Posted on 07/21/2009 10:09:01 AM PDT by NYer
I’m not quite sure, but I think that we are in agreement.
I am not armed. Where do you find disagreement with the article?
I find disagreement with its random grabbing of objectionable points from different denominations, then implicitly lumping them all together to smear the totality of “Protestantism”. Much of what is criticized is NOT the norm across the umbrella philosophy, so it is disingenuous to portray isolated flaws as such.
We certainly are on the issue of Mary as theotokos and mediatrix (or her NOT being these things, I should say).
Yes.
Quite good.
The issue is one of definition, and the premise from which this article argues is fundamentally flawed.
Interesting...
We must not forget we must: “Study to shew ourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
As I have understood it the statement “must be the husband of one wife” was written to those that desired to be an elder or deacon in the church, (that is church leaders) Titus 1:1:7. (But I believe,in light of other scriptures, it includes us all).
As to our wives: We are commanded; “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it;(Eph. 5:25) And no man has done that!
And; “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” (Eph. 5:28)
“Nevertheless let everyone of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.” (Eph. 5:33)
As I understand the word of God we are to pray our God our Father in heaven: “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For their is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus;” (1 Timothy 2:3-5)
Also Remember: “For He (God) hath made Him (Jesus) to be made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor. 5:21)
And last: “But when the fullness of time of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the curse of the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts crying, Abba, Father.” (Gal. 4:4-6)
1.Jesus is God.
2.Mary is His Mother.
3.Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
. . . gets rejected as "inbred reasoning" since Catholics can't produce the Bible verse that says explicitly, "Mary is the Mother of God." Suddenly, only direct, explicit testimony and instruction in legally watertight language will do.
That's an incredibly poor example since it oversimplifies the argument by completely ignoring the issue of Christ's having both a fully human and fully divine nature in the question of Mary's relationship to Him, which issue is a core component of this area of disagreement.
Private interpretation of the bible directly led to the “living document” approach to the Constitution.
If you Catholics want to ridicule Protestants for their inconsistency on Sacred Tradition (and yes, they are inconsistent), fine. But must you ridicule the Word of G-d in order to do this?
What is this deep-seated aversion to the Bible? Where does it come from? Does it come from the Protestant Reformation? Is it a reaction to the sola scriptura of Protestantism? "The Prots think too highly of the Bible, so we'll tear it down?" What good is it of boasting of how your church "canonized" the Bible (it didn't) if you're so hostile to it that you make fun of it? Shame on you.
Cain did not "wander around" till he found a wife. He married his sister. His twin sister. The one who was born along with him in the Garden of Eden before the First Sin had even been committed. This was one of the things Cain and Abel quarreled over. Cain was born with a twin sister; Abel was born with two "triplet" sisters. Cain said since he was the firstborn they should marry him. Abel said they were born with him so they were his.
Now, of course, if you go reading the bare text of Genesis you won't find any of this. You know why? Because it's Sacred Tradition. You Catholics know what that is, right? You're always shooting off your bazoos about how you believe in "Tradition." But in actuality you're the heirs of the first Protestants--the original chr*stians who rejected the immemorial Sacred Tradition that had been handed down from the time of Mt. Sinai. This means both that you're every bit as inconsistent about Tradition as Protestants are, and that you're hypocrites because you claim to defend Tradition but you're actually quite ignorant of it.
I'm aware that most Catholics believe Cain and Abel are mythology. Believe me, I need no convincing whatsoever.
It's one reason I left your irreverent Church.
ZC,
A few says ago I asked you if you knew anything about any good verse-by-verse commentaries on Genesis. I mentioned Watke’s. Do you have any suggestions?
Yes, and I answered you on the thread. I mentioned Rashi, RaMBa"N, Hirsch, 'Aryeh Kaplan, and the Stone Chumash and gave you a link to ArtScroll. Didn't you see it?
The author is a moron and has never read the scriptures. They are very clear in Jesus’ own words when responding to a question about divorce - by an earlier would-be Obama supporter - Jewish religious leader.. This author is clearly another fake that has the koran (false prophecy of demon worshiper - mohammid) beneath his pillow and a picture of Barack on the wall.
No, sorry, I didn’t see it. In a few days - when I’m finally home from vacation - I’ll have to check it. Sorry about that.
Shea nails it again! Can’t wait to read his new book on Mariology. Thanks for the post!
I'm aware that most Catholics believe Cain and Abel are mythology.
Holy Scripture is not a text book. It matters not whether the world was made in 6 days (as measured in our time) or 6 million. Are the six days of creation really literal twenty-four-hour periods or a symbol of divine work, however long it took? Did Jesus really turn bread and wine into his body and blood, or is it just a figure? Did a great red dragon really sweep a third of the stars out of heaven with his tail, or does that symbolize something else? Are these symbols or miracles? We must pay attention to the faith and to try to learn how language was used at the time, in the tongues and cultures of the Bible, and then say to ourselves, "What did the author most likely intend when he said this?"
That is the point of this article.
Is there to be only one Church or many? According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many. For the Church is Christ's Body and Christ only had one Body, not many. Also, since the Church is Christ's Bride (Ephesians 5:29), can Christ be married to more than one wife (essentially a spiritual form of the the sin of polygamy)? No, Christ can only have one wife (i.e., one Church, not many).
Thank you for posting those beautiful quotes from scripture. What the author is trying to help us understand, though, is that ‘sola scriptura’ has led us into a time in which the ‘absence’ of definitive admonitions against gay marriage, abortion, ivf, etc. has resulted in christian’s interpreting scripture to suit their personal views. He then directs our attention to Tradition (with a big T), which many of the protestant churches actually apply to support their arguments against that which is not clearly expressed in the bible. The Catholic Church has always upheld Tradition since it was founded by Jesus Christ Himself.
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.