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 mans standard.
then cited Acts 19:12 in support of the claim that veneration of relics is "fully biblical".
Here it is again, with the preceding verse;
11 Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them.
We see there that unusual miracles were being done, yet we do not see much of anything in the way of this so-called "veneration" for "relics" themselves -- which is the thing which you were needing to establish, but failed to do.
As towards relics themselves, interestingly enough a relic of Moses, which when that item or "thing" was not a 'relic' of the past per se, but was one of then present-day use, apparently provided miraculous relief from snakebite, from which some of the Israelites had been dying of, the snakes themselves having been sent among them by the Lord, in the first place (Numbers 21:6).
Later, when this very same bronze 'serpent on a pole' object was no longer being used in the original way, and was thus a relic from the past which persons "venerated" and burned incense unto; was destroyed for that reason, for having become a superstitious relic;
He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down the wooden image[a] and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it Nehushtan.[b]Footnotes
a. 2 Kings 18:4 Hebrew Asherah, a Canaanite goddess
b. 2 Kings 18:4 Literally Bronze Thing
What else is entirely biblical regarding this king of Israel who cast down idolatrous "things", including having destroyed the bronze 'fiery' serpent on-a-pole which the Lord had (in times past) commanded Moses himself to have made?
5 He trusted in the Lord God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him. 6 For he held fast to the Lord; he did not depart from following Him, but kept His commandments, which the Lord had commanded Moses. 7 The Lord was with him; he prospered wherever he went.
There is fully biblical precedent for iconoclasts, provided they do hold fast to the Lord, and keep His commandments.
Let us not confuse here the [ahem] commandments of those whom would advise substitution, or even addition of "veneration of relics" as if the relics themselves held "powers", or were as holy objects in and of themselves --- with commandments of the Lord, Himself.
Thus says the Lord:Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest?
All of which results in your claim -- that veneration of relics to be "entirely biblical", to not be that, but to be more entirely all wet, wrong, in error, mistaken, shallow, superstitious, not "entirely biblical" at all ---- except for having engaged in a cherry-picking to support the premise, which for those who do understand Scripture more "entirely" (I just love going back to the word, lol) the theological underpinning of I've just scattered using that which is more entirely biblical.
Let's face facts here.
This "relics" business, is one which the RCC itself has long supported (and engaged in, as a $$business$$ even!) and which is custom (minus the $$$ for the most part) among some other ecclesiastical communities also. Yet even there, it can be established was custom which arose --- rather than being that which came directly from Apostolic teaching & tradition itself.
The cloths were used miraculously by God ---to provide healings, etc. There is no evidence the cloths themselves were "venerated".
To do that is to venerate the gift -- instead of the giver. Just as soon as that is engaged in, from the first micro-second, if the process is not brought to a halt, then it is all downhill, theologically speaking.
Or else you worship some other God than I do? If that be the case, then I think I'll restore/put back into use an old tagline.
worth a look just for general purposes...though those passages (and the concepts which they hold) do buttress yet further the position which I was just taking..
It is like asking a husband "how do you know when you loved your wife enough?"
These are works of love. You do them because you love God and God loves you, whenever you can.
That's a weak answer. The catholic maintains you have to do works to keep your salvation.
If that is the premise how many do you have to do? There must be a minimum required to keep salvation.
One cup of water given in His name? One act of kindness?
Is there a daily or weekly minimum?
Surely if the catholic is staking their eternity on works plus faith....they need to have a scorecard.
If not, how do you know you won't come up short at the end??
It's a terrible position to be in for the catholic....not having the assurance of salvation.
It never stops with catholicism does it?
But you would be wrong. Or at times your caricature of the Church would be wrong. For example, the idea that the Pope can do "whatever he decrees" is silly.
only addressing Chrysostom and his view about baptism
I picked up the first passage in the first link of those you offered. It was indeed about baptism and not at all asserting anything about Faith Alone as a general doctrine. So that WAS sloppy work by your apologist. I also offered to drill down on any other quote you might have. I did not ignore anything and did not pick one passage over another.
