Posted on 09/07/2010 2:10:43 AM PDT by markomalley
While I can appreciate your sincerity ... your blindness to the text of the Bible is the real issue here.
How do works relate to salvation? The Biblical relationship is clear from the Ephesians passage, they come after salvation and they are in response to what Christ has already done.
Your approach places your works before salvation, and in such a fashion that you never know if you have done enough to get there. You cling to a false hope that at worst you will have to spend a few years working off some of your sins in purgetory because you just didnt do enough good deeds.
The truth is your approach to works is executed out of selfishness ... you have to do them to maximize your chances of getting into heaven. The Biblical approach has our works after salvation so that we can walk in them with the freedom that salvation brings. If you are constantly doing good works to make sure you get there, you are doing them for YOUR benefit, whether you admit it or not ... doesnt matter. You are unable to unselfishly walk in works if you must do them for your salvation.
"He saved us, not by deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own mercy ... by the washing of regeneration ... " Titus 3.5
The Ephesians passage sets forth the proper basis of salvation and works. Salvation is a gift of God (it is not earned or deserved) received by faith; nothing to do with works. After receiving this gift we are then capable of walking in the works that God has prepared for us to walk in ... and we can walk in them without selfish motives, without any sense that we are building up brownie points to make our "works scale" tip in our favor.
In addition ... not only does the Bible teach that salvation is through faith alone, it also clearly teaches that you can KNOW that you have eternal life ... something that adherence to your works-righteousness approach can never give you.
"I write these things to you, who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life." 1 John 5:13
Let me see if I understand what you are saying in this lenghtly post ...
Did Mary have original sin ... what Paul calls the sin nature? If so, is it your believe that even though Mary had the sin nature ... she did not sin?
Let me clarify ... when I say Mary was "cursed" I just mean that she was a woman, and because of Adams sin she was "cursed" by having labor during childbirth. I.e. penalty of the sin was a bunch of things ... one of which was pain during childbirth. I am using "cursed" a little too loosely here ...
No, I don’t have anything backwards; I was replying to another comment.
Not looking to hurt anyone’s feelings, but none of our churches are anything but inventions of men. The “Catholic” churches are among the most deviant from scripture, but really they all are.
The real “Body of Christ” doesn’t own a single building, and has no doctrinal statement but the word.
.
> “As Mary was dying, and she lived a good number of years after the death of her son, all the apostles were transported to her bedside.”
.
That is nonsense. Had Paul made such a voyage, he or Luke would have made scriptural note of it. Likely John and Peter would have too, and the lord would have preserved it as he did for the rest of the scriptures.
.
I said “The” apostles.
The original ones. That did not include St. Paul or St. Luke.
The Catholic Church is based in scripture.
How old is your church?
Ephesians 2:5-10 does not teach faith alone: it mentions grace being the sole source of both faith and good works. It does mention that grace does not come of our works, but right alongside it the letter mentions good works and says that they are obligatory. Eph. 2, like any other passage from the Bible expresses the Catholic teaching; tihs partiocular passage also, liek many others, contradicts the Protestant teaching.
Likewise Titus 3, if you only look at verse 5, says something from which one could infer that we are saved through faith alone. However, the entire passage begins by exhorting people to good works, and then says plainly: “they, who believe in God, may be careful to excel in good works”.
And this is the case witrh all Protestant prooftexts: they do not say what you try to make then sound like, and examining of the context yields the Catholic teaching. There are many passages that praise faith and teach that faith saves, — but there are also many passages that praise good works. When a passage directly explains how we are saved, — such as Matthew 25:31-46 or Luke 18:18-30, — the bible explains that we are saved by our good works, — but of course, not by works alone.
What of this Protestant theory that works merely show faith? The Bible never says anything like that either. In fact, were that the case, the innumerable exhortations to good works which we read toward the end of virtually every Pauline letter, or in Eph 2:10, or Titus 3:8, already cited, or in Matthew 25, or in the Sermon on the Mount, — would make no sense. “[W]ith fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will” (Phil 2:12f). If faith produced our works in us without the involvement of our will, why fear and why tremble?
