Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
My whole point, that has been either ignored or misunderstood, (sorry if it is my fault, silverlings) is that the Apostles of 47 AD made a decision based on oral teachings and the authority given to them from whom they thought was God. This decision (which they thought was from God) was NOT based in the Old Testament, the Scriptures that they then had. Thus, the decision to do away with part of God's "eternal" covenant was done WITHOUT Sola Scriptura. This is a precedent that the Catholic Church continues to this day.
If you accept that the Apostles acted without Sola Scriptura, it naturally leads one to accept that their successors continue to have this power and that Sola Scriptura was never used by the Church. Merely looking at Acts 15 and what the Apostles did thoroughly disproves the idea that the Church would ever use Sola Scriptura.
Regards
"It is inconceivable that Mary would have carnal relations, or desires after having carried the precious and sacred Child."
Why is that so inconceivable when Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 3:16 that we are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in us and we still sin? Aren't they co-equal in the Godhead? Does one deserve more veneration than the other?
Neither I nor, certainly, jo said that Christianity is not connected to Judaic theology. I will leave jo out of this, and only speak for myself, as I believe jo has not questioned, as I have, the notion that the faith of the Prophets and Moses is the same faith we have -- an assertion that Moses and the Prophets would have recognized Christ as God. I believe that is what Agrarian had said, and if I am misrepresenting it I am pinging him for a correction.
My objection to this is based on the following: except for John the Baptist, we have no evidence but can only speculate, that this is so.
The one Apostle who always gets "blamed" for weakness in faith is St. Thomas, who wanted a "proof" of what was really an unbelievable event. What "proof" would one get from wounds is interesting, other than perhaps no one recognized physically the resurrected Christ, but only knew He was one and the same Jesus Christ by His presence, not appearance.
Thus, His wounds (others having not been nailed to the cross and stabbed in the thorax) would indicate that He was indeed the same man who died on the cross three days earlier. It is only when St. Thomas establishes that the wounds are real that he says "My Lord and my God." I guess every doubting Thomas in the world would have done the same at that point! But +Tomas's doubts were not a singular event.
The myrrth-bearing women did not recognize Him either. They did not come to anoint a resurrected God, but a dead body! The Apostles did not all believe their story. St. Peter denied Christ three times. The Apostles were not ready to die martyrs' deaths until after having witnessed a resurrected Lord. In other words, although they were with Him and "believed on Him" while He was still in Flesh, they did not really recognize Him, did they?
If Judas had believed "on Him" to be truly Who He is, would he have sold Him out for 30 pieces of silver? I doubt it! It was St. Peter who walked on water and then sank!
So, if His own disciples did not believe "on Him" and were dumbfounded with His resurrection, why would the prophets and Moses have recognized the Son of man as the Son of God in Flesh? There is no evidence whatsoever that they would. Only +John the Baptist did.
I dare say that, placing ourselves in the mindset of the Jews and Romans of AD 33, none of us would have seen God in Him? In fact, if he were to walk on earth again, telling us how wrong we have become, and that He is the Son of God, we would put Him in a mental hospital.
Arguing that Moses recognized God in the Burning Bush is not the same. Christ looked like a man. A Burning Bush that talks is a slightly different experience.
Thus, it is not whether there is continuity between Judaism and Christianity, because obviously there is, but to claim that the OT righteous would have recognized God in Jesus is a speculation, and the lack of faith even among the Apostles is almost a conclusive lesson given to us that even those who believe they believe maybe do not really believe.
The other aspect is that Christianity became a different religion. It is not Judaism in praxis. Christianity dismantled Judaism, staring with God on down. What we have in common with Judaism are roots, like America has English, European, Christian roots, but is neither English, nor European, nor Christian as an entity and identity.
We are sin? After our regeneration? What exactly was "regenerated" if we are still "sin"? Here is the heart of Luther's error.
Regards
"We are sin?"
No, Jesus was made SIN for us when He bore our punishment on the cross doing away with our original sin nature (justification). However we live in a fallen world and because of our human nature we do sin and Hebrews tells us if and when we do sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ (sanctification).
1Jo 1:7 "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
OK, sorry, I misread your first post. You didn't say "we are sin" but "we sin".
Regards
Shall we compare word-counts? 8~)
All of my sins have been POTENTIALLY paid for...
