Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
That about says it all.
And FWIW (which is considerable) "that level of proof was introduced" by Paul.
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." -- 2 Timothy 3:13-17"But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
All men are instructed to preach the word of God. And only God can forgive your sins and mine.
Trinitarian faith in the living Christ is so much simpler than you imagine.
Thanks, I'll be sure not to. Does the Lord's Prayer count? How many times in one sitting may I say it? How long between each prayer should I wait?
Matt. 26:44 - And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.
Please show me from Scripture how it is that you can speak to the dead, that the dead are granted powers to hear you and where the dead are more worthy to pray to that Jesus Christ, the ONLY mediator between God and man.
Now, now...you're forgetting us "Reformed Baptists".
Perhaps the Reformed Baptists are to the Presbyternians what the Roman Catholics are to the Orthodox. If that is so then you have my apologies. :O)
I'd be interested to hear your view of just what the awareness of saints in heaven is. I'd asked for it some time ago.
Jesus tells us that we will be like angels and that those in heaven rejoice in our repentance. Paul writes that we are one family in heaven and on earth, one Body of Christ and death does not separate us.
I appreciate that this is all viewed differently by you. I think it would be helpful to hear what your belief is about those existing in eternity with God. I know this is something that we cannot know fully in this life; it is outside our experience, we cannot fully imagine existence outside time and space.
That's not surprising that you consider your own personal views the center of the world. We all do, in a manner of speaking. But just because you consider man's free will and predestination as fundamental doesn't mean that St. Augustine did in his writings... He wrote a lot about them because the Pelagians were persistent. He also wrote a lot to the Donatists and the Manichaeans about entirely different subjects.
"Command what you will, and give what you command"-Augustine
I don't have a problem with that prayer. I thought we already established that Catholics believe that God gives us every good gift. You would better understand the context of our (FK) discussions regarding "fairness" if you read our posts. St. Augustine himself would never agree that God commands what man cannot do! I have already quoted you a number of times he mentions this. God does NOT command men to do things that man cannot do.
Regards
Was Judas Iscariot an apostle?
Regards
Right, wrong or indifferent, I'm going to insist that this playing field remain level. Do not hold me to some standard that you are unable to adhere to yourself. Specifically, do not require me to produce Scripture at every utterance and then, in the next breath, try to make an appeal solely to reason.
And FWIW (which is considerable) "that level of proof was introduced" by Paul.
Paul said that Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." IF he had said that "deductive reasoning where Scripture is silent is inherently evil", THEN you would have a valid point. But since it does not, you are completely off base.
Stay focused, "Doc".
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
Oh, the irony.
Please. What a ridiculous assertion. I have read St. Augustine and I find Calvinists misinterpret his writings because Calvinists have preconceived notions that St. Augustine never had. Namely, that man is absolutely and totally corrupt. St. Augustine clearly thought that God did not command men to do what they could not do. Calvin never had that common sense idea in his mind. Thus, you would do well to read St. Augustine's other works that do not have heavily laced polemic language in it, such as "Treatise on Nature and Grace", or "Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter".
His mercy preceded them according to grace, not according to debt.
Yes, this is dogmatic Catholic teaching straight from the Council of Trent on Justification...
Regards
Regards
So much rests on this one little verse that doesn't say anything about NECESSITY, NOR does it EXCLUDE anything! It merely says that Scriptures are PROFITABLE! This, just as in Romans 3:28, is another case of Protestants not understanding the simple rules of language - that is, they automatically think if one thing is mentioned as "profitable", then all other things are excluded.
Thus, if I say a baseball is profitable for playing baseball, a Protestant would say that we no longer need a baseball bat...
Regards
Priests have the power to forgive sins and celebrate the Eucharist. They also have the power to preach the Word. A priest's written words will not likely be formed into a future Bible. Nor do priests witness to the resurrected Christ in His glorified manifestation. But the fact remains that God intends His Church to last for all time, thus, He has given it the CONTINUED power to bind and loose, to forgive sins, and to preach and teach the Word. This is all common sense. If Christ desires a Church to operate only for one generation, your argument makes sense. But Christ HIMSELF said the Church would last for all time against the gates of hell.
The gentile world sought after knowledge, hence the end of signs and wonders.
Signs still continue to this very day, brother. The Acts of the Apostles has Gentiles witness to these miracles, as well.
Peter, whom you claim as the first "pope" was not even sent to the Gentiles, Paul was.
Peter was the first to go to the Gentiles! Have you forgotten Cornelius? Your verse from Galatians does not mean that Peter went ONLY to the Jews. That was his primary mission as of Galatians. But what about after it? What about when Peter went to the Diaspora and saw Gentiles? Does that mean he wasn't allowed to talk about Christ to them? I don't interpret that verse as you do.
Regards
All I'm saying is that the appearance of an angel obviously does not mean that a virgin birth is in the offing.
But again, it seems you are avoiding the question. Please again try to come up with an explanation for why Mary responded as she did.
"Mary did not for a moment believe that she would be married and bear a child."
On that we agree. Therefore what Monkfan and I are saying is exactly consistent with the account in Luke.
Where we and you are in disagreement is the reason why she would respond as she did. What you are suggesting is that she knew both that a. she was going to bear the Messiah, and that b. this meant she would conceive as a virgin.
