Posted on 12/17/2010 7:31:07 AM PST by marshmallow
Now that is funny. I have 2 German Shepherds who have that look.
Well, then, do you speak to Mary?
I’ve seen the results of secret handshakes and the bitter words delivered by those with Mary in their taglines. Tragic that she doesn’t come through...wait, she is just an ordinary human.
ROFL..........
Apart from completely ignoring #172 and not giving me a straight yes/no answer to an earlier, question, yeah.
Why is Rome so intent on creating a man-centered cult of Mary worship? What exactly is the frenetic interest in lifting up an ordinary young woman any more than say, John the Baptist (who after all baptized the Creator of the Universe) or Jacob (who after all wrestled with an angel) or Jonah (who spoke with God directly)? And, look at all of the Catholics around here, they all speak prayers to Mary in their taglines and when they comment on something related. The believers pray to God...the Catholics to Mary. Hmmm.
Right. Let's change the subject from the inconvenient words of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli which the thread addresses and instead, get back to more comfortable ground.
Oh, but don't worry. We'll have ample opportunity to discuss those issues which you raise. I have some nice writings from the early Church Fathers which provide some sound theological insights into Marian devotion. I'll be posting them and now I know how interested you are in the subject, I'll be sure to ping you to them and you can entertain us all by telling us that Irenaeus, Ignatius, John Damascene and Jerome et al. were all heretics.
Now back to the subject of this thread.
I thought you'd jump at the opportunity to tell us who was the first reformer to repudiate blasphemous words like this from Luther;
" "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."
One of your pals tried to tell me that Luther later recanted those words but I'm still waiting for a reference or link to back up that statement. Maybe you could provide it.
I quote Irenaeus because he is held up as a father of the Catholic Church. He is one of their own. I quote him to try to illustrate how the Catholic Church of today has strayed from what their founding fathers believed.
The concept of Tradition was not supposed to mean that something was to be taught that had not been written in Scripture.
1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other.
Amen, Amen and Amen!
“Christ bore our sins because he was perfect, because he was sinless.” ~ BenKenobi
As opposed to his creation, which he prounced “good” - not perfect.
What did God mean in Genesis 1:31 when He pronounced His Creation “very good?” Did He mean perfect in every sense of the word as some people suggest? Or did He mean very good at fulfilling its purpose? The Greek word in the LXX is kalos, which suggests the latter. It is primarily used to portray an external or fulfilling goodness. Consider the Hebrew phrase as well. The phrase tov meod is found four times in the OT (Judg. 18:9; and Jer. 24:2-3). In the Book of Judges, five valiant warriors from the Tribe of Dan set out for Laish to spy on that land to take it as part of their inheritance. When they came back to report, they urged their fellow Danites to take the land saying, “we have seen the land (erets), and behold (hinneh), it is very good (tovah meod).” This phrasing sounds very similar to Genesis 1. First, we see that erets is properly translated as the local term “land” rather than the nonsensical global “earth”. Second we have an attention getting hinneh. This is followed by the phrase very good. What did the Danites consider the land to be? Surely not an unblemished, perfect tract of land with no possibility of an earthquake, volcano or anything else that might prove detrimental to human life. No, rather the land was fit for them to call home, it was “spacious” and “there is no lack of anything” (Judg. 18:10).
Furthermore, the Apostle Paul says in 1Tim. 4:4 that “everything created by God is good (kalos).” Specifically referring to the institution of marriage and to food, Paul says that these things (and everything else which God created) are good. Paul does not mention that these were once good and because of man’s sin they ceased being good when God cursed them. No, the Bible teaches that God’s Creation WAS and IS good. Again, the word kalos refers to a useful or outwardly-appearing goodness. Paul certainly felt that the things God created were still good in his day.
