How I Changed My Mind About Mary

My apologies for the delay in responding to you.

Where is your authority for nullifying scriptures?

Oh, come on. I have merely taken issue with your take on one verse.(2 Tim,3:16). I am not nullifying anything, nor do I think that I have any authority to. You know what Catholics believe regarding scripture. I am not going to swap bible verses with you. You have been around long enough to know what the Catholic position is, and know that the HRCC claims that it's doctrine is scripturally sound, and if you were genuinely curious you could find what you need.

Your confused. The only "infallible authority" are the scriptures.

I am not confused. You are mistaken. We strongly disagree as to what the infallible authority actually is. Until the time when you convert to Catholicism, we always will.

Those without the Spirit cannot understand scriptural truth, however, because it is spiritually discerned.

Precisely. I believe emphatically that the HRCC is "the mind of Christ" on this mortal coil. No need to trot out the scripture, because I'm sure you are very aware of it. The Holy Spirit has been with Christ's Church from the get go, and those souls who have been priveleged to receive God's grace through Mother Church's sacraments do indeed have the Holy Spirit " dwelling" within them.

This, remarkably, leads us back to where we began. When you popped into this thread, the discussion was centered upon Mother Theresa. Criticism of her activities, or lack thereof, originated from a poster who's views on Christianity are similar to yours. It was implied that Mother Theresa did not possess "the mind of Christ" as Paul described. Yet, to me, her life exemplified an awareness of God's constant presence. So, I concluded, that one is either unable to discern what it looks like to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within, or this particular poster's anti-Catholicism is so virulent that they would ignore the plain truth of the matter. The more charitable conclusion is the former choice, and if so, one is faced with the question of why they are unable to discern it. When every one else, even secularist's and pagan's can recognize the sanctity of this woman, why can't the scripture quoting,regenerated, Calvinist type of Christian? And what else can't they discern? We've gone over 2 TIm 3:16 and that fundamental error. Is it everything? Is it a false gospel that so blinds to reality? Things that make you go hmmm.

I'm done here.

M-PI: "I haven't seen you quoting any Scriptures that nullify what I wrote. Indeed, I am the only one who has quoted Scripture (the infallible words of Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, et.al.). You have merely given me your opinion with nothing to back it up. Provide the quotes where you say I have contradicted the Scriptures."

St.C: "..I am not going to swap bible verses with you. .... if you were genuinely curious you could find what you need.

Just wanted to continue to give you the choice between the rope to hang yourself and the opportunity to use Scripture to back up your opinions. I see you always choose the rope. :D

MP-I: " You're confused. The only "infallible authority" are the scriptures."

St.C: "I am not confused. .. We strongly disagree as to what the infallible authority actually is. Until the time when you convert to Catholicism, we always will."

I am already a member of the ELECT Lady -- the Bride of Christ -- the universal (catholic) church which has only ONE "Holy (infallible) Father" and only ONE mediator between God and man, the God-man Jesus Christ. It has for it's infallible authority The Word of God -- the closed cannon of Scripture -- the Bible.

[An aside: The closed canon of Scripture probably dates even before A.D. 367 when the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius contained an exact list of the twenty-seven New Testament books we have today. This was the list of books accepted by the churches in the eastern part of the Mediterranean world. Thirty years later, in A.D. 397, the Council of Carthage, representing the churches in the western part of the Mediterranean world, agreed with the eastern churches on the same list. These are the earliest final lists of our canon of Scripture.]

The RCC with its other "holy (infallible) father" and its other mediators, etc., is a whole different ball-game. It has its *ways* for forcing people to convert to "Catholicism" whenever it is able to gain political power and use the arm of the government to take away religious freedom and enforce its brand of it.

As documented by the Hefleys in their book, By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs Of The 20th Century, (Mott Media, 1979), wherever the Church of Rome has political power, it still does all it can to keep the Bible away from the people. In "Catholic" countries the Bible is still shunned as a "dangerous" book.

