Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Yes, that is true. We try to put some sort of objective sense to our individual experiences - thus - the importance of the Church and her objective doctrines. Without her guidance, our subjective experiences of God have no true substance, but are dependent entirely upon one's own personality and environment, making God relativistic OR making God unknowable to man. Thus, the absolute necessity of the Church and her teachings. She grounds our subjective beliefs of our experiences in reality that is outside of ourselves. Without her, opinions rule the roost.
I appreciate your posts.
I am honored that you read my ramblings!
Regards
"This can only mean Mary was not asking it as a question concerning God's ability. With your interpretation such doubts exist with Mary's statement. With my interpretation Mary is not questioning the Lord but simply asking how something is going to transpirer."
Not at all true. The Orthodox understanding is *not* that Mary was questioning the Lord in any way whatsoever. Our understanding, as I have pointed out elsewhere, is that she was establishing that it actually *was* the Lord that the angel was from, and that she was not being deceived by Satan, "appearing as an angel of light." She knew from the experience of Eve that the tempter does come in many forms, seeking our destruction.
She saw a contradiction, and knew that this contradiction had to be resolved. The answer of the angel resolved the contradiction for her, and from that point, there were no more questions. We do not see her motivation in her one initial question being at all as a doubting of God's omnipotence.
"I can't argue with your other interpretations of Mary simply because they are not part of the inspired word of God. They are based upon traditions handed down. Some of those traditions may be valid. Some may be fanciful. But few if any is recorded in scripture."
That is all very fair enough. It takes an intellectually secure Calvinist to say the words "some of those traditions may be valid," and I appreciate that. We are also in agreement that most of these things do not appear in Scripture, and are based on traditions handed down through the centuries within the Church.
None of us have ever claimed that they could be proven sola scriptura, and I in turn can see sola scriptura as an understandable and legitimate position to take, even if I don't hold to it.
If you insist.
Matt 1:25 - different writing style
Not *your* writing style, that much is certain
Matt 12:46, 13:55, Mark 3, Luk 8, John 7, etc - already dealt with it-no problem
No problem except for people with short memories
1 Cor 9:5-nothing here
Nothing new anyway
Matt 12-irrelevant
yes, but only because it fails to address the actual issue at hand
Col 4:10-poor translation
I'm not qualified to characterize it one way or the other.
I wouldn't say "elusive". Perhaps "obvious" would be a better word.
Obvious that you would like to make an argument, but can't.
Amen.
Heb.4:15-16
We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmites, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore, come boldly to the throne of grace that we might obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
The Roman Catholics see Mary not as an ordinary human but a very special and uncommon human with a special role that no one can emmulate
That is, I think, a grossly accurate outline. Two points on that:
- Mary reflects the pre-fall condition of man, and is then our hope of everlasting life in the Kingdom of Heaven, where we shall have our pre-fall condition restored. The saints show us how to live, but Mary shows us where we are going.
- Of course no one can emulate Mary (or Christ) in essence, as we are not going to have another Incarnation and Resurrection. But Mary did not receive anything different that the sanctifying grace we receive. It is true that Christ made her burden light. But He also told us that He will make our burden light.
I am embarassed that I have to explain jokes.
(1-3) in my 5970 are a direct and honest response to your question why are we to preach to animals.
(4) is a joke to illustrate that 2 Timothy 3:15 applies to Protestant Sola Scriptura theory just as good as 2 Timothy 3:14 applies to animals (they do learn if you teach them, continue in what they learned, and know their master).
It is quite clear that anyone who would think that those two quotes represent any reference to the present Roman Catholic Church is out of touch with reality.
§ 139. Catholic Tradition.