Therefore since the Bible teaches that Creation is still good at the present, we should be careful not to read more into Scripture than what is truly there. Despite their great contributions to the Church, men like Luther, Calvin, Wesley and their modern day followers have failed to realize the real-world implications of their stance on the “goodness” of God’s Creation. It seems their lack of knowledge about how God’s Creation works led them to a faulty understanding of His Word. A world without the so-called natural evils of earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, landslides, tides, etc… is not a “good” world: it is a dead world. These are all consequences of plate tectonics
These natural processes are largely responsible for things like fertile soils, ore deposits, accumulations of oil and natural gas among other things. Without plate tectonics we would have little to none of the above mentioned products. We can either view them as products of sin or the long-term provision of God.
The implications...are thus: 1.) with the existence of plate tectonics in the original Creation there is a possibility of animal death via an earthquake or volcanic eruption or some other catastrophe, 2:) if plate tectonics and animal death occurred before the Fall and the Flood then we would expect hydrocarbon accumulations before the Flood (and this is a biblical fact in Genesis 6:14 (pitch: LXX-asphaltos – a biodegraded oil), and 3:) if these circumstances existed before Adam’s sin then it follows that the natural world was largely unaffected by the Curse of Genesis 3. These implications may be hard to swallow for some, but I believe the teaching of Scripture is clear. There is no possible way to fathom a “very good” world that did not contain such natural phenomena without creating a mystical fairy tale world in which the following are impossible: a sheep falling off a cliff and dying, a fruit fly being swallowed by a larger animal, an ant being stepped on, rainwater collecting and slurrying down the side of a hill and drowning an insect, a fish being trapped on a shoal as the tide goes out and suffocating, etc... Such situations just happen. There is no need to think that they only happen because of sin. There is no biblical basis for that position. Creation is still “very good.” Only a “very good” Creation can clearly display the divine attributes of the Creator “since the creation of the world” (Rom. 1:20).
http://thestonescryout.com/creation
“The concept of Tradition was not supposed to mean that something was to be taught that had not been written in Scripture.”
The Trinity is not defined in Scripture. That is Tradition and exposition and a lot of inspiration.
“Catholic Church of today has strayed from what their founding fathers believed.”
In what regard? That would help, first. ( -;
LOL. Yes, I have.
But only human beings can be said to be “guilty” before God.
Catch you later.
Peace be with you
1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other.
This is really the heart of the argument. Tradition can be used, as long as it agrees with Scripture.
>>The Trinity is not defined in Scripture.<<
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
“What’s your take on 1 Cor 3:13 which states that on the day of judgment our works will be tested by fire? And those who’s works perish will escape, but only as one escaping through the flames?”
It doesn’t say a thing about having to go to “purgatory” to have the testing done. How about, Hebrews 9:27,28:
“ 27And just as(D) it is appointed for man to die once, and(E) after that comes judgment, 28so Christ, having been offered once(F) to bear the sins of(G) many, will appear(H) a second time,(I) not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly(J) waiting for him.”
Hoss
So when we die, we do what? Roast a little in “Purgatory” or... for those called and saved, maybe 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 will clarify things:
“1For we know that if(A) the tent that is(B) our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God,(C) a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2For in this tent(D) we groan, longing to(E) put on our heavenly dwelling, 3if indeed by putting it on[a] we may not be found naked. 4For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal(F) may be swallowed up by life. 5He who has prepared us for this very thing is God,(G) who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
6So we are always of good courage. We know that(H) while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7for(I) we walk by faith, not(J) by sight. 8Yes, we are of good courage, and we(K) would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to(L) please him. 10For(M) we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,(N) so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.”
Away from the body, present (at home) with the Lord. Seems pretty binary to me.
You said:
“Christ says to Peter in Matthew 16:19
“Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound on heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed to heaven.”
Christ clearly gives the Apostles the power to forgive sins. This is why priests, as the successors of the Apostles can do the same.”
Actually, it says nothing of the sort. Binding on earth/binding in heaven is FAR different from giving earthly priests, (sinful, fallen me just as the rest of us) the ability to forgive sins — which, by the way, is the SOLE purview of God Almighty.
“I suppose also that Jesus was then not the first to be born “without sin”. Hmmmm”
If you believe in the false doctrine of the “immaculate conception” and the “sinlessness” of Mary, then, well, I suppose so.
