Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Nice try, but the burden BEFORE GOD and men is on the one adding their traditions to HIS WORD..
The church Father did not have agreement on every "tradition" that has been "added" ...There is NO reference in history or in scripture to these added traditions they are made up from old wives tales , fables and imagination ...
Every blacksmith and merchant had become wiser than the Fathers and Doctors by reading Luther's new mistranslation.
And every pope has became god and declared what is not written as truth... even simple merchants and blacksmith and fishermen can see that
Faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God.. The "simple" man's bible opened his ears and eyes to the truth of Gods words..
It is noteworthy that Jesus did not select the educated Pharisees to build the church, but simple fishermen
1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
The burden of proof lies with those who propose novelty. For 1500 years, the Catholic Church authenticated its teaching by reference to its scripture in the context of history. No Christian ever thought to question this basic understanding of realityNice try, but the burden BEFORE GOD and men is on the one adding their traditions to HIS WORD.
Correct! We have repeatedly asked for a list of Apostolic Tradition NOT recorded in scripture to prove the "Claim", but have heard nothing in response except additional unsubstantiated claims.
Who is the "the one adding their traditions to HIS WORD"? Are you condemning the Apostles?
There is NO reference in history or in scripture to these added traditions they are made up from old wives tales , fables and imagination ...
We have already established on this thread the uniform historical consensus that Peter had successors. Were the reigns of Caesar and Cleopatra also "old wives tales."
And every pope has became god and declared what is not written as truth... even simple merchants and blacksmith and fishermen can see that
The Sixteenth Century avant garde Protestants were not simple men. They were modern-minded sophisticates who looked down upon the "old wives tales" and "medieval superstitions" inherited from 1500 years of Christian history.
OK. Now let us frame the question correctly. I said that the early church fathers believed Mary to have been perpetually virgin, and they said plainly that they believed that. The Holy Scriptures do not, of course, speak directly to this point. Again, I repeat, this is at the heart of the problem.
One way to prove - really the only decent way! (the recent post suggesting that there may have been some ancient apostolically-approved gynecological examination of Mary is both repulsive and desparate) - that she was not, is to prove from the Scriptures that she had other children. This should be pretty obvious. However, the point that the Reformers were making is that there is no conclusive way to prove from the Bible that Mary actually had other children, blood kin to Jesus. In order to be thorough, let me also stipulate, that there is also no way to prove the opposite.
Thus, they took the position that the early church fathers had other reasons to believe that she remained virgin, the most likely of which would have been that this knowledge was passed on vocally and not in written form. Again, with the earliest of the church fathers, one is very, very close in time to the people who lived and witnessed the events of Jesus’ life and ministry. That Mary may have lived long after the death and resurrection of her Son is also rather likely, closing the time gap even further. The unanimity of the fathers’ belief is what becomes hard to explain in any other way than they knew it to be so by word of mouth.
While the reformers accepted that this was very likely true, and admitted that they also believed it to be so for the simple reason that they had no contrary evidence, they also recognized that, first, the Holy Scriptures do not explicitly or implicitly say she remained virgin, and, second, that they do not conclusively establish that she had other children. Thus, for them, the belief of the early church fathers was not subject to disproof.
On the other hand, they recognized, as you do, that there would not have been anything wrong with Mary and Joseph having other children after Jesus. After all, per St. Paul, the marriage bed is undefiled. Reproduction and sexual intimacy between husband and wife has the stamp of approval of God from the beginning. Thus, it was a simple matter of historical fact. Did she have other children or not? Nothing depended on it doctrinally one way or the other. And it was a good lesson in taking God’s Word as the final authority in all things, whether one liked it or not, whether one was left with the complete answer one wanted or was left with God’s decision to leave such matters unknown. Faith trusts God in all things, even in that which He has chosen to leave unknown to us.
The term “firstborn” proves nothing other than that the one in question was born first. Put it this way. Every “monogenes” must also be “prototokos,” but not every “prototokos” is “monogenes.” That is simple logic, simple vocabulary. Also, the statement of Matthew 1:25 that Joseph did not know her “till she had brought forth her firstborn Son,” does not say anything about what happened thereafter one way or the other. It only says explicitly that Joseph had no marital relations with Mary before Jesus’ birth PERIOD! Whatever else one fills in thereafter one fills in on the basis of human opinion, reasoning, experience, etc. Also, the term “brother” or “sister” does not always mean direct, blood sibling, especially in languages other than modern English. I learned this the embarrassing way in eastern Europe years ago. I knew and understood very well what the lady I was talking to said (she spoke a Slavic dialect common to what used to be called “Ruthenia/Galicia,” i.e. the hill country between Ukraine and Slovakia that has gone back and forth many times in the course of history) and what her “brother,” at whose apartment I was staying, had said. I just didn’t understand that when he said “my sister” (and he had said this in English, Russsian, and Ukrainian) and she said “my brother,” each simply meant the child of each other’s father’s brother. Whether you find this plausible or not, I don’t care. Others, who know such languages, can tell you that this is so. NT Greek can speak the same way, again, whether you like it or not. Brother can mean what we think of as cousin.
