Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Your statement indicates the incarnation hinged upon Mary-e.g since Mary did not walk away from infant Jesus this was all part of the Incarnation.
The Word became flesh and walked among us. Incarnation means "in flesh". So long as the Word was flesh, God was Incarnate. Had He become flesh and disappeared, Incarnation would have been one thing. But He didn't, so it means something quite different.
God could have chosen Jane, Agnus…
Or a tree or a bug or HarleyD or no one at all. But He didn't. Jesus had a mother, her name was Mary.
Protestants view the Incarnation as strictly God's action.
So I see. What isn't God's action if we wish to look at it this way? Carried to the extreme, pretty soon we end up at the place where nothing we do matters or has any meaning. It's a clockwork universe and you and I and Mary are but interchangeable cogs. And somewhere along the way, all is sound and