You write: "Mary, whether she knew about Isaiah or not, in no way believe that she would conceive in the "normal" way."
But if she knew that she was going to bear the Messiah and that this meant that she was going to conceive as a virgin and not in the "normal way", then she would not have said "how can this thing be, since I know not a man?" You are suggesting that she was fully aware that she wasn't going to "know" a man to conceive this child -- so why would she ask this question?
If she knew that the angel was announcing a virgin birth, she wouldn't have asked this question.
If she thought that the angel was announcing a special, but not virgin birth, she wouldn't have asked that either, if she was (as per your scenario) betrothed to a young man whom she intended to set up housekeeping with.
Monkfan and I (or rather the Orthodox Church) give an account of events that explains perfectly well why she would ask that question. So far, no Protestant on this forum has given an explanation that makes sense.
Allow me to lead by example: I fully acknowledge that Matthew 1:25 can be read just as much in support of the Protestant position as of the Orthodox account. I will even go so far as to say that if one takes the verse in isolation that the Protestant reading is the logical one. Furthermore, I will say that the verses regarding Jesus' "brethren," again, taken in isolation, are very reasonably read as Protestants interpret.
Is it *that* hard to acknowledge that at least on this one verse in Luke, that the Orthodox explanation meshes neatly with the Virgin's response, whereas you are having to scramble to find some way to read the verse to explain why she asked that question?
Having given this more thought, I agree now that this is a theological difference that goes much deeper than just the timing of The Blessed Virgin's state of sinlessness. The Catholic mariology views Mary primarily are a second Eve, and secondarily as a saint among saints. Since Eve was made by God without sin, so must Mary; that completes the symmetry. It also places Mary's intercession on a different and more cosmic plane than the intercession of saints: she intercedes to Christ as Eve interceded to Adam and becomes uniquely the co-redeemer just as Eve was uniquely the co-sinner.
It is also Catholic teaching that Mary did not suffer the ordinary pain of childbirth, although I am not sure if it is dogmatic. Both are ancient beliefs East and West, even though the Immaculate conception was infallibly proclaimed very late.
So, what are we Catholics to make of the call to imitate her: "blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it" in Luke 11? I think it is on the same plain as the exhortation to become perfect in Matthew 5:48. Surely our Father in heaven had a different set of tools. So did Mary. It is not like there is a shortage of men and women equipped similarly as we are in the Communion of saints, priesthood and consecrated life, who become beacons of perfection for us.
The entire point of God's answer to Mary's question is to explain to her just how said conception would take place. Had she already known then the explaination becomes vain and superfluous.
Also, it makes absolutely no sense for Mary to point out her state of virginity if she already understood God's plan to circumvent it.
Perhaps now is a good time to remind ourselves that being familiar with a prophecy does not guarantee an actual understanding of same prophecy. Just take a look at all the competing theories regarding The Second Coming. Nuff said!
I would also suggest that you are forgetting Joseph in this whole argument. For Joseph to have married someone who was already impregnated would have been a terrible thing to do for a good Jewish man.
It definitely doesn't qualify as "Plan A". ;)
Mary's submission to God's calling is what's make this such a beautiful event for she was willing to go through not only the social stigma but possibly being stoned to death according to custom.
Agreed.
Joseph's submission is what is often overlooked because he believed God.
It's not overlooked in the Orthodox Church, I assure you.
Though he was engaged and should have properly given Mary a certificate of divorce, was obedient to the Lord and carried through on his commitment.
It's worth noting here that God saw fit to send an angel to Joseph to explain the situation for what it was [Matt. 2:20-23]. Somehow, I don't think "miraculous conception" was the conclusion Joseph was jumping to.
Apostolic SuccessionThe first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).
Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).
[A series of patristic references follow at source]
Both St. Paul and Apollo, as well as Jo Kus and I have taught without a formal sanction from a bishop. Obviously, any time my bishop corrects me or silences me I will obey, as I do not argue my opinions as such, but in consonance with the teaching of the Church. Something similar happened to Apollo. He, or Jo Kus (I presume) or I are not in the line of apostolic succession and cannot speak but tentatively on behalf of the Church; but to speak we are encouraged, as it is our Catholic Christian duty to witness the Gospel.
An apostle is someone in direct contact with Christ. St. Paul was given that status extraordinarily from St. Peter and St. James following his extraordinary conversion at the hand of Christ himself. He then went on and consecrated Timothy and Titus. We do not have a record of Apollo ever being consecrated or ever teaching with apostolic authority. A bishop is someone consecrated by an apostle or another bishop. In addition to the ability to speak on the doctrine with authority of a member of the Living Magisterium, a bishop can also consecrate bishops and ordain priests. Thus a priest receives his teaching authority from the bishop and is connected to the Apostles through him.
A Christian is a work in progress on his way to final justification and sanctification. He needs examples and prayers of others who had traveled on that road before him. It is by the prayers of the saints that God draws his elect to himself. It is then natural to ask the saints to pray for us to our Lord Jesus Christ, which they gladly and fervently do.
The Calvinist heresy denies cooperation with Grace, -- in fact, it denies infused grace to begin with, and hence your question. You cannot comprehend the answer until you drop the heresy.
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.