Posted on 07/25/2010 3:35:08 AM PDT by GonzoII
Evangelical Protestants are taught to recruit Catholics by exploiting their lack of Bible knowledge, but use Scripture out of context to make Catholic beliefs look flawed.
This is the claim of Catholic apologist Steve Ray, in Perth from the United States of America earlier this month as part of a national tour. Mr Ray used to take on this role.
“We were trained to evangelise Catholics – we believed you are not saved, that you are going to hell as you follow the Pope instead of Jesus, you pray to Mary instead of God, you have tradition instead of Scripture, you thought you got saved by doing good works instead of by faith in Jesus,” he told about 60 people on Thursday, 8 July, at Trinity College, East Perth.
“It was our job to get you saved and become real Bible Christians. This is what Evangelicals think – most of them, even in Australia.”
He said that he was taught the right questions to ask and memorised up to 15 verses that “were good to use with Catholics”.
Mr Ray, married to Janet for 33 years with four children, said he and his wife went from being “anti-Catholic Baptists” to “crossing an uncrossable chasm and becoming Catholics”.
The Rays were not alone. They opened their home for two years to people seeking to discuss their differences with Catholics and explained why they converted, “even if people hated Catholics”.
In that time, Mr Ray said over 200 people joined the Catholic Church.
Addressing several key issues that cause the at-times vicious divide, especially in the United States, between Protestants and Catholics, Mr Ray said he achieved “great success” by asking carefully selected questions and backing them up with isolated Scripture quotes.
(Excerpt) Read more at therecord.com.au ...
I’m struggling to find anything here with which to disagree.
So, Jesus the man was not God? There were two persons there? Thomas was wrong to say to Him, "My Lord and my God?"
Are are you saying that He was not God until after He was born? Was John the Baptist wrong to leap in Elisabeth's womb? Was Elisabeth wrong (or imprecise) in greeting Mary as "mother of my Lord"?
Not everything in a child comes from its mother. Some comes from the child's father, and some comes from the child's mother.
My nose, for instance, certainly came from my Father. But my mother does not say she is not mother of all of me except the nose (and the other traits I get from my father's side of the family.) She is my mother, and I her son. What's the problem?
Jesus' divinity did not come from Mary anymore than my nose came from my mother. Yet it was within my mother that I was conceived, and I - nose and all - was carried by her until I was born. Some of my nature comes from her, some from my father.
Jesus was conceived within Mary, and she bore Him, both what she contributed to what He was, and what the Father contributed to what He was. Some of His nature comes from Mary, some from His Father.
That is what it means to call someone a mother. In one child a mother brings forth some of what is hers and some of what she is given.
It is the same for Mary as for any mother, except that in this case, what the Father gave was Divinity.
Jesus is God.
Mary is the Mother of Jesus,
of all of Him.
Mary is the Mother of God.
So, Jesus the man was not God? There were two persons there? Thomas was wrong to say to Him, "My Lord and my God?"
Are are you saying that He was not God until after He was born? Was John the Baptist wrong to leap in Elisabeth's womb? Was Elisabeth wrong (or imprecise) in greeting Mary as "mother of my Lord"?
Not everything in a child comes from its mother. Some comes from the child's father, and some comes from the child's mother.
My nose, for instance, certainly came from my Father. But my mother does not say she is not mother of all of me except the nose (and the other traits I get from my father's side of the family.) She is my mother, and I her son. What's the problem?
Jesus' divinity did not come from Mary anymore than my nose came from my mother. Yet it was within my mother that I was conceived, and I - nose and all - was carried by her until I was born. Some of my nature comes from her, some from my father.
Jesus was conceived within Mary, and she bore Him, both what she contributed to what He was, and what the Father contributed to what He was. Some of His nature comes from Mary, some from His Father.
That is what it means to call someone a mother. In one child a mother brings forth some of what is hers and some of what she is given.
It is the same for Mary as for any mother, except that in this case, what the Father gave was Divinity.
Jesus is God.
Mary is the Mother of Jesus,
of all of Him.
Mary is the Mother of God.
Thank you for describing my questions as "dumb." No doubt they are.
Am I to suppose that this is some sublime understanding to which I SHOULD lean?
NO! I said the EXACT OPPOSITE - where do you get that stuff from?
From the logical consequence of what you said. There appears to be a contradiction. And while I can see why I ought not to lean to MY understanding, I don't see why I should lean to YOURS. Maybe it's better, maybe not.
But you have just disqualified human deduction, so I don't know what tool I can use to determine why and how your understanding is better than mine.
It's really baffling. I keep seeing what look like human deductions in what you write.
And, of course there is what looks to my human reason like a misunderstanding of the teaching on Mary's immaculate conception, which we have taught since 1854 is the result of Jesus saving work. Mary could not have saved the world; she is an instance of the fruits of that saving.
My human deduction leads me to think that if somebody says something I KNOW not to be true, or makes a deduction I KNOW to be false, then I need to wonder: IF the deduction that person uses is not human, and since it leads that person to say things that aren't true, exactly what is the origin and nature of that deduction?
How could Mary be a mother to Someone that always existed. Are you trying to say Mary was here first before God?
That is such a human deduction sounding question! I did answer it once, but I will try again.
Simply, a mother is not an origin.
My father was born 16 years before my mother. My mother was not the origin of half of my genetic material. She is not the origin of half of what I am. But she is mother of all of me. That is what mother means. Only in pagan myths are mothers origins.
Similarly, Mary is not the origin of all that Jesus is. She is not the origin of His divine nature. That is not what mother means.
