Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
It does appear Metmom, that what they believe will depend on what catholic church they attend, as well the individual on what they might choose to adhere to in that church.....rather than what Rome asks they believe.
I use to think they all were suppose to be on the same page with Rome but that doesn’t seem to be the case after all.
The two natures are united in a single person in the Trinity (hypostatic union).
Mary gave birth to the person of Christ, not “one nature”. One does not give birth to a “nature,” but a person, and to split out a nature, splits the person of Christ, which is fundamental to Christian belief in the Incarnation.
Baaaaad Trinitarianism bordering on heresy.
:)
Good. I thought we agreed about that.
I don’t know that a Pentecostal would receive communion from someone they knew to be in gross sin. Some probably would. Many wouldn’t.
Why would that disappoint me?
Shock.
I tend to agree.
The Bible describes the Church in terms of a body. Christ is the "head of the body, the church" (Col 1:18). All "are members of His body" (Eph. 5:30). This metaphor speaks of the immediate and unimpeded union of every believer with Christ. It leaves no room for the mediation of Mary as taught by the Roman Catholic Church.
WHile the Church agrees that the faithful are the body of Christ and that He is their head, it nevertheless adds that Mary is--
...the connecting portion the function of which is to join the body to the head and to transmit to the body the influences and volitions of the head- We mean the neck. Yes, says St. Bernardine of Sienna, "she is the neck of Our Head, by which He communicates to His mystical body all spiritual gifts. "-Ad Diem
I just see this as yet another place Mary is insinuated into Christ. Being the neck between the body and the head.
Does that make sense to you?
NOW NOW.
There ya go agin’.
Asking RC’s to forsake
their daffynitionary.
That’s probably more frightful than forsaking the plastic figures.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!:
Dispensationalism can’t stand a clear presentation? Only if it is dismissed out of hand in favor of RELIGION can it not stand up to the scrutiny caused by added doctrines, traditions or reading between the Scriptures for something that is not clearly spelled ouy. Because it causes works to fall...flat.. which is where they should be. Religion is an organized set of doctrines and rules on what people are to do for God. Dispensationalism knocks that down flat, and tells you there is nothing a person can do. It’s about what God has done for you. Of course you would dismiss it as artificial. You’ve invested too much time in religion to suddenly realize it’s been for naught.
Dispensationalism teaches you to analyze, and not accept everything that is presented. It shows you where you are in God’s Plan for Man, and gives you His outline for a particular time. You are working hand in hand with God’s Word and His commission for you. THere is no confusion about grace, law, kingdom, tribulation. You are a mature member of the Body of Christ. Able to stand strong when others are being swept around with every wind of doctrine that comes along, and smooth talkers who speak of Jesus, but not the SAME Jesus, who preach a gospel, but not the Gospel of Salvation. And you can tell the difference IMMEDIATELY. It doesn’t take weeks of going back and forth, wondering, maybe..No you know immediately.
This is why RELIGION attacks Dispensationalism. There is no chance of fooling someone who KNOWS where he is in God’s Plan, knows why he’s there, what he’s to do, and where he’s going when his work is completed.
Here's what makes sense to this Catholic:
The beginning of our faith is in the Divinity of Christ. The uniqueness of this faith is the Incarnation - the Word become Flesh.
Imponderable. But if we wish to ponder it, we can, not must, contemplate that moment when Our Saviour entered into this world, just the same way as we enter into this world. He, like us, had a mother.
In this manner we can, not must, begin to know more about God, about the Word made Flesh, and about what this means in our own lives. That God became man, was born of a woman, and He dwelt among us, suffered like and for us, was crucified and died, with his mother watching...
As usual you have thrown out an unsubstantiated and bizarre accusation.....
Here are some passages to meditate on those Names of God and the Trinity:
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:14
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. - John 8:58
As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. – John 18:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. – Isaiah 9:6
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: - Matthew 28:19
.
THANKS FOR YOUR EXCELLENT POST and kind reply.
Great Scriptures. I don't know that they greatly clarify Mad Dawg's question, however! LOL.
I believe . . . that
we see in the OT, GOD THE FATHER with what can be reasonably extrapolated to be some OT appearances of Christ.
I AM; ALMIGHTY GOD; EL SHADAI; PROVIDER; ETC.
And, in the OT, we read of God's Spirit doing various things . . . resident within the great prophets, in David, . . . active in this time/space dimension in dramatic ways.
In the NT we SEE CHRIST . . . AND CHRIST SAYS, HE AND THE FATHER ARE ONE--YET HE PRAYS TO THE FATHER AND TEACHES US TO PRAY "OUR FATHER, IN HEAVEN, MAGNIFIED, HALLOWED, GLORIFIED BE YOUR NAME . . .
HE SPEAKS FREQUENTLY of doing only what He sees and hears THE FATHER doing/telling Him to do. Yet, clearly, there's some distinction . . . Christ on The Cross. Father in Heaven.
And then after The Ascension, Holy Spirit comes to reside within believers.
There's plenty mystery to urge humility on all who would pontificate in any presumed comprehensiveness about the GodHead and particularly about clear definitive distinctions.
However, Scripture does record distinctions. We may not know exhaustively what they mean. Yet, they are there and they mean far more than nothing.
It seem clear that THE FATHER WALKED WITH ADAM IN THE GARDEN.