They would AGREE with saints like Irenaeus who stated [...]
We do agree. The Holy Scripture is a firm basis for argument, especially with the Protestant heretics; there are things that the Holy Scripture does not say and the Holy Church does not teach. There is nothing in the passage from Irenaeus that deviates from the Catholic view on the scripture, and nothing that supports the ridiculous idea that the Bible is the sole rule of faith.
St. Jerome, doctor of the Holy Church, thee who gave us the Latin Bible, pray for us.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, amen.
When I receive a post I read it in full searching for a scriptural argument or for a question about the Christian faith. Everything else I tend to ignore.
To be sure I understand....Paul is exaggerating the OT. A Pharisee of Pharisees who was advancing beyond his contemporaries and you say he's exaggerating the OT because it doesn't fit the distorted view the rcc has of Mary.
Amazing.
The catholic attempt to deny the Word never ceases to amaze.
And then you run off and ask Jerome to pray for you...even though we have no examples in the NT where we are told to pray to those who have departed this earth.
Why don't we ever see catholics asking Jesus for help?? It's either mary or someone other than Christ.
the sentence in your tag line ends with a preposition...that is a no-no.
I guess I could change it, just for you.
Sola fide IS a perfectly Biblical and Apostolic doctrine taught all throughout Scripture and repeatedly defended by the early leaders of Christianity. It's strange how you can presume a single passage in one book can cancel out or negate all the others from the rest of Scripture which clearly teaches over and over that we are NOT saved by the righteous deeds we do - whether works of the Mosaic law or our works of charity. May I remind you, Abraham was justified by faith alone 400 YEARS before there even was a Mosaic law.
You can continue to argue the false and accursed gospel the Roman Catholic church developed over time - and which was NOT the gospel once delivered unto the saints - and you can trust in your own merit, goodness, righteousness, works, deeds or whatever is the next hoop your religion deems in necessary to jump through for your salvation, but it will NOT make it true and will NOT convince those who have come to genuine and sincere faith in Jesus Christ and follow HIM.
JESUS is our righteousness. HE is the only sacrifice for our sins. HE is who will save us by faith in Him and we shall never perish, be cast out, be lost or plucked from His hands. I will trust in what HE says, in HIS authority instead of what foolish and sinful men devise out of their blackened hearts deceived by their own lusts for power, wealth and prestige. We are saved by grace through faith and not by our works. How many times does God need to repeat that?
Go ahead, claim whatever you so desire concerning your own self. Yet none of this discussion is about you, per se, or myself either, for that matter, but instead is about the truth -- of which I seek not one thing from yourself concerning, for I "pose" no "questions about the Christian faith" to you. So get off of that little high horse... that one is truly ridiculous.
You seek scriptural argument? Well ok then,
One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.
which Christ Himself was referencing when, as is attributed in John 5:31 Jesus saying;
If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. ..."
Now previously, you had responded to the same comment of my own which another had responded "good stuff", with yourself having made remark as to the length of my own statement there. I found that amusing coming from one (such as yourself) who posts on these pages quite a few long and involved type of reply/comment/posting, what-have-you.
And this which you had complained about (as for length) contained a highlighting of your own double-mindedness towards Scripture, saying things were one way, then in the [very!] next sentence saying the direct opposite!
Further, that commentary was not exlusive to discussion of Scripture itself, but had also included elements of extra-biblical/historical "patristic" commentary which was being discussed by a priest among the Orthodox.
Yet somehow...that sort of thing is beyond your own seeming "rules" of what you yourself will consider, even as those very sort of things are also something of your own stock-in-trade, so to speak, of that which you do seemingly would have others here (on this forum) take with utmost seriousness.
Really? Well, then, once again sir, much as before I must say -- do that which you would require of others.
Excellent point! It's incredible to me how we "modern" people with all our inventions, discoveries and advances are STILL so much like our ancient forebears. It doesn't seem to matter what God commands, some people will continue to do whatever they want anyway. Superstitious and gullible people will always fall for the tricks of the devil and his goal will always be to draw us away from God, not towards Him.