Irenaeus: Adv. Haer. Lib. I. c. 9, § 5; I. 10, 1; III. 3, 1, 2; III. 4, 2; IV. 33, 7. Tertull.: De Praescriptionibus Haereticorum; especially c. 13, 14, 17–19, 21, 35, 36, 40, 41; De Virgin. veland. c. 1; Adv. Prax. c. 2; on the other hand, Adv. Hermog. c. 22; De Carne Christi, c. 7; De Resurr. Carnis, c. 3. Novatian: De Trinitate 3; De Regula Fidei.Cyprian: De Unitate Eccl.; and on the other hand, Epist. 74. Origen: De Princip. lib. I. Praef. § 4–6. Cyril of Jerus.: Kathchvsei" (written 348).
J. A. Daniel: Theol. Controversen (the doctrine of the Scriptures as the source of knowledge). Halle, 1843. J. J. Jacobi: Die Kirchl. Lehre von d. Tradition u. heil. Schrift in ihrer Entwicketung dargestellt. Berl. I. 1847. Ph. Schaff: Creeds of Christendom, vol. I. p. 12 sqq.; II. 11–44. Comp. Lit. in the next section.
Besides appealing to the Scriptures, the fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian, refer with equal confidence to the "rule of faith;"948 that is, the common faith of the church, as orally handed down in the unbroken succession of bishops from Christ and his apostles to their day, and above all as still living in the original apostolic churches, like those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome. Tradition is thus intimately connected with the primitive episcopate. The latter was the vehicle of the former, and both were looked upon as bulwarks against heresy.
Irenaeus confronts the secret tradition of the Gnostics with the open and unadulterated tradition of the catholic church, and points to all churches, but particularly to Rome, as the visible centre of the unity of doctrine. All who would know the truth, says he, can see in the whole church the tradition of the apostles; and we can count the bishops ordained by the apostles, and their successors down to our time, who neither taught nor knew any such heresies. Then, by way of example, he cites the first twelve bishops of the Roman church from Linus to Eleutherus, as witnesses of the pure apostolic doctrine. He might conceive of a Christianity without scripture, but he could not imagine a Christianity without living tradition; and for this opinion he refers to barbarian tribes, who have the gospel, "sine charta et atramento," written in their hearts....
To estimate the weight of this argument, we must remember that these fathers still stood comparatively very near the apostolic age, and that the succession of bishops in the oldest churches could be demonstrated by the living memory of two or three generations. Irenaeus in fact, had been acquainted in his youth with Polycarp, a disciple of St. John. But for this very reason we must guard against overrating this testimony, and employing it in behalf of traditions of later origin, not grounded in the scriptures.
Nor can we suppose that those fathers ever thought of a blind and slavish subjection of private judgment to ecclesiastical authority, and to the decision of the bishops of the apostolic mother churches. The same Irenaeus frankly opposed the Roman bishop Victor. Tertullian, though he continued essentially orthodox, contested various points with the catholic church from his later Montanistic position, and laid down, though at first only in respect to a conventional custom—the veiling of virgins—the genuine Protestant principle, that the thing to be regarded, especially in matters of religion, is not custom but truth.949 His pupil, Cyprian, with whom biblical and catholic were almost interchangeable terms, protested earnestly against the Roman theory of the validity of heretical baptism, and in this controversy declared, in exact accordance with Tertullian, that custom without truth was only time-honored error.950 The Alexandrians freely fostered all sorts of peculiar views, which were afterwards rejected as heretical; and though the paravdosi" ajpostolikhv plays a prominent part with them, yet this and similar expressions have in their language a different sense, sometimes meaning simply the holy scriptures. So, for example, in the well-known passage of Clement: "As if one should be changed from a man to a beast after the manner of one charmed by Circe; so a man ceases to be God’s and to continue faithful to the Lord, when he sets himself up against the church tradition, and flies off to positions of human caprice."
