Posted on 03/07/2014 10:14:06 AM PST by matthewrobertolson
Only trusting the Bible without the Church would be like loving "Romeo & Juliet" and hating Shakespeare's explanation of it.
"Follow" me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/crucifixwearer
"Like" Answering Protestants on Facebook: http://facebook.com/AnsweringProtestants
Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+: http://plus.google.com/106938988929282894016
"Subscribe" to my YouTube videos: http://youtube.com/user/crucifixwearer
Mat 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
It is no canard, but rather deadly serious. 'Master', 'Rabbi', and 'Father' are the signatory offices of religious officials... Following on from the very beginning of the chapter where He strips the Pharisees of their authority, in *perfect context*, he is removing hierarchical authority from ALL.
There is only ONE Father ABOVE, and ONE Master and Teacher of His disciples - Yeshua Himself. ALL men are but brethren.
It has nothing at all to do with a familial father.
CONTEXT, man.
Heh. GMTA
Thank you. I've not been entirely well. Just starting to get over a touch of the flu. And last week...I had what seemed to me to be heart troubles. Pains in my chest for hours. It hurt just to lay down. Even my teeth and gums hurt.
I don't know how much longer I've got. It could be a couple of decades, it could be tomorrow.
Funny that -- for along with others I have been informed of their own impending death, there have been two FRomans here that the Spirit indicated to me were not long for this earthly life and realm. One passed a couple of years ago, and another just recently.
I gave no warning to either of them. How could I have? What words can be spoken?
All I know is --- that whatever the Lord sees fit to do with any of us --- will be the RIGHT thing, for He is Holy, and makes no mistakes.
For myself, I can only plead mercy. For others, what else but the same?
Christ's own words, among His own last spoken even as He was dying painfully -- "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".
Born again believers are all graced as Mary was.
Mary and Grace
The word grace used in this passage in Luke is used in one other place in the Bible and that is Ephesians 1 where Paul is us that with this same grace, God has blessed us (believers) in the Beloved. IOW, we all have access to that grace and it has been bestowed on us all.
http://biblehub.com/greek/5487.htm
Luke 1:28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”
Ephesians 1:4-6 In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Greek word “grace”
charitoó: to make graceful, endow with grace
Original Word: χαριτόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: charitoó
Phonetic Spelling: (khar-ee-to'-o)
Short Definition: I favor, bestow freely on
Definition: I favor, bestow freely on.
HELPS Word-studies
Fear not. I have been born again and it’s by grace through faith in Jesus, not my believing the erroneous teachings on Mary by the Catholic church.
No! What metmom did was point out that renaming Mary as *mother of God* LEADS to heresy.
It leads to either heresy that God is a created being, or that Mary is deity. We’ve already had one Catholic poster upthread state that Mary we the mother of BOTH of Jesus’ natures.
It’s really too bad that they can’t see the problems messing with Scripture causes. The Holy Spirit referred to Mary as *mother of Jesus* for a reason, and that reason seems to escape Catholics in their indoctrination about Mary.
It’s blindingly obvious what Jesus was talking about when you take the verses in context, isn’t it?
I sure hope you have something in place to let someone here know if something happens to you.
We’d hate to see you just disappear.
More than a few FReepers have done that over the years and it’s very disconcerting.
It most certainly does to them. They like to deny that but actions speak louder than words. But even when we look at the words of the prayers they have posted online we can see they give Mary the same attributes of God.
Denying it all the while while anyone with any reading comprehension can pick it out in seconds.
The idea that the “church” was some unified body with everyone in proper subjection to the primacy of Rome before the schismatic heretic from Germany forever ruined the perfect unity.... that fiction is so ridiculous as to be laughable.
It is propaganda, not history.
That “reading comprehension” thing has take on a whole new meaning of late as I read these threads.
2 Corinthians 4:3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit rather than some man it is obvious what that blindness leads to. It has gotten to the point that when someone promotes some man or organization of man rather than scripture alone I expect blindness.