Do you also agree that the Bible is a dangerous book in the hands of those who don't have the --cough, cough, "infallible interpreter in Italy" to tell them what it says? Based upon what you've written here, it sure looks like it.

The "Holy Office" of the Inquisition still exists within the Vatican --known today as the 'Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith'.

The RCC refuses to retract its official denial of religious freedom and its right to use violence to force people to accept its doctrines. Do you also agree with this refusal?

MP-I: "Those without the Spirit cannot understand scriptural truth, however, because it is spiritually discerned. St.C: "Precisely. I believe emphatically that the HRCC is "the mind of Christ" on this mortal coil. No need to trot out the scripture...".

Of course, once again, you didn't "trot out the Scriptures", because they say the exact opposite:

The apostle Paul says to church member individual "brethren" in the church of God at Corinth: "Now we [individual Christians] have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God that we [individual Christians] might know the things that have been freely given to us [individual Christians] by God. ... But the natural individual (without the Holy Spirit), does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to that individual; nor can that individual know them because they are spiritually discerned. ... but we [individual Christians] have the mind of Christ."

In #319 you wrote: " ... I am shocked that you would imply that Jesus said individual Christians reading what the apostles wrote would have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them."

Then you contradicted yourself by writing this in #321: ".. those souls who have been priveleged to receive God's grace through Mother Church's sacraments do indeed have the Holy Spirit " dwelling" within them."

Now that you seem to have changed your mind and agree that individual Christians do indeed have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them, will you continue to reject the words of Jesus and the apostles:

Jesus said: "I will pray the Father, and He will give [each of] you another Helper that He may abide with [each of] you forever, even the Spirit of TRUTH which [others in] the world cannot receive because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but [each of] you know Him, for He dwells with [each of] you and shall be in [each of] you. ... the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name HE will teach [each of] you....".

The apostle John said that deceivers will try to tell individual Christians just the opposite. Deceivers will tell them that they need an *interpreter* other than the indwelling Holy Spirit to teach them. John said this to the individual Christians in whom dwells the Holy Spirit:

"The anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that ANYONE teach you ...".

Will you still continue to insist that an individual needs someone to teach him if God, Himself (the Spirit of Truth) dwells in him?

St.C: "This, remarkably, leads us back to where we began. When you popped into this thread, the discussion was centered upon Mother Theresa. ..."

Wrong. I "popped into the thread" at #203 to ask Brice's Crossroad this question: "Do you know who the Bereans were? Do you know why Paul commended them?" in response to this sdtatement he wrote: "I believe that the Church is the authoritative interpreter of the Bible"

You chimed in at #312 to object to what I wrote in #309: "Only those with the "mind of Christ" will be able to correctly handle the Word of Truth."

St.C: "We've gone over 2 TIm 3:16 and that fundamental error. .."

Yes. To make the Scriptures fit with what you already believe, (in which you contradicted yourself above) you made the silly statement that that whole Scripture "hinged" on what the word "useful" means.

But contrary to what you say, The apostle Paul writes in 2 Tim.3:16: "ALL graphe [Scripture] is theopneustos [God-breathed] and is ophelimos [profitable] for ....". Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me ... and keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us [individuals Christians] that good thing [the gospel] which was [past tense]committed to you. [2 Tim.1:13-14]

And in 1 Cor.14:37, (The New Testament) Paul says, ".... the things I am writing to you are a command from the Lord." ["Thus sayeth the Lord". "God's Words". "Scripture". "theopneustos (God-breathed)".

And Peter classifies "..all of his [Paul's] epistles" with "the other Scriptures". [2 Pet.3:16].

And in 1 Tim.5:18, Paul quotes Jesus' words in Luke 10:7, and calls them, "Scripture".

And in John 14:26 and 16:13, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would bring all that he had said to the disciples' remembrance and would guide them into all truth.

Jesus, himself, promised that they would be able to remember and record without error, ALL that Jesus had said. [The definition of "theopneustos God-breathed)"].

Find other references to Jesus' promise in 2Pet.3:2; 1Cor.2:13; 1Thess.4:15; Rev.22:18-19, etc.

