Posted on 11/02/2006 12:44:03 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Scripture says that there is no other name by which men are to be saved except that of Christ Jesus.
Ergo, all sons and daughters of Adam, without exception, need a Savior.
What a little piece of envy and vitriol. Obviously written by a dejected soul, desperate clinging to ineffectual beliefs he insists are the core of Christianity, but aren't.
Hip hip hooray for Scott Hahn, his move to Rome, and for his "familism." May the Lord continue blessing and increasing his ministry.
-Theo
Completely incorrect. "No where does it say that men are saved through the church,
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her," (Ephesians 5:25)
That says He gave his life for the church not that the church saves anyone . Please read what it says, not what you want it to say.
Christ also speaks of the role in the Church as having authority in disputes:
"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (Matt 18:17)
That does not speak to the men being saved through the church
"And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongue (1Co 12:28)
Out of curiosity do you see the roll of priest or pope listed in the new church?
Where does the Nt teach a continuing unbloody sacrifice?
Hbr 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
The NT church has no priesthood and no popes and no sacrifices as that typology has been fulfilled.
Back at'cha.
Out of curiosity do you see the roll of priest or pope listed in the new church?
The English word "priest" comes from the Greek presbyter, which translates directly as "elder". Go ahead and tell me there are no "elders" described in your Bible.
The English word "bishop" comes from the Greek episcopos, or "overseer". You might look that up also.
Where does the Nt teach a continuing unbloody sacrifice?
Try Hebrews 9.
"The Coptics and Orthodox (if I understand correctly), don't believe the Mary was taken to heaven before death."
You understand correctly and her assumption after death is not dogma but rather a theologoumennon, though virtually all Orthodox, so far as I am aware, do believe it.
Basically what you're demonstrating is that, for you, "scripturally ignorant" is a synonym for "don't accept manmade Protestant fundamentalist doctrines and interpretations".
I'll gladly sign up to be that kind of "scripturally ignorant," then. I seek to know Christ and him crucified, not your manmade doctrines.
"Hail Mary, Full of Grace, the Lord is with you." (Luke 1:28)
Thank you for making my point with that scripture .
The recognized definition for grace is "Gods UNMERITED Favor "
Mary did not merit the" favor" of God, because like all men she was a sinner in need of a Savior. She knew that and said that . She would be saved by His mercy as are all sinners .
Mary did not contribute one ounce of the Divinity of Christ. Christ divine nature had existed for all time. Mary contributed only the human nature of Christ. God did not need a goddess as a mother, He needed a flesh and blood woman .
To believe that Christ demanded a sinless womb because he was God mocks the fact that God became a man, walked the dirty streets and had to wash his feet, he ate and drank with sinners and drunks. Christ did not hide from the sin of His creation, He embraced the sinners He came to save.
ears_to_hear, how do suppose it is that original sin is transmitted from parent to off-spring? Do you believe that Christ inherited original sin?
It is generally taught that original sin comes by the father not the mother. .just as sin came by Adam
But even given that is a generally held "theory" why would God have to produce a sinless woman so she could have a sinless son. Obviously if He could make Mary sinless He could have made Christ sinless.
"Most Catholics could not find a book in the bible without an index. Most consider the readings at church on Sunday a kind of Bible study"
Really, such a silly petulant statement. How is again you know what over a billion people can and can't find in their Bibles? And how is it you know what over a billion people do and do not consider bible study?
and here I thought I was a mindnumbed robot of Rush Limbaugh. But instead I am a mindnumbed robot of Scott Hahn's.
Can you be a mindnumbed robot of more than one person?
"Sinners" aren't "full of grace," sorry.
The Greek word is even worse for your case, it's kecharitomene, which is a perfect passive participle of charitoo ("to grace"). The use of the perfect passive participle makes kecharitomene mean "already fully graced as a result of a past action".
And to believe the Christ, who, alone among all men, created His own mother, could fulfill the commandment "Honor thy father and thy mother" by creating her in a state of sin means either that sin constitutes honor (which means the scriptures lie when they say that everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin) or that Christ failed to fulfill the Law perfectly (which means the scriptures lie when they say He was without sin).
And that's how ALL Christians "learned the Bible" until Gutenberg invented printing. Seems to have worked pretty well for centuries.
"Go to a protestant service. People take off their coats as an indication they intend to stay and pay some attention . See them sit with the bibles open to the passages to see if they are being taught in context and quoted correctly. To study means to concentrate on, investigate, discuss and look at other scriptures to see if it is correctly being applied."
Only possible "post Gutenberg".
The title Priest is VERY SPECIFIC it is the one that preformed the sacrifices in the temple
Priest... hiereus {hee-er-yooce'}
1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
a) referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews,
2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ
Elder
presbuteros
1) elder, of age,
a) the elder of two people
b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
1) forefathers
2) a term of rank or office
a) among the Jews
1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God
God chose to have the NT written in Greek, because it is a precise language. While English may lump together the two words the greek is precise (much as we see in the word love)
They are not the same in meaning or function to the writers of the NT . The Priesthood was a type, Jesus fulfilled that type. He was both the High Priest and the Lamb.
There was no longer a need for sacrifices Jesus fulfilled the OT, so there was no longer a role for Priest
God destroyed the Priesthood in 70 Ad as it was no longer needed.