If the institutional church was the big deal, why did Jesus NEVER announce anything about structure itself, but simply leave it to the (VERY AMBIGUOUS) phrase “you are a rock and on THIS rock I will build my church?” A reasonable man would (and many have) interpret this phrase in a number of ways.
The institutions associated with the church were actually POST PETRINE in the sense that Peter was not the visible leader in the Gentile churches. Matter of fact, once he got outside his comfort zone with Jews, he erred seriously and had to be corrected by others. The organizational schema of the instituional church did NOT arise from Jerusalem, nor from Rome (there is little if any evidence Peter was ever in Rome), but from Paul and his organization of gentile churches.
Further, if Peter was the “rock” and the infallible keeper of the Gospel, why was there a “council” to determine the central issue of “what is the gospel?” in Acts 15? Would it not have been simpler and more correct to say “what does Peter the Rock have to say about this?” They did not do this, but argued and reasoned and prayed over the issue. Peter gave his argument — which was, interestingly enough, in light of what the church of Rome has done with the gospel— a statement that salvation is of faith ALONE, not mixed with works of the law. (Acts 15:8-11). I mean, if you guys are so big on the authority of PETER, why dont you listen to what he said on the most critical issue of the church?
Note further that Peter’s input on the issue was neither authoritative, nor final. Others (James, and Paul, and Barnabas... who was not even an apostle, interestingly enough) spoke. Note that they did NOT defer in this council to the authority of Peter.
James says, after quoting the scriptures (Not Peter nor his infallible interpretation of them... Peter appealed to experience), said “it is MY judgment that.....”
Plainly, this kind of language would never have been used if the final authority rested in the “church” as an institution and one man as the keeper of the keys. They would have just said “what do you declare?” and that would have been it.
Your “doctrine of the church” is refuted by the history of the church, which the church itself recorded.
I saw that. Thanks for pointing that out for the few here interested who may have missed it.
It leads to either heresy that God is a created being, or that Mary is deity.
It surely can. I could be wrong, but I *think" that may have been part of what Nestor was reaching towards heading off when he preferred to speak of Mary as "mother of Christ our Lord and Savior" as the scripture words that to be, rather than adopt or agree with the "Mother of God" nomenclature.
Yet Nestor was upstaged by his rival who took what Nestor was otherwise suggesting, which was the main controversy ---two persons loosely linked as one, one "person" being the divine, and the other the created being, or man, with the rival adopting language of two natures fused together inseparably, which is more the winner overall, as far as that goes, but which swept in the "Mother of God" description as having "official" approval at the same time. Which can lead to the idea that Mary be Mother of (as a source or origin) to the divine nature --which came from God, and was God made flesh --but did not originate from within herself, any more than a fertilized egg became fertilized by any female [mammal].
We’ve already had one Catholic poster upthread state that Mary we the mother of BOTH of Jesus’ natures. By that I take it you meant to write another upthread said "Mary was the mother of both".
We notice too that came about in correction of another, who had said she was mother of his earthly nature --which in past times on these pages would have induced accusation of "Nestorian!" be hurled at who ever said it, but since it was a "Catholic", then it's ok for them to "divide Christ(!)" and only receive a gentle reminder, instead of some accusation of heresy be hurled at them.
The other phrase made by the [ahem] 'divider' [lol?];
It’s really too bad that they can’t see the problems messing with Scripture causes. The Holy Spirit referred to Mary as *mother of Jesus* for a reason, and that reason seems to escape Catholics in their indoctrination about Mary. You said a mouthful, there, you little heretic. God Bless you, may the Lord be with powerfully and gently too, ever and on.
Anyone with an elementary knowledge of Christian history knows the Catholic Church was the ONE, TRUE, FAITH, started by Christ himself. All your ancestors for over 1,500 years after Christ’s death, unless they were buddists, muslim or some other eastern religion, were CATHOLICS. Are they all burning in the pits of hell for following that “false” religion.
Well, there you have it. Mary was the mother of the deity of Christ, the mother of the second person of the Godhead, making Jesus a created being. And that makes her deity as well.
It certainly is misleading, but RCs are far more zealous to exalt Mary above that which is written than to avoid blaspheming God by ascribing to her uniquely Divine qualities.