St.C: "I'm done here"

That's what happens when one gets enough rope to hang himself. :D

When I said I was done here, I knew I would have to return to set the facts right. You have a tendency to misunderstand or perhaps even purposefully twist the facts.

I just wanted to give you the choice between the rope to hang yourself and the oppurtunity to use scripture to back up your opinions. I see you always choose the rope.

Well, picture me swinging from the gallows, hooded, inaudible, but gesticulating wildly, trying to make one more point.:)

In "conversing" with you (and others like you) I find it very frustrating, confusing, just a plain waste of time, frankly. It's as if we do not speak the same language. Perhaps I'm delusional to think that I can communicate ideas well enough. Obviously I can't. For that I apologize.

I don't have the time, nor the energy usually, to provide what you constantly demand. Namely scripture passages. I suspect that you are extraordinarily familiar with the bible, and could probably make my case better than me. Or at least, with less effort.

If you think I attempted to nullify scripture, I can assure you, that was not my intent. I believe every word of 2 Tim 3:16. I only wanted to point out that it is not a worthy peg to hang the hat of sola scriptura on. End of story. That's it. I commend you on your effort to explain otherwise, but I don't buy it.

You say I contradict myself, but I don't see where. When I said that Jesus never told his apostles to write anything down, that's all I meant. THat HE literally didn't. THat's all. I don't see anything contrversial about that. I'm clueless as to what contradiction I made. That's what I mean about two languages, or my inability to write coherently.

I've seen your indignation concerning what you think is so appalling about the HRCC on other threads. I don't know exactly what point you are trying to make with that here, but I wouldn't respond to you anyway. In fact, I have avoided you for many, many months because I know it is of no value to anyone to have any kind of discussion with you. I would not have posted to you had you not responded to a question I posted to someone else. I predicted several days ago, that we would agree on nothing. Maybe a book in the bible should be named after me.:)-------Maybe I better clarify that. It is a joke. I was making reference to the prophetic books in the bible. Because I made a prediction that came true ( kinda like the prophets do in the scriptures ) I suggested that maybe I should be included in their number. I'm kidding of course. I am in no way making myself out to be in any way equivalent to Mark or Mary or other prophets with books named for them. I'm only joking.

“The Church has a simple and sensible answer to this difficulty. It is this: Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, by her nature she was subject to the necessity of contracting Original Sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of Original Sin and certain of its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way, by anticipation. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception thus does not contradict Luke 1:47.”

Notwithstanding this explanation, which I have heard, there are some implications to this that cannot be overlooked. If Mary was conceived with Original Sin, she also experienced no taint of her free will, and would have been free, in her own natural flesh never to sin. This means that if she ever did sin (and I believe she did, because I reject the Immaculate Conception), she would have been totally unworthy to be Jesus’ mother, and would have been the most despicable person on the face of the earth, because KNOWING the nature of sin and being able to choose otherwise, she chose to sin anyway. It boggles my mind that it would be possible to assert that Mary was conceived without sin, and this was necessary so Jesus would be conceived without sin, because of the two, Jesus is God, and Mary is a creature. In particular, remember that the Bible makes it plain that there is not one person who is without sin, and these verses do not say everyone is a sinner EXCEPT Mary. See for example: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. I John 1:8. You would think that if Mary had been conceived without sin, this would be such an important issue that the Bible would have talked about it, but the Bible is silent. There is strong evidence that the sin nature is passed down to the offspring through the father, since Eve was deceived, but Adam knowingly sinned. Because Mary had an earthly father, but Jesus didn’t, and was “seed of the woman”, it would not have been possible for her to be conceived without the sin nature. But of necessity, Jesus was the spotless Lamb, and had no sin nature. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has far-reaching consequences for doctrine in general. In fact, it could be said that by the time everything is said and done, worship of Mary would be perfectly proper, and many other doctrines many of us believe are in error, grow out of this one. And yes, I do agree. Some of the things people say to and sing to Mary (if that were possible) are clearly worship.

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.