Finally, and more could be said, it is passingly strange if Mary had other children, some of which became disciples sooner or later (we don’t know when), why Jesus would commend her to John as mother, and as mother to John, and he consequently have taken her home with him. I also know what Catholics make of this - more than what is said, as usual.
So, metmom, I leave you to believe as you will. And, I suppose, if you want to return the RC obsession with Mary’s perpetual virginity (and the extra-biblical doctrines they try desperately to attach to this), go ahead. I just think that on this matter, on which much ink has been spilled by much more learned and unquestionably pre- or anti-Romanist scholars than you or me, that there are better and clearer ways to proclaim what is clearly the truth because it has clear Scriptural support.
p.s. Your previous post calling Psalm 69 a messianic psalm (since the whole OT testifies of the Christ, which psalm is not messianic?) is puzzling. You refer to Psalm 69:8 for support in proving that Jesus had blood siblings. This is not a good approach. Do you want also to apply Psalm 69:5 to the Messiah? I don’t think so.
metmom wrote:
“Other children would mean she was not a virgin for sure.
no other children proves nothing either way.”
Right! Now you are getting it!
I am not - I’ll say it again - not, defending the teaching that Mary remained perpetually virgin. I am saying that you cannot prove or disprove it from the Bible. Believe what you will ... but teach nothing nor add anything to what is finally only your opinion, whether you be RC or the opposite.
The NT verses about Christ’s blood siblings
simply do not make linguistic, cultural sense as verses emphasizing what they are emphasizing
UNLESS
it really is talking about blood siblings.
Cousins were a dime a dozen. The emphasis rings hollow if cousins are meant.
And, the language and scholarship is not so weak as to be unable to distinguish when blood siblings were meant.
Quix wrote:
“There’s a huge amount of territory between incompetent and infallible. Then there’s all the issues about incompetent about what sorts of issues, details, historical facts? Infallible about everything Biblical? Cue horse laugh.”
Cue horse laugh, yourself. I never said infallible, but I’d wager more competent by far than either of the two “horse-laugh-cuers” now present on this thread.
It is always wise to question the motives and claims of men. But it is no virtue to deride real learning, especially when coupled with deep trust of God’s word.
Call if you need help:)
“”The “other” children of the Blessed Mother is THE CHURCH. Our Lord made His mother OUR mother on the Cross (see John 19:26-27). Christians know this, members of gnostic sects do not.””
Exactly! This is what historical Christianity always knew.
From THE PATRISTIC PRAISE OF MARY
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/fr90203.htm
Mary as Mother of the Church
Since Christ is Head of his Mystical Body, the Church, it follows that Mary, mother of Christ, is also mother of that body. As we have seen, the early Church Fathers called Mary the new Eve, in that as Eve was our mother by physical generation, so Mary is our mother by spiritual regeneration, in virtue of her Divine Son’s redemption of humanity. In the second century, St. Irenaeus commented that “the Word will become flesh, and the Son of God the son of man—the Pure One opening purely that pure womb, which generates men unto God.” St. Epiphanius remarked, “True it is . . . the whole race of man upon earth was born of Eve; but in reality it is from Mary that Life was truly born to the world, so that by giving birth to the Living One, Mary might also become the Mother of all the living.” St. Augustine summarized, “The Mother of the Head, in bearing Him corporally became spiritually the Mother of all members of this Divine Head.”
With regard to Mary’s intercessory role on behalf of the members of the Body of Christ, St. Irenaeus remarked, “He who is devout to the Virgin Mother will certainly never be lost.” St. Augustine addresses Mary, “Through you do the miserable obtain mercy, the ungracious grace, and the weak strength.” St. Jerome wrote, “Mary not only comes to us when called, but even spontaneously advances to meet us.” St. Basil the Great (379 A.D.), bishop of Caesarea, declared, “God has ordained that she should assist us in everything!” St. John Damascene prayed, “O Mother of God, if I place my confidence in you, I shall be saved. If I am under your protection, I have nothing to fear, for the fact of being your client is the possession of a certainty of salvation, which God grants only to those whom He intends to save.” St. Ephraem beseeches Mary, “O Lady, cease not to watch over us; preserve and guard us under the wings of your compassion and mercy, for, after God, we have no hope but in you!” St. Fulgentius (533 A.D.), bishop of Ruspe, stated, “Mary is the ladder of heaven; for by Mary God descended from Heaven into the world, that by her men might ascend from earth to Heaven.” Pope St. Leo the Great (461 A.D.) observed, “Mary is so endued with feelings of compassion, that she not only deserves to be called merciful, but even mercy itself.”
