Posted on 12/27/2005 8:38:08 AM PST by Teófilo
If you took the time to study, rather than issue a reflexive bias, you would know that it is not "idolatry".
But wasn't that you calling someone stupid?
There is no way that the protestant interpretation of Mary's role can be accused of being created out of thin air with no biblical basis.
So often those who oppose the protestant interpretation provide their own by saying "It 'could be' X, Y, or Z...."
What they ignore is that their own argument lacks conviction. If they can state it absolutely, let them do so. Let them say, "Scripture undeniably and unequivocally affirms X.....and here is the CERTAIN proof of it."
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven,
the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
amen
In these two passages, Jesus is not addressing te question of what honor we should give Mary. Instead, He is correcting the popular mentality that bloodline makes us pleasing to God. "Do not presume to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones" (Matthew 3:9). Jesus is teaching that faith is more important than biological relationship, to which Mary would gave agreed wholeheartedly. Elsewhere, the Bible shows the tremendous honor due Mary because of her faithful role in salvation history.
(Above written by Rev. Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham)
(If you want further attributions from Scripture, feel free to respond, and I'll provide them.)
At another point he said, Lu 14:26 - "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.
Elsewhere he says we should love our enemies, so he certainly isn't preaching an emotional detesting of those dear to us. (If we can't love our brother who we have seen, how can we love God whom we have not seen.)
In short, the passage in question is another affirmation of his point that one's relationship with God is more important even than one's familial relationships.
None of which proves the immaculate conception or the assumption of Mary.
So?
The Church never had anything but condemnation for child abuse. It deserves criticism for not moving faster and with greater trasnparency, but it is not a doctrinal issue.
The Limbo has always been a theological hypothesis. People were always free to teach for or against it, and they still do.
The teaching on salvation has not changed and is not going to change. Because the teaching is complex (unlike the simplistic once-believer-always-saved heresies often taught in Protestant circles), clarification of the teaching is needed, particularly in view of continuing Protestant distortions. But the doctrine of salvation has not, will not, and cannot change, just like the Holy Scripture cannot and will not change.
love to stay and debate but....
>> But wasn't that you calling someone stupid<<
Nope, that was me stating that a statement made someone LOOK stupid.
We all say stupid things. That doesn't mean that we are stupid.
Hi Jaded, I am not a protestant.
I follow only what the Bible says. :-)
Do you have any scriptural evidence that anyone was ever aborted from the new Birth or Scriptural evidence of someone having to be born again, again?
No one is claiming that Jesus disregarded Mary.
But Scripture makes it clear that there isn't any kind of Mary as intercessor to be practiced.
She is not given a place of great honor, rather a place among those who are Christians.
Of course.
Christ said that not all who call on His name will be saved. When asked what one is to do in order to be saved, His response was to follow His commandments and then give away all posessions and follow Him. Another time Christ commanded to participate in the Eucharist which is His flesh and blood. Many disciples left Him at that point. In one parable Christ compares the Kingdom of Heaven to seeds scattered in good and bad soil; some seeds don't make it. In another He compares a Christian life to the unending work of a servant who is not entitled to rest even after he had served a full day in the field. In short, as St. Paul said, we are to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling"; neither baptism, or, even less so, one-time conversion experience is not a guarantee of salvation.
I alluded to several scriptures that you are probably familiar with and will supply verse references if it becomes necessary.
One thing you have neglected, or perhaps did not know. When Jesus spoke, salvation by grace had not happened yet.
After the death of Jesus, can you take me to any situation where someone is born again, again?
By that logic we should disregard the entire Gospel prior to Calvary.
However, I recall a story about some Christians believing enough to donate some of their belongings to the church, but not all. They were struck dead. That was after the Resurrection.
If you want to study the beliefs of the Church exclusively after the Resurrection, you will have to study the early Church fathers. Guess whose interpretation will win by that method.
Because "idolatry" involves "worship" and Catholics don't teach the "worship" of Mary.
That is a factual difference, not a simple disagreement.
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.