That is not Scriptural. But it does invest your ecclesiastical hierarchy with the power to give or withhold salvation, when it is rightly the work of God alone.
Christ either paid the ransom for your eternal life, or He didn't. His redemption was not tentative; it was complete and accomplished everything God intended.
"There are some who say that true humility before God means that we can never be sure, we can never be confident, we can never say, with the apostle, "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day" (II Tim. 1:12). But that idea (that true humility means we can never be confident of our salvation) is not the teaching of Scripture. It is a false humility. The Scriptures are plain! "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me" (Ps. 23:4). "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, (then the apostle goes on to mention many more things), shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:38, 39). "And we know that we are of God" (I John 5:19), we know that, says John..."
Through these discussions I've come to realize we really are talking about different definitions of salvation -- yours seems to have many strings attached.
The salvation of which faith is the evidence, as spoken in Hebrews 11:1, has been accomplished. It is not time-dependent, nor man-dependent. The price was paid in full. Recognize your finished redemption in Christ, and you will live it more confidently because He has done it for you.
Here is God Himself telling you He will shoulder the burden for you...
They stoop, they bow down together; they could not deliver the burden, but themselves are gone into captivity. Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb: And even to your old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you." -- Isaiah 46:1-4"Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth, their idols were upon the beasts, and upon the cattle: your carriages were heavy loaden; they are a burden to the weary beast.
"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. {38} For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. {39} And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. {40} And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." -- John 6:37-40
Did God give you to Christ, jo kus?
Is our assurance and our confidence misplaced?
"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" -- Philippians 1:6
Our confidence is a perfect and actualized confidence because it is in Christ alone.
Bizarre question. It is ordinarily necessary for salvation to be baptized (John 3:5), obey the commandments (Luke 18:20), do works of charity (Matthew 20:31-46), have total dedication to Christ (Luke 18:23), partake of the Eucharist (John 6:54-55) and confess sins (James 5:16, 1 John 1:9). Praying to Mary is not mentioned among these necessities. Reading the Institutes is not mentioned either.
A Christian is judged by his works (Apocalypse 22:12). This apostolate is open-ended: at no point can one say "I did which was commanded me" (Matthew 25:26-30, Luke 17:6-10). This is why a Christians seeks mentors in his life. Mary and all the saints are there to offer us the example of their Christian lives and to sustain us with their prayers. Is it necessary to look for them and ask their prayers? No; it is merely foolish not to.
I think we'd agree that while one's sister's son is one's cousin, the words do not have the same meaning.
"Cousin" also includes sister's daughter, brother's son, brother's daughter, grandmother's sister's son, uncle's wife's sister's son, etc. We have one word for this: "cousin" and can say, "Charlie's cousins all came to the wedding." rather than Charlie's sister's sons and brother's sons and sister's daughters..."
I think it's likely this topic was discussed before on this thread somewhere. So to save space, a fairly complete argument from the RC side is here.
Thanks for your reply...
you're right - this point (about cousins, brothers etc.) has been raised at least 5 times on this thread (before post 100 IIRC~)
Correct link is here.
It is inconceivable because Mary already had the joy of full union with God which is merely foreshadowed in the joy of an ordinary spousal union. It would not have been sinful, perhaps and legalistically speaking, for her to carnally enjoy the marital union with Joseph, merely absurd. Quoting myself:
Mary had arrived to the unitive and procreative marriage to the Holy Ghost abundantly. Sinless, she was united to Him at all times. Her body gave birth to the perfect new man. She was walking in paradise all her life. The hormonal urgings a lesser woman goes by had no purpose in her; if she had them they were not significant and probably not noticeable to her enlightened mind.
How can a baby die to his sinful life if he hasn't committed any sins yet? How can this happen without any free will? I think it's been said that the free will is supplied by proxy through the parents, but that doesn't really make logical sense, does it? "I will exercise your free will FOR YOU"? The poor baby has no idea what is happening to him. The baby doesn't want to be baptized, he wants his binky! :) His will is being totally overrun here.
I believe where most of us Protestants would disagree is with Mary being described as "morally guiltless" and, of course, we would reference that "all have sinned and fall short...". I think Calvin (and Luther) was too close to the Catholic Church on this view coming directly out of Catholicism as he did. His arguments for Mary are a tad bit weak unlike many of his other doctrinal stances.