In the substance of its doctrine this apostolic tradition agrees with the holy scriptures, and though derived, as to its form, from the oral preaching of the apostles, is really, as to its contents, one and the same with there apostolic writings. In this view the apparent contradictions of the earlier fathers, in ascribing the highest authority to both scripture and tradition in matters of faith, resolve themselves. It is one and the same gospel which the apostles preached with their lips, and then laid down in their writings, and which the church faithfully hands down by word and writing from one generation to another..951
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch12.htm
It would have been presumtious to say "I shall not get crushes on boys because I am a nun". There is no presumtion to ask God how his will as regards her can be seemingly contradictory. Mary knew that she, by herself, would bring forth a child simply because the angel told her.
I don't see your point here: "by herself"? She knew that she was going to be a mother in the physiological sense from Luke 1:31, yes. She also knew that she was going to remain virgin, or else she would not have asked the question in v.34. She did not know how to square the two till the Angel told her in v.35.
do you understand by now that the apostolic succession is quite simply, transmission of apostolic authority from bishop to bishop, starting with one of the Apostles, through the sacrament of the Holy Orders? The intellectual ability to preach is only loosely connected to it.
Doesn't anybody read Isaiah anymore? [*cough, cough*]
Another usage of "eos" consistent with Matthew 1:25 and 28:20 is Matthew 27:8 "For this cause the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, [eos] this day."
Clearly, the field did not get renamed as soon as the ink dried on Matthew's parchment.
Don't be embarrassed.
If it wasn't funny, it's not a joke. It's an attempted joke.
Is this supposed to be a verse from Isaiah?
I wasn't trying to amuse you.
Do you have a substantive comment?
No.
I have been told that God absolutely DOES need us to cooperate with Him. I have been told that this is the only way God can achieve His desire "to save all men".
Acceptance of His grace does not "earn" you points for salvation. Your salvation is not a simple one-moment event. One Orthodox priest once said it's like getting a visa to America and all you have is a dinghy at the coast of France (and a whole Atlantic Ocean in between)!
So if you do the work and row across, then you "earn" your salvation. God will point the way, but you are the one who is rowing. Why bother going to the trouble unless salvation is what awaits on the opposite shore?
Accepting Christ does not stop the world around you. You still have to deal with the world and everything it dishes out to you. Just because you are "saved" does not mean you now "rate" special treatment. How many Christians say "How could this happen to me? I go to Church, I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior and yet these things happen to me..."
Yes, I completely agree with you here. In fact, I would even say that in a sense being "saved" will rate you worse treatment. God tells us not to worry about whether we will be persecuted, we definitely WILL BE! :)
Ultimately, what matters is not whether we "succeed" or not, but whether we remain Christ-like in our hearts. No one is immortal, so we are all slaves to death whether we believe or not. The only "guarantee" we have is our faith that Christ can unshackle us from it.
What? For us, the goal is not what is important? I'll bet you wouldn't say that if you just barely missed theosis. (I'm sure you won't. :) ... And, that sure doesn't sound like much of a guarantee to me. I don't see it as taking much faith to believe that Christ CAN do something. The trick is to know that He WILL. I believe that the Bible has plenty of passages that say just that.
Success is a relative term. It can be measured not with how much you have or make but how happy you are.
Sure, in our daily lives this is true and it is important to keep a Godly perspective. But in the eternal sense, success means winding up in the eternal presence of our Lord.
Is this another problem with intercessory prayer or with whether the saints in heaven are "dead"?
I forgot the third possibility: A problem with the use of the word "pray" to mean "ask.'
LOL.
I am genuinely puzzled how the Protestant insistence that Mary was expecting to sexually consummate her marriage to Joseph squares with their hypothesis that she immediately understood that she was to be the prophesied virgin. It, too, fails the basic logic. Let's say the Isaiah connection was clear to Mary.
-- Mary, you will have a son who will be a great King. It is foretold in Isaiah. You shall remain virgin through it.
-- Impossible: I am already virgin! Explain!
Logical, no?
Actually, even rowing isn't necessary. Once Jesus is in the boat, you are at your destination.
Joh 6:21
. Then they willingly received him into the ship: and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.
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.