that the people in 7:14-15 are not the same saints in 8:4 (or elsewhere) because:
1. It doesn’t say they were “saints” in verse 7:14 or...
2. It’s “another chapter” or..
3. The word “heaven” isn’t used in chapter 7, so John isn’t describing heaven until chapter 8 (this would be particularly desperate on your part if you choose this “argument”, because it would ignore the context of Rev 4:1-2) or...
4. Some other made up reason that refuses to see the plain description depicted in the Scripture.
I don’t care what reason you (will) invent to disagree with what I have posted. I absolutely don’t care about any Protestant’s/anti-Catholic’s OPINION of Scripture anymore. So don’t waste your time responding if you disagree.
It will be ignored, because I don’t have time anymore to play the “my opinion of Scripture meaning is better than yours” game all the critics of the Church constantly sucker other hapless Catholics here into playing.
I posted this for the benefit of any reasonable lurker who may be deceived by the claim “there is no evidence the prayers in [Rev 8:4] are the prayers of the saints in heaven.”
This is an extremely dangerous error. Sin, or a "sinful nature," never made anyone "fully human". It's basically the lie the serpent told Eve in the garden -- until you sin, you aren't really human.
And verse 6:11 proves the martyrs in verse 7:14 were the martyrs during St. John’s time not future martyrs before Jesus’ return in glory.
Anyone who can read the Bible in context will know that Mary was a sinner and that Luke 1:28 does not teach that Mary was sinless as that would contradict Romans 3:23.
Catholics do deify Mary when they pray to her. Prayer is a form of worship. Hence catholics worship Mary.
Except catholics have turned it into a false title for Mary.
You are an American. Many Americans are ignorant about how the word “pray” is used in the English language outside of the United States. You seem to be included in that group which is ignorant about what the word means.
The Catholic Church is a Universal Church so it can’t have different meanings in the US relative to the rest of the English-speaking world. The Catholic Church will continue to use the word pray the way it is used around the world (and historically) regardless of what your definition is.
The bible doesn’t have real contradictions. It has apparent contradictions that can only be understood by an authority that has ties to the apostles. How recently did your church come up with its interpretation of those two verses, relative to the Catholic Church?
Nope...the Greek doesn't have it that way. It literally reads: Greetings, you favored with grace! The Lord is with you.
you favored with grace is not in caps as the word Lord later is.
you make the error of using English norms to translate Greek.
Besides in not one of the major translations is this in caps.
In fact, none use the phrase "Hail, O Lady Full of Grace as you did.
Again, another false interpretation by catholics attempting to prove something that's just not there.
The root word charitoo is also use in Ephesians 1:6.(echaritosen). In both instances is means God extending Himself to freely bestow grace (favor). From Helps Word Studies
Bottom line: It is not a tile for Mary
A picture is worth ten thousand words. The only people FR Catholics are fooling are themselves. The evidence is there for all to see. Thanks for posting this.
They’re still saints in heaven.
It's rare for me to find an actual interesting point on this "Religion Forum". This, however ...
Very interesting, indeed.
Jesus DID NOT have a "sinful nature". He can't have, He's GOD. He's also truly Man ... more fully Man than any of us can hope to be. Furthermore, when Adam and Eve were created, they did not have a "sinful nature". Quite the contrary; when God created them, He found them to be "very good".
Thus, Sin is not part of our Human Nature. It was not present at the beginning, and not present in the Man Jesus Christ. Rather, sin is a defect in our Human Nature. It is not something God inflicted on us. It is the result of Adam and Eve (and the rest of us) breaking what God gave us.
In addition to posts 110 and 112, even if you don’t accept any of what was said there, in Rev 8:3 it says the incense is the prayers of “all saints” in virtually every translation I’ve found. So even if one says, “the believers in God who are Christians are ‘saints’ on earth, and these are the saints in verse 4”, this distinction is not made in Rev 8:3.
So Rev 8:4 can be reasonably interpreted (even given the Protenstant insistence we are “saints” here on earth), if even that is conceded, then STILL we have “ALL saints’” (prayers) offered up to God in verse 4, which then includes (obviously) the saints in heaven. Since the saints in heaven are some of the group known as “all saints” in verse 3.
Unless one will foolishly assert that the saved believers in heaven aren’t saints!
The persons in heaven are properly called saints. If one at least agrees with that then...
...since the saints in heaven are at least part of the group of people known as “all saints” and since the saints in heaven have nothing to pray for other than other people, and the only other people they would need to pray for would be those on earth, Rev 8:3-4 still shows that at least SOME of the prayers of the saints (in verse 4) are of those saints in heaven for other people here on earth.
Q.E.D.
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.