If memory serves me correctly, while tradition speaks of Mary being a perpetual virgin, I don't believe many of these documents came into being until several hundred of years after Christ and Mary. Her ascension (Catholic doctrine) wasn't talked about in writing until 5-6 AD. While Mary was undeniably a great woman of God and IS blessed, in my mind it is a romantic notion to believe that she was morally guiltless. None of this is supported by the inspired writings of God's word and there are plenty of other scriptures that state otherwise.
However, I will say that while I disagree with you theology, you Orthodox are more consistent with your theological views than the Catholics, IMHO. I appreciate well reasoned theology even if I disagree with the conclusion.
BTW and FWIW-It is my particular view that all women wombs are holy and pure. Mary, outside of her humbleness and dedication to God which is NOT to be minimized, was physically no different than any other woman. Original sin is transmitted through the male, who is corrupt. Consequently any woman could have been chosen as a vessel of an incorruptible seed. The issue isn't the vessel as much as the seed which required a virgin birth.
Hasn't everything been raised at least 5 times on this thread? :O)
"Mary and all the saints are there to offer us the example of their Christian lives and to sustain us with their prayers"
The only example of any one being asked to intercede with God for another after they have died, except the risen Lord, is Saul's requesting Samuel to find out what the future holds in 1 Sam. 28:15. Samuel's response is what is to be expected, "Why are you bothering me?" The deceased saints have better things to do than worry about us here on earth. Look at the book of Revelation. The deceased saints are minding their own business praising God while God is displaying His wrath on the earth and its inhabitants. There is no evidence of saints interceding for the inhabitants, in fact, it is the martyrs who are asking when God will exercise His final judgment and end the suffering.
We, who have trusted Christ for our salvation, are saints, now, and of equal value to God and have as much access to God, by faith, as what we would consider the greatest of saints who have gone on before. God is no respecter of persons!
You responded : That is not Scriptural. But it does invest your ecclesiastical hierarchy with the power to give or withhold salvation, when it is rightly the work of God alone.
I believe it is Scriptural. I do not define salvation as being equal to redemption, nor does the Bible. The ecclesiastical heirarchy does not have the power to withhold salvation, only God potentially does. God ordinarily works THROUGH His Church, not against it - a Kingdom divided among itself shall surely fall. And finally, I disagree that God brings about my salvation without me. That is against Scripture's eloquent plea for MAN to repent, to believe, to love, to turn to Christ...We understand that we are empowered by God to do this, and we are judged based on this response to His graces, not fate.
Christ either paid the ransom for your eternal life, or He didn't. His redemption was not tentative; it was complete and accomplished everything God intended.
I already told you that I agree with this - but I do not define redemption = salvation. Yes, Christ's work for ALL of mankind is completed - to a sense that it is available for all men to reach out and respond to His offer. Some do not and thus will not be "saved". REPENT and BELIEVE, the Kingdom is at hand!
Through these discussions I've come to realize we really are talking about different definitions of salvation -- yours seems to have many strings attached.
I have found that your "salvation" is closer to what we call "initial justification". When we say "salvation", we generally are speaking about ending up in heaven. Being justified does not later guarantee eternal heaven - thus salvation is conditional. It is based (from our perspective) upon our response to God's commands and offer of love.
Recognize your finished redemption in Christ, and you will live it more confidently because He has done it for you.
I have "confidence" in God's plan of salvation for me individually, but I do not presume what will happen in the future. The Bible speaks against presumption. I am confident in the Lord's promises that as long as I remain in His friendship, as long as I am justified, I will be granted heaven. I have not earned heaven, I can only lose it. I pray that I do not turn away, that I persevere in Christ. Your "confidence" seems presumption to me and disregards the whole idea of perseverance. Who EXACTLY is persevering? God? According to you, I do nothing. Why is God telling ME to persevere then??? Seems like an odd command.
Did God give you to Christ, jo kus? You can call me Joe, thanks for your concern. Currently, I am abiding in Christ and He in me. Whether that will continue depends on whether I sever our friendship through deadly sin.
Regards
Everything but my tagline...
Regards
Original sin is not a personal sin, so in this regard, a baby has no "sin". But if we define "sin" as something without God, then we can rightfully call original sin as such because we are born without sanctifying grace, God's presence in our souls. As such, this state, sans God, is called "original sin". It is a lack of God, not a personal sin.
Regards
"Everything but my tagline..."
Thank God, you didn't do that "Jabesh" thing.
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.