Posted on 11/20/2016 10:43:00 AM PST by NRx
Jesus appealed to the Scriptures when tempted by Satan.
"It is written" is used 60 times in the NT in an appeal to the OT Scriptures.
We have the example of the Bereans searching the Scriptures.
Mary's family was very well acquainted with the Scriptures as attested in Luke.
If the Bible is not the standard against truth is measured then we have to allow the Mormon the Book of Mormon and the Muslim the Koran.
I looked all through your post and I could not find the word “only.”
We have everything we need in the Bible to know how we can attain salvation and have the proper relationship with Christ.
Except the Bible itself shows that the Church, through the gathered Apostles and Presbyters, speaks with the authority of the Holy Spirit. See Acts 15. If the Bible attests that that authority existed once then it continues to exist today. Peace.
And there we have the caveat! Tell me, what is the difference between saying we are justified by the grace of God without any merit on our part BUT we must do good works and "cooperate" with God's grace in order to go to heaven and saying we are saved by the grace of God AND our works? The "whitewashed sepulchers" are those who outwardly profess to be righteous by their own works but have NOT received the righteousness of God by faith versus those to whom Christ's righteousness is imputed and are TRULY cleansed of all sin and their works are evidence of that inward change. Our works do not save us - and they don't KEEP us saved. That is what grace is all about!
Yes, the Holy Spirit continues to work through the ekklesia, the church, the body of believers. Your argument presumes apostolic succession which is not supported in the New Testamemt. God can call anyone to serve Him as He did with Paul.
I asked you whether you affirmed that Jesus Christ is God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
You replied that you refused to “play your little game.”
That is, you DID refuse to affirm that Jesus Christ is God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
Now you do affirm it.
Here is another yes-or-no question:
Does Jesus Christ have a mother?
Now you do affirm it.
To be specific, I said, "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."
As I said, not gonna play your game.
I've seen you try this before on other threads.
It fails as the title, "mother of God", conveys more than the roman catholic would like it to. It conveys the meaning that God had a beginning.
Now, I've answered your questions. Time for you to answer mine that I've asked and you've yet to answer.
Are you willing to agree, based on the New Testament, there is only One Redeemer and Mediator?
What is your evidence that the title “Mother of God” means God had a beginning?
I will answer your questions when you have FOR THE FIRST TIME answered one of mine:
Answer yes or no:
Is Jesus Christ God and does he have a mother?
Your attitude, Arthur, is why people don't like to play with you on these threads.
As noted, I've answered one of your questions and I've told you I'm not playing your game.
The ball's in your court to answer my question from post 118.
Catholics VENERATE Mary, as Jesus did. We WORSHIP God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Mary BEGAN to be the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity, who existed from all eternity, when He took a human nature by being conceived in her womb.
The objection that Mary cannot be the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity because that would necessitate God’s having a beginning, is an idiotic objection that would have got you laughed at by any catechized eight-year-old from the First Century to this century.
Every catechized Christian child knows that in Christ there is one eternal Divine Person, and, since the moment of His conception in His mother’s womb, two natures.
Any catechized Christian child would laugh at an adult, claiming to be a Christian, who thinks that, if Christ’s human NATURE had a beginning, then His divine PERSON must have had a beginnong.
Yet, that is the ENTIRETY of the argument you have been making to me: If Christ’s human NATURE had a beginning, then his divine PERSON had a beginning.
Catholics believe Mary was immaculately conceived and was without sin. Pure unbiblical heresy.
I see you’re not answering my question.
Which is why the title "Mother of God" is not Scriptural. You even tacitly admit that when you explain who Mary is. You call her "Mary the Mother of Jesus, the Son of God" or "Mary the Mother of the Second Person of the Trinity". You use these words to clarify that you aren't implying Mary is THE mother of the Trinity. Why isn't Scripture sufficient to call her what the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to call her, "Mary, the mother of Jesus"?
Also, your gamesmanship over demanding Ealgeone answer your question EVERY TIME YOU ASK IT, in the way you expect it to be answered, is exposed for what it really is....a game.
I’m not answering your question because it is not about the motherhood of 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.