From conception and parturition, a mother
1) provides a place for conception,
2) contributes SOME (but not all) of what the offspring is,
3) provides a sheltering place for gestation, and
4) brings the offspring into the world.
Mary
1) Was she in whom the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus.
2)Provided some but not all of what Jesus was.
3) Sheltered Him as He grew.
4) Brought Him into the world.
He was God, she did for Him everything that any human mother does for a child - certainly no less.
That part of my nature which comes from my Father existed before my mother did. But she is still the mother of all that I am. That part of Jesus' nature which comes from His Father existed before Mary did. But she is still the mother of all that Jesus is.
Human deduction might lead someone to think that all mothers pre-exist every aspect of their offspring, because "in the flesh" mothers are born before their children.
But the Spirit teaches us that in Jesus God's love led to an appalling humility, in which God the Son abased himself to be born of a human mother. This notion is one rejected by those who deal in human deduction and so conclude that to say it is to say that Mary pre-exists God.
Good post. I look forward to presently no screen name’s reply.
Personally, I think that anyone who chooses the handle “presently no screen name” must have a good sense of humor. I also hope I can push things aside enough today to savor and respond to the reply.
And thanks. It was actually a Scots Presbyterian named John MacQuarrie who laid out the first justification for “theotokos/deigenetrix/deipara” that I ever read mumble mumble years ago.
LOL
Thanks. It all started when I had to be vaccinated for rabies. I toyed with the idea of forgoing the treatment and spending my last days biting lawyers and politicians ....
If I may interject, Catholics don’t say Mary was sinless by her own power. The only way she could have been a sin sacrifice is if she was sinless by her own power.
I’ll defer to any thoughts Mad Dawg wishes to add; I’ve been too busy lately to engage in proper debate/ discussion.
As I already have said, Mary was sinless as a result of Jesus' coming. She needed Him no less than the rest of us. The objection you raise here is not an objection to OUR teaching. I don't know if anyone teaches that Mary was sinless without Jesus redeeming work working in her life. It's that reasoning according to your own understanding that's messing you up.
Are you so hell bent to say God needs someone to take care of Him?
I am hell bent to say that Jesus, who was God, needed the care of a mother. The Incarnate God was fully incarnate. He was a REAL baby. Babies need mothers or someone to care for them.
It's sometimes helpful too recall that the term "Theotokos" (usually translated "mother of God") was developed as a term in the Christological controversies. It's an assertion that the baby in the womb and the baby born, changed, nursed, bathed, and swaddled was truly God and truly human.
Check Philippians 2:5-7. "Are you so hell bent" to say EITHER that Jesus was not God OR that He was only pretending to be incarnate?
Then why do you repeat the charge that we do?
Because ALL fall short... ALL means ALL.
So Jesus fell short?
It's a dilemma: Either ALL does NOT mean ALL, or Jesus fell short. I'm going with ALL does not mean ALL.
“biting” or being?
My two cents is that while the term may be technically allowed, it is what it normally naturally would covey apart from qualification (such as you provided), that of Mary ontologically being the mother of God, that objections arise, as well as the term being part of the more extreme elevation of Mary far beyond that which is written.
Often the problem with objections is that one can easily fall into the belief that Jesus has two separate natures, versus them mysteriously being joined, yet Jesus was God before He took upon flesh which the Father prepared Him. (Heb. 10:5)
If mother is disassociated from conferring being - and some mothers may have a bone to pick with you - perhaps Mary mothering God manifest in the flesh would be more acceptable, though i can see how this could be a false dilemma as she really was the mother of Jesus who was God, though she contriobuted nothing to that aspect, but was instrumental in God manifesting Himself in the flesh.
Another thought.
Abraham is sometimes called the “father of faith,” and this being in a spiritual context it does not convey that he is the source of faith, though perhaps it really should be “our father in faith.”
All in all, i think we have to be careful not to go beyond what is written, and in deriving something by it. It was probably due to excess that Muhammad supposed that the Christian Trinity consisted of God, Jesus and Mary. (Sura 5:116-117)
An of course, the homosexual heresy is that of Jesus having two mommies, and that being exceedingly morally grievous i am sure you would agree.
The proof will be in the pudding on judgment day! “You shall know them by their fruits.” I’ve spent enough time in God’s Word over the past 30 years to know what it says for myself. I base my salvation on Christ and Christ alone. Jesus said, “You must be born again.” The doctrines of a church or movement usually are indicative of what they preach and teach. I judge doctrine, not individuals. If your doctrine is wrong on the basics of salvation, then your salvation is false. Muslims believe in Allah, are they saved? Not according to the Bible.
Jesus replied, "But EVEN MORE BLESSED are all who hear the word of God and put it into practice."
If she were sinless, she would have been more blessed than any other human that ever lived. Yet - Jesus says those that hear His Word and obey it are more blessed.
RCC's teachings is in direct opposition with God's Word - just on that one Scripture alone. And the RCC is NOT BLESSED - they aren't obeying but opposing what Jesus said about Mary.
It is you who falsely represent what Jesus said about Mary. You imply He somehow said that Mary failed to "hear the word of God and put it into practice."
In fact, scripture records that Mary was the most faithful of His followers, even at the Crucifixion when all but one of the Apostles fled.
Mary was doubly blessed, for serving as the chosen vessel by which "the Word became flesh," and by her matchless obedience. That is why she was inspired to say "from henceforth all generations shall call me BLESSED," except apparently those from certain quarters here on FR.
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.