OK, you are free to believe as you will. I recall saying such. I recall saying that there is good argument on both sides. I simply said the reformers felt that the burden of proof rested on them to disprove the early church fathers. After careful consideration, they decided that they could not conclusively do so, not on the basis of Scripture alone. It is as simple as that.
One does not lightly bind the consciences of God’s people, it leads to man forgetting who he is. I think the Reformers, many of whom lived under the threat of death, understood Christian liberty and the freedom we have under Christ better than most, especially, Americans do today. We take much for granted. So, again, horse laugh all you want. On this particular point, that is, on the point of this matter being truly an adiphoron, and touching on what Sola Scriptura really means and what faith is and is not, I find your approach wholly unconvincing.
On the other hand, Quix, here is a ready example of the other and opposite extreme, that is, of attributing to Mary far more than the Holy Scriptures teach. As provided by stfassisi:
“Since Christ is Head of his Mystical Body, the Church, it follows that Mary, mother of Christ, is also mother of that body.”
“It follows ...” What follows is wholly extra-scriptural, and in large measure anti-scriptural. Ahhh, Dame Reason (and, no, stfassisi, I am not by this referring to Mary), she is so clever, and she has such a hold on the children of men.
Go ahead, bind men’s consciences to man’s musings. See where it will lead.
Playing games with words proves nothing and does nothing to glorify God ..The apostles were dead within 100 years of Christ's crucification. They like all men were subject to sin and error, with the exception of the inspired scriptures, their teachings they were not infallible..
Most of what we see as extra biblical Catholic tradition came well after that, as late as the 1950s by deluded men that believe their own publicity , seeing themselves as prophets and infallible
The Sixteenth Century avant garde Protestants were not simple men. They were modern-minded sophisticates who looked down upon the "old wives tales" and "medieval superstitions" inherited from 1500 years of Christian history.
Not one of them had men falling at their feet or kissing their rings.. they stood on the word of God as written by those simple men
Hbr 4:12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
I have already covered this issue many times previously on this thread. From a previous post:
"Two important traditions are apostolic succession and the infallibility Church councils certified by the pope. Of course these traditions are demonstrated in scripture fully verified by history. However, some Protestants assert that the biblical proof is not explicit enough and that historical evidence is inadmissible, even when the truth of said evidence is beyond question. I could understand ruling out historical reports that were doubtful, but denying proven history amounts to denying truth. When such proven history concerns issues of Christian doctrine, the denial amounts to a rejection of true doctrine."
The scriptural precedent for apostolic succession is at the end of Acts 1 when Peter led the eleven apostles to chose a successor for Judas. The Apostles had just received instructions from the Risen Christ that included His infallible interpretation of the ways that OT prophesies had just been fulfilled. Peter invoked an OT prophesy on Judas, and, exercising his authority as pope, gave instructions to replace Judas as "bishop." All the Apostles dutifully obeyed.
The scriptural precedent for the infallibility of papally certified Church councils was the First Church Council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James where led by the Holy Spirit to established rules for Christian Gentiles. This was done over the objections of the Judaizers that had apparently been associated with James and had temporarily fooled Peter and Barnabas (Gal 2:11-13).
Historical proof of Peter's apostolic succession is located in these previous thread posts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2618333/posts?page=1900#1900
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2618333/posts?page=1921#1921
Ahhh...No. The word “until”, or ‘till, limits the extent of time “Joseph did not know her”, that time ending when “she had brought forth her firstborn son”.
“Finally, and more could be said, it is passingly strange if Mary had other children, some of which became disciples sooner or later (we don’t know when), why Jesus would commend her to John as mother, and as mother to John, and he consequently have taken her home with him.”
Not strange at all that John would be chosen, he being especially close to Jesus and Jesus had made clear that human relationships are of less importance than spiritual ones, who better to see to Mary's care than a close friend,
a trusted spiritual “brother”?
“Brother can mean what we think of as cousin.”
Or countrymen but which meaning must be determined by the context. In Matt. 12:46-50 neither “cousins” nor “countrymen” would fit the context.
I don’t recall being derisive toward YOU.
A host of RC nonsense deserves layers of derision.
No problem with that.
I’m far from one size fits all.
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.