Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
Neither Mary, nor Elizabeth knew Jesus was eternally God
You don't know that. It was quite possibly prophetic speech, the first recognition of divinity of Jesus.
Mary can be correctly called the mother of Christ (Messiah, if you prefer) and the mother of Jesus and the mother of God. At least for those of us who believe according to the Nicene Creed.
The Church teaches that she was assumed body and soul into heaven. She did, however, taste death.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that she was assumed body and soul into heaven.
“You don’t know that. It was quite possibly prophetic speech, the first recognition of divinity of Jesus.”
There is no evidence that Mary ever knew Messiah was God until much, much later. Elizabeth makes no comment, nor does Scripture as to what happened to her later in Christ’s life. Given her advanced years, that is not unusual. That a prophet spoke does not equal a prophet understanding everything that he or she said.
“Mary can be correctly called the mother of Christ (Messiah, if you prefer)”
We agree. Yet it is not a title.
“and the mother of Jesus”
We agree. Yet it is not a title.
“and the mother of God.”
No. Nor is it a title.
“At least for those of us who believe according to the Nicene Creed.”
Which is not inspired and not Scripture and is not a title God ever addresses her as.
I would ask you why you are eager to give her a title God never does? The length that catholicism goes to try to back into this idea is amazing.
I continue to witness that it is a desire to make her into more than God did by blessing her as the bearer or mother of Messiah. Even then, God never gives her the title of Mother of Messiah.
It is enough that we honor her for bearing the Savior and her wonderful humility and desire to submit herself to God.
I have a basic understanding of Protestant dogmas: salvation by faith alone and faith obtained through Bible alone. Both are demonstrably and biblically false. I, of course, was asked to read and comment on a number of Protestant writings. So I am familiar with the theology they invented, I just have no interest in it, since the foundation is false.
these same men (and their views) were often condemned by the RCC for views they held in regards to the Lord's Supper.
The condemnable view here is that the Holy Eucharist is purely symbolic and no real presence of Christ occurs in it. As to the statement that the Holy Eucharist is food that benefits our spirit, that is a true statement regardless who utters it. It is right in the scripture.
Welcome to the discussion. Recommend you read through the thread as this has been discussed many times and shown to be false by catholicisms own writings.
Why do I have to explain that to you? I'm not Roman Catholic.
If 'venerating' is nothing more than showing deep respect for someone, then I have no problem with showing deep respect for Mary and really meaning it. After all, God chose her to give birth to the Only Begotten Son of God.
Nor do I have trouble showing deep respect for Daniel, Isaiah, the Apostles, etc. I have really deep respect for my childhood pastor, Roland Allen, a totally committed saint of God....a Baptist.
I don't bow down to him, of course, but I wouldn't mind showing you a picture of him if I had one and telling you about the time he had his arm broken by a man he was witnessing to...and turning the other cheek, he held out his other hand. He ended his ministry as a missionary in Paraguay. I'll never forget him.
Recommend you read 2027. :>)
that wasn't an excuse, it was an admission that I didn't know how to do it.....sheesh...what a grouch
“Discern the body of Christ.”
You’ve entirely missed the context of this phrase.
“You are not saved by faith alone.”
You are saved not by faith, but by faith (entrusting yourself to Him) in the Lord Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Faith is only ever as good as the object of your faith. The faith doesn’t save. The faith in Him alone saves.
If you have saving faith, it will show itself as a living faith by your actions.
Yes, that is indeed a statement about actual sin. That I explained in 1282. Taken in isolation that single verse indeed would indicate that Mary somehow, -- we don't know how -- has sinned. But if you read the context you discover that first, it is a quote from one psalm, when the next psalm describes people without sin. so not all have sinned according to King David, whom S.t Paul cites. Second, the entire passage cannot be applied to "all". Mary surely was interested in God, did not hurry to murder anyone, destroy anything, etc., -- nor nearly everyone I know. It should be clear that the passage in Romans 3 is an exaggerated statement in order to make a stronger point about redemption wrought by Jesus.
You were there?
See 1John 1:8 regarding sin.
We are told to venerate Mary in the Word.
Correction. We are not told to venerate Mary in the Word. Sorry for the typo!
Makes sense to me.
And yet as evidenced here, they claim their teachings have never changed. Baloney!
More accurately, as with “stipulated “unanimous consent” of the fathers, she defines what change means. Thus the trad RC sects,
thanks
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.