Here is where the Protestantism has a bridge to authentic Christianity, and the key to it is in the passage like 1 John 5:13, which you cite last. It is true, and the Catholic Church teaches accordingly, that true well-formed faith comes with good works. One who reads the exhortations to good works, and believes that “he heareth us whatsoever we ask” (v 15), that “the things that are impossible with men, are possible with God” (Luke 18:27), — he has a well formed faith and that faith will help him choose works of righteousness. But that is not faith alone: it is faith and good works together that save us. Well formed Catholic faith indeed gives us an assurance of salvation; but works are a part of the process of sanctification. Just like the letter of James says, “by works a man is justified; and not by faith only”.
No, Mary did not have the original sin. Christ saved her from it even before she was born, because the Savior was able to make a spotless tabernacle for Himself. This prearranged purity of Mary is evident in the words of the Archangel, “hail, full of grace”.
That Mary was human, the therefore had all the natural ingredients of humanity, including the ability to experience pain and death — is the Catholic teaching.
I read “The Lamb’s Supper” this summer. It’s great. I had not known that Revelations applied so much to what we do now in worship.
Among the things I found meaningful: Jerusalem’s temple is built on the site Melchizedek offered up his bread and wine sacrifice— and it’s also the site Abraham tried to sacrifice his son. So “Moriah” is the site of the sacrifice of the Old Covenant and the site of the sacrifice of the New Covenant as well.
John makes it clear that Christ is both priest and victim by mentioning the hyssop branch and the priestly garment they stripped from Jesus.
Of course the book is full of great stuff about the Mass. After reading it, I’m happier than ever to be Catholic!
Yet, despite the fact that she’s “of no particular importance beyond carrying her child into the world” the Holy Spirit wanted Mary to experience the Pentecost. Surely she is more important than you say. Why does the Holy Spirit mention her by name as a member in the room? This one fact makes her more important than you stated. Now add in all the other things we know, through Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, about Mary. She matters a great deal.
Mary is a stumbling block for so many. She is foreshadowed in the Old Testament: see Ex 25: 10-16 and Luke 1: 38-41, 56.
Mary had no other children. Brothers is a word also used for cousins. In Acts 1: 12-15 we see that J. had over 100 “brothers.” Four men are named as “brothers of the Lord” but we know that two of them (James and Joseph) were actually sons of Mary, the wife of Cleophas (Mt. 27:56, John 19: 25). In Genesis 29:15 Laban calls his uncle Jacob his “brother.” This is a common usage of the word for relatives. In John 20: 17-18, we see that “brethren” is used to mean disciples.
It’s really an illogical stretch, when one considers all these facts, to insist that Jesus had brothers who were sons of his mother Mary.
I see Mary as the Abraham of the New Testament.
How do you go from "full of grace" to "no sin?" That is in no way evident.
as sin hath reigned to death; so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting (Romans 5:21)
words fail me ...
> “Mary is a stumbling block for so many.”
.
Mary is a fatal stumbling block for all who worship and pray to her. The worship of Mary will send millions to eternal separation from God.
.
> “Mary had no other children”
.
You are in deep denial, and your assertions are feeble. You twist and turn with defense mechanisms in defiance of the Lord’s deliberately placed proof of her having given birth to numerous children; an important step in her life that the Lord provided to keep his Elect from being deceived.
If you were a reader of the “received text,” you would not waste your time with this feckless persuit, since the proof is so broad and piercing.
.
> “I said ‘The’ apostles.
The original ones. That did not include St. Paul or St. Luke.”
.
I invite you to further consider the implications of that statement!
.
There was no mass in the NT church.. the meetings were more similar to a protestant service..there was no altar, or priesthood because the Lords table was not considered a "sacrifice" in the early church ..To have a "sacrifice" one would have an altar and a priest.. Look at the Catholic liturgy.. most of the features that this author tie to the mass were not even written during the lives of the apostles..