Well, THAT'S a relief! So, would you conclude that the Holy Spirit through Paul was including ALL mankind as under sin? When God says through the prophet in I Kings 8:46, for there is no one who does not sin, did He mean ALL or not? When God says through Moses in Genesis 8:21, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood, did He not mean all of us? When God says in Ecclesiastes 7:20, Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins., did He not mean everyone? I figure you already know about the many Scriptures that condemn all mankind as sinners in need of a Savior, so rather than brush it all off as exaggerated hyperbole, why not start to see our fallen nature as God sees it?
There is no exception for Mary in Scripture and I'm sure, if she was exempted from a sin nature, we would know about it from God's word. Why would He keep that a secret??? Are some people worse sinners than others? Oh, yeah, of course, but we are ALL sinners, we are ALL fallen, we are ALL at enmity with God, we are ALL capable of unthinkable evil given a set of circumstances. God knows that - He made us. So, please stop the nitpicking over words again. Why argue against what Scripture clearly says? Accept the truth for what it is. Without Christ, without the new birth, our hearts are desperately wicked - who can know it? That is what makes grace so awesome!
That is the problem, and often one of but degree of separation, being at times possibly close, then veering away from that touching upon "close".
All-in-all there is no plan of salvation there to be found other than the Roman Catholic Church ecclesiastical body being preached as the ways and means of the Gospel, becoming then the Gospel itself.
If that was the "good news" in hugh and series way - I do not want to hear the bad news.
What difference would there be in the new-es then, anyway?
It surely proved to be a hell on earth for many in the past, even though it was likely as not real cushy and comfortable (for those on top of the heap) for those long centuries (6 or so, at the least?) when simony and feudalism went together hand-in-glove...
The world has been there and done that. No more will that be allowed to occur (although the zealots among the muslims have their own competing version(s) which they are trying to put into effect).
That Roman Catholic way of centuries past "ways" has proven itself, beyond all argument to the contrary to have far too much negative effect wrapped up within it, to ever again be contemplated ---- until Christ Himself comes back to oversee the operation(s) more directly.
Until then, the RCC having in past centuries cast it's lot wholeheartedly into the effort to have things always "both ways", of this world and realm and of God's own too, simultaneously, far too often much as Esau long before, sold their birthright for bowls of porridge (earthly wealth and 'glory') and now...rather futilely seek repentance for having done that, with many tears...
Come back! We are your leader!
Lol.
Jacob, that usurper, has moved on, grown strong and no longer needs fear his hairy (and now near toothless) old brother.
Your sentence didn't begin with a capital "T". Are you applying for the Grammar Nazi position that doesn't exist on FR?
Is this a great country, or what?
He’d probably get as much respect as Henry did. ;o)
The directional element was important.
Up. He gets there before any 'pope' daddy...(if any of those are allowed to go "up", being as for more than a few of those it is rather doubtful...)
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.But then, as the RC caucus loves to point out, we have James with this:
Romans 4:1-5 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? (2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. (3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.These are both using the same Greek term for justification, dikaioō, but they cannot mean both that justification is based on works and justification is not based on works. That would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction. It is axiomatic that Holy Spirit inspired text will never produce a real contradiction. Therefore, while I understand fully the force of James in showing that works accompany justifying faith, it passes understanding that the converse force of Paul's declarations, cited above, can be ignored by any party to this debate, as if it hadn't even been written, or was written to no purpose.
Luke 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.In this passage, men are justifying God, not the other way around. Could we then use this as a proof text that it's OK for men to judge God? God forbid! It means no such thing! God is not in this case having a judicial sentence passed over Him by mere mortals. Perish the thought! What IS happening is that sinful men at the Baptism of John are recognizing that God was right all along, which is the very reason they are repenting and being baptized. In other words, here dikaioo is being used here to describe a recognition, by men, of an existing condition in God.
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.