The English word "bishop" comes from the Greek episcopos, or "overseer". You might look that up also.
I am aware of the term Bishop, but no pope in that , no cardinals, no magistrum
Where does the Nt teach a continuing unbloody sacrifice?
Try Hebrews 9.
You might want to keep reading
Hbr 10:1
| For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. | |
| For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. | |
| But in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins every year. | |
| For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. | |
| Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: | |
| In burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast had no pleasure. | |
| Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. | |
| Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and [offering] for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure [therein]; which are offered by the law; | |
| Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. | |
| By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]. | |
| And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: | |
| But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; | |
| From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. | |
| For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. | |
| There is no scripture teaching that there is any such thing as a "bloodless" sacrifice " or that it would be pleasing to God |
Cool.
"The recognized definition for grace is "Gods UNMERITED Favor "
Mary did not merit the" favor" of God, because like all men she was a sinner in need of a Savior. She knew that and said that . She would be saved by His mercy as are all sinners .
Mary did not contribute one ounce of the Divinity of Christ. Christ divine nature had existed for all time. Mary contributed only the human nature of Christ. God did not need a goddess as a mother, He needed a flesh and blood woman ."
As an Orthodox Christian I have always wondered at Protestant conceptions of what The Church believes, and has always believed, about the Most Holy Theotokos. There seems to be confusion in the Protestant mind about the role which she played in the Incarnation and I suspect that much of this confusion stems from its acceptance of the Western notion of "Original Sin" on the one hand and rejection of its logical consequence, the notion of the Immaculate Conception.
The Christian East never accepted the Augustian construction of Original Sin and thus there was never a need for a doctrine like the Immaculate Conception; indeed Orthodoxy positively rejects the dogma. I think, eoh, the final sentence of your comment, quoted above, is in absolute accord with the consensus patrum and the pronouncements of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. To say otherwise is to deny the dual nature of Christ, which to my way of thinking, is heresy. If the Theotokos was not fully human, which is to say, that she was somehow preserved from the effects of either Original Sin, as the Latin Church would have it, or from the effects of the Sin of Adam, as the Pre-Schism Church had, and Orthodoxy still does have, it, then Christ, born of a "goddess" cannot be "True God and True Man". And we Christians all know this to be true, because The Church in the Third Ecumenical Council told us so.
To say seriously, however, that the Most Holy Theotokos was not purified at the moment of the Annuciation from whatever sins she may have had, and Orthodoxy by the way, says and always has, that she responded to God's unmerited grace in such a way that she indeed had no sin (though at least one Father believed that she had and did sin), would mean that God had not chosen a unique women (but a fully human one) to be the mother of His Son, an absurd proposition given the state of mankind after the Fall.
So how is it that Protestantism can rejct the Immaculate Conception while accepting +Augustine's notions of the depravity of man and Original Sin and at the same time say that Mary was no goddess and though the Most Holy Theotokos, was a sinner? With all due respect, and as an outsider (after all, the Reformation was in response to the Roman Church, which had broken away from Orthodoxy centuries before anyone heard of the Reformation) I have to say that Protestantism's position on the Most Holy Theotokos is born more of simply rejecting Rome than any well thought out theology.
EOH, the devotion which Eastern Christians have to the Theotokos is likely even more intense than that of the Latins, but it is not because she is ontologically different from us. Rather it is because she is the perfect example of human response to God's unmerited grace, the proof of which is her perpetual virginity and sinlessness. Here's a snip from +John Damacene which will perhaps explain what Eastern Christianity believes about her:
"After the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her, and granting her power to receive the divinity of the Word, and likewise power to bring forth. And then was she overshadowed by the enhypostatic Wisdom and Power of the most high God, the Son of God Who is of like essence with the Father as of Divine seed, and from her holy and most pure blood He formed flesh animated with the spirit of reason and thought, the first-fruits of our compound nature: not by procreation but by creation through the Holy Spirit: not developing the fashion of the body by gradual additions but perfecting it at once, He Himself, the very Word of God, standing to the flesh in the relation of subsistence. For the divine Word was not made one with flesh that had an independent pre-existence, but taking up His abode in the womb of the holy Virgin, He unreservedly in His own subsistence took upon Himself through the pure blood of the eternal Virgin a body of flesh animated with the spirit of reason and thought, thus assuming to Himself the first-fruits of man's compound nature, Himself, the Word, having become a subsistence in the flesh. So that He is at once flesh, and at the same time flesh of God the Word, and likewise flesh animated, possessing both reason and thought. Wherefore we speak not of man as having become God, but of God as having become Man. For being by nature perfect God, He naturally became likewise perfect Man: and did not change His nature nor make the dispensation an empty show, but became, without confusion or change or division, one in subsistence with the flesh, which was conceived of the holy Virgin, and animated with reason and thought, and had found existence in Him, while He did not change the nature of His divinity into the essence of flesh, nor the essence of flesh into the nature of His divinity, and did not make one compound nature out of His divine nature and the human nature He had assumed."
I think Scott Hahn says something similar. Honest!
I'd try to explain it, but I'd probably get confused and say something totally bizarre. It's in his CD set called "Why the Hell?"
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.