For this does not simply make Mary the one who mothered one who was Divine, but too easily conveys that Mary was"the mother of" His Divine nature, as the term "mother" most naturally conveys ontology, and which nature makes Christ Divine.
"With the help of the Holy Spirit" does not clarify that Mary is the mother of God by relation, not nature as even Theodore of Mopsuestia clarified, as this can infer that Mary provided the Divine nature of Christ, by the Holy Spirit.
Notice that while being the "mother of my Lord," (Luke 1:43) as "Lord" primarily denotes position, and thus Christ is called Lord and God, (Jn. 20:28) and as God was positionally made Lord over all after His death, until all His foes be made His footstool (Acts 2:35,36) yet Mary is never titled "mother of God" which conveys ontological oneness.
Thus the Holy Spirit is careful to note that while Christ came thru Israel, thru Mary, yet this was "as concerning the flesh." (Romans 9:5)
Thus as this use of the unBiblical title "mother of God" most naturally conveys ontology, that of Mary providing divinity, it is an irreverent rejection of the careful use of terms used by the Holy Spirit, and the avoidance of ascribing uniquely divine attributes to man. And which term is akin to the use of the term “Co-redemptrix,” of which then-Cardinal Ratzinger stated,
the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings..”
He went on to say that, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as their Latter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language”
Of course, this right reverence of Christ is inconsistent in application as regards Scripture, since "mother of God" also departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture. The fact that so-called church "fathers" (which the foundational apostles and OT prophets were: Eph. 2:20) employed the term (or theotokos=God-bearing) is simply another example of the departure by pious men from Scripture, if not necessarily salvifically.
And this exaltation of Mary above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6) and often contrary to it, is part of the excess ascriptions, appellations, exaltation, and adoration (and the manner of exegesis behind it), ascribed to the Catholic Mary, whether officially or by Catholics (with implicit sanction of authority), and which uniqueness and exaltation parallels that of Christ :
I could have picked up a catechism if I wanted a recitation of your faith. I was sorta hoping you might interact with what I said.
Maybe it was setting the bar too high.
I asked you to tell me about all your ancestors that were Catholic before the heretic Luther split the Church. All they all burning in hell for all eternity? Why do you and others 500 years later know so much more about YOUR ANCESTOR’S faith. What makes you and others smarter than all Christians that lived for 1,500 years after Christ’s death, some that gladly went to their to follow Him?
Of course not. None of the reformers taught so, either. You see, it is, (as PETER SAID) not about organizational loyalty, but about faith in Christ ALONE. Those who trusted in Christ (and there were many who did so before Luther) are now in heaven. There were also millions (among which are "Eastern Orthodox") of souls also justified by faith who did not acknowledge the Roman church (caps deliberate) as the "one true church." You guys have a fixation on an organizational structure and defining it as the "church." There is no biblical justification for this. Anyway, no, I don't believe that all pre-Luther believers are in hell and frankly the question is ridiculous.
Why do you and others 500 years later know so much more about YOUR ANCESTOR’S faith.
good question. I have found the bible to be a pretty good text for answering those kinds of questions
What makes you and others smarter than all Christians that lived for 1,500 years after Christ’s death, some that gladly went to their to follow Him?
It has nothing to do with my (or your) relative intelligence, although it would help you if you had a better understanding of the teachings of the western Roman church and its history. You would not make such appallingly silly presumptions about its history and doctrine.
The fact is Catholics have had the sacraments for as long as there has been a Catholic Church. They have been going to church for as long as their has been a Catholic Church. Not a one of your Catholic ancestors watched a protestant TV evangelist and was told they had to be “born again” or they were going to hell. They were “born again” when they were baptised into the Christian (Catholic) faith. They all believed in praying the rosary. They all believed in confessing their sins to the priest. But for some reason they were all wrong and only “born again” protestants that have only existed for 500 years all right. If you believe this, I saw a sighting for Bigfoot outside the back door a few minutes ago. Come on down start looking for him. Maybe you’ll find two or three.
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.