I don’t believe it one bit. “for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Including Mary. Jesus and Jesus alone is the only person to be born sinless and remain sinless. Period.
Hoss
They are not our popes, unlike the pope they are not "infallible prophets "
If I were catholic I would worry more about being damned to hell for accepting the heresies of the church without question..
You need to read some of the taglines
No twisting of their words is necessary. Who doesn’t know that those men were Protestant Catholics. They were Catholics.
The Christians that were living at the time, whose history and heritage had never been connected with Rome, nor did they have any need of the Protestant Catholics in Geneva or in Germany to establish their faith in Christ, were all quite aware that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli were Catholics.
For Christians reading this thread who have not already been brainwashed by the Catholic (and even some Protestant) pro-Rome revisionist history, I advise that you read some histories and biographies of people(s) who were never connected with Roman Catholicism or Geneva Protestantism.
One of the biggest lies told in “Christendom” is that up to the late 15th century there was nothing but Catholicism (except others who Rome must automatically label as “heritics” — a badge of honor in our opinion), and that since the late 15th century there have been only Catholicism and Protestantism (and in Rome’s view, that insignificant number of outsiders who are all heretics, of course).
The article might or might not give some pause to people who treat Geneva as nearly some kind of New Jerusalem, but it is meaningless to Biblicist Christians who have never based our faith on anything Calvin, Luther, or Swingli had to say. Such Biblicist Christians (also never connected with Rome) already existed before those men ever breathed their first breath.
The article represents the historical view of people ignorant of, or revisionist of, peoples who came through history from Byzantania, the Caucuses, Eastern Europe, the Alps, northern Europe, and even the British Isles, with a Biblicist faith, never connected with Rome, and not inspired by Geneva. There were Christians who probably knew nothing of what was established in Rome as far as a “Roman Catholic Church,” especially where Roman armies never did trod.
There were Christians who had never heard of such a thing as a pope (there was NO pope until the 4th century, whereas there had been Biblicist Christians from the first century), let alone what had happened in Geneva. But they had a faith in Christ from Scriptures copied, and re-copied, and re-copied, that made their way along trade routes as far north as the Netherlands and the British Isles long before the days of Constantine.
I don’t know the real reason why many Christians (Baptists, Assemblies of God, Bible Churches, etc.) on these kinds of threads, who are not really Geneva-bound like to use the word “Protestant” when describing themselves, unless it is just a habit formed through constant bombardment of the word’s usage. Others ignorant of history, and Catholic revisionists use such to their advantage. Of course, many Catholics really think that there has never been anything but Catholics and Protestants-—and many non-Catholics have also been deceived by this error.
So, how much does it mean to Biblicist Christians that the Protestant Catholics like Calvin, Luther, and Swingli still had a Roman Catholic “hangover” from having been drunken with Rome’s errors for so many years of their lives?
It means nothing at all.
wwhy would that be odd?????God is still her savior, but she could have received salvation at any moment of her life.....God is always our savior.....always
you do realize, I assume, that for the first few hundred years of the Catholic church, there were no "scriptures" as such. The Catholic church actually provided us with the bible, wrote it, nurtured it, protected it, and made it available to all interested christians. Tradition plays a huge part of the early church.....people talked, compared notes, compqred responses to various stimuli and passed along to their followers what their experiences were. That has been the history of mankind since the beginning....we learn from one another, discuss our beliefs, hear what others say.....kind of like tradition, don't you think??? That having been said....if we could only rely on scripture.....the Catholics would still rule the roost......they wrote and interpreted the scriptures.....get it now??
WOW, you know this for a fact....despite learned theologins throughout the ages disagreeing with you. I sure wish I had your insight into how God does things. Although Adam and Eve were created (not born....no belly buttons) without sin, I guess they did fall through temptation. Therefore, you would suggest that the Mother of God would be as frail a person as were the first humans on earth......perhaps, perhaps not, but why would God have chosen a soiled vessel to house His begotten Son.......I don't think so, a pure vessel was indeed chosen and that would be Mary.
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.