They read the leters from the apostles if they had a new one, they would have read the OT and shown Christ , sung and shared the bread and wine..
No Sal the mass came after the death of the apostles.. it was not a part of the NT church.. no priesthood and not altar because there was NO SACRIFICE..that is why there was no role of priest given by God to the new church .
"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests.
Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."
Catholic Customs & Traditions, Greg Dues (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). pg166 No priesthood, no sacrifice, no "liturgy" (unless one calls singing liturgy), no altar... The Catholic mass, and system is found NO WHERE in the NT church
This is how the process of santification really operates:
[2] Grace to you and peace be accomplished in the knowledge of God and of Christ Jesus our Lord: [3] As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. [4] By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world. [5] And you, employing all care, minister in your faith, virtue; and in virtue, knowledge; [6] And in knowledge, abstinence; and in abstinence, patience; and in patience, godliness; [7] And in godliness, love of brotherhood; and in love of brotherhood, charity. [8] For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. [9] For he that hath not these things with him, is blind, and groping, having forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. [10] Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. (2 Peter 1)
I know this is a bit longer than usual Protestant prooftexts, but I highlighted some parts for you to focus upon. And, for good measure:
[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? [...] [11] And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6)may the God of peace himself sanctify you in all things; that your whole spirit, and soul, and body, may be preserved blameless (1 Thess. 5:23)
I gave you proof from Scripture that Mary means more to God than you think.
I am not the one in denial. I gave you proof that you are misinterpreting the word “brothers” by showing you many scripture passages where brother meant any male relative. Jesus had no brothers or they would have inherited the responsibility of caring for Mary. It was Law and Christ fulfilled the Law. He gave her to John to care for because there was no one else to care for her.
I have far more proof that Mary matters, based on Scripture, than you do that she doesn’t.
Mary was Jesus beloved mother; I’m sure He “worshipped” the ground she walked on... especially when she accompanied Him on the Way of the Cross and stood faithfully with Him at Calvary.
Mary was Christ’s most faithful and long-lasting follower. She was with Him from beginning to end of His life. An angel tells us she is blessed among women and that she has found favor with God- so we know she is also a holy and devout woman.
Like Abraham, she was willing to participate in the sacrifice of Her own son for love of God. She’s the Abraham of the New Testament and it is fitting that a woman be part of our salvation since a woman caused Original Sin. The Old Testament predicts her. She is the faithful receiver of the New Covenant, the Word of God, which she carries within her like an Ark. Jesus is a true descendent of David through Mary’s lineage.
Christ performs His first miracle simply because she requests it and it begins his public ministry of redemption. She is included in the gift of the Holy Spirit at the Pentecost. He gives her to His favorite and most faithful apostle.
To say Mary is no more important than any other woman shows a remarkable lack of Scriptural knowledge.
She is worthy of honor and praise. God the Father sent an angel to praise her and ask her to make a life-long sacrifice for love of Him. God the Son lived with her and she loved Him faithfully her whole life. His last thoughts included her well-being. And God the Spirit breathed His strength and understanding into her at Pentecost.
God thought Mary was worthy of honor and praise. Why do you give her less? What do you think God thinks of those who ridicule Mary, whom the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit obviously value?
displaces sin? What, pray tell, are you talking about? Sin was dealt with once and for all by the atoning work of Christ. It is not "displaced" as you say ... "it is finished."
In the Corinthians passage you have a sequence of Aorist Middles ... i.e. past tense ... you have already been washed, you have already been sanctified, you have already been justified ... in fact, most of the passages you keep citing use Aorist or Perfect tenses ... past completed action.
This closes the case on your "faith + works" approach to salvation. If you want to continue trying to add what has already been completed and believe that you are making yourself more acceptable to God then do-so. My position in Christ is already determined based on HIS work ... not MINE.
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.