It is clear that THE FATHER, THE IAM talked with Moses as though face to face.
To muddle THE CLEAR BIBLICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE FATHER, THE IAM AND THE SON
With the "MOTHER OF GOD"
IS SIMPLY UNBIBLICAL.
It is also deceptive, seductive, disingenuous, false advertising, dishonest
BECAUSE for the greatest number of people, THEY KNOW THAT MARY WAS NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD ALMIGHTY. YET THE TERM IMPLIES THAT SHE WAS.
That either testifies of a brazen disconnect or a snow job or a used car salesman trying to foist off a new theology on the unthinking. It just plain stinks.
My two cents, of course.
Thanks for your kind reply.
That’s cool!!! Me likeeee.
In an earlier post I went on at tedious length about the diploid blue-eyed mother who's husband is brown-eyed. She has a brown-eyed baby. She did not provide the genes for brown eyes. But are you going to say she is the Mother of all of the baby except the brown eyes?
A mother gestates a baby who is part hers and part the father's. If she has a boy it's because a Y chromosome tadpole won the race. But nobody says she is not mother of the entire baby, maleness and all.
The Divinity of Christ is in no way Mary's. Yet she is the mother of the whole Jesus. It's exactly analogous, I think.
To us it seems that you are changing the meaning of "mother".
In those days, it was thought that the father supplied all the , what you might call, "determinant material". Aristotle says "form," but that's a technical terms.
The mother supplied the Hyle (pronounced HUGH-lay), the stuff.
Now we kn ow that the mother provides some of the determinant material and all of the 'stuff' while the father supplies tadpoles who vector the rest of the determinant material to the ovum. LOTS of the characteristics of the baby come from the father.
So all we're saying is that Mary was the mother of the child a lot of whose crucial "determinant material" was not from her. Just like any other mother.
Calling Mary the MOTHER OF GOD
is as huge a distortion or a BIGGER distortion of fact
than calling infanticide A CHOICE.
IT IS MANGLING LANGUAGE AND REALITY TOWARD A TARGETED GOAL.
I am fiercely against abortionists doing it.
It is even more ghastly for Christians to do it.
IF THE TARGETED GOAL WAS NOT SUCH A HUGE DEAL, the Vatican would have long ago said something like--oh, right, we were playing loosey goosey with language and theology. We're sorry. We'll call her from now on, the Mother of the Incarnate Christ.
THEY HAVEN'T AND THEY WON'T BECAUSE THE ULTERIOR MOTIVE IS TOO HIGH A PRIORITY. THAT'S DISHONEST. THAT'S FAR FROM CHRISTIAN. That's a seduction from hell.
Good. Glad to hear it. We both know that quite often, I don’t catch such things as intended.
Yikes, Mark...please tell me you don't close your eyes when you're prayin' and drivin', too???!!! ;o)
It does appear Metmom, that what they believe will depend on what catholic church they attend, as well the individual on what they might choose to adhere to in that church.....rather than what Rome asks they believe.
I use to think they all were suppose to be on the same page with Rome but that doesn’t seem to be the case after all.
INDEED.
Sorry for the confusion on apostolic succession. The Scripture makes clear that witnesses to the events are Apostles. Those who follow the Apostles yet are not actual eye-witnesses to the events can not be considered Apostles. Your Scripture citation of Acts 1:22 prove MY point.
And you have yet to describe where this unity of “oneness” actually exists. I realize it’s a favorite Romanist polemic to claim that there is no “oneness” amongst the variety of Protestant denominations. But the same argument can be used against the Romanists for all their varying sects and since Romanists and Orthodox claim to be essentially the same we could add that as additional evidence that there is not the “oneness” that is claimed.
However, amongst orthodox Protestants their is an essential “oneness”. This “oneness” is based on the power of God and his grace which brings about faith in his Son who we trust as our substitute for the punishment we deserve and the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide us in our pilgrimage.
This is much different than a trust in a succession of bishops. I’m reminded of the OT stories where the old Israelites often thought that these artificial lineages were what saved them but God would often strike down those notions. These sort of notions are the wisdom of men. It is a notion that God is dependent upon some mechanical human invention.
Jesus did not create a dysfunctional church? The Epistles should be enough to dispel you of any notion that the Church was anythin but dysfunctional. That doesn’t mean that Jesus doesn’t rule his Church but only that the ravages of sin have not yet been fully eradicated and despite this the Church still exists. I often hear Romanists and the Orthodox say how the Church is functional despite the malfeasance of it’s Bishops. Your argument turns on itself.
Clearly, Thomism is the default doctrine of the Romanist Church. Whatever spin you might want to perpetuate of Aquinas, his philosophy is the controlling factor in Romanism. When “Reason” is accorded such an elevated level as an entity onto itself than whatever theology comes out of that prolegomena will necessarily be man-centered. Reason can never be considered as a separate entity outside of God. When reason is elevated as it is in Romanism it becomes the actual Universe and God and man are merely actors within that universe.
Finally, of the doctors mentioned I noticed you failed to mention Augustine. I’m not surprised. Since so much of the Reformation was based on Augustine’s doctrine of the visible/invisible Church dichotomy it’s no wonder why you slid by him. Romes emphasis on the visible Church and it’s importance must sideline Augustine as a second rate doctor.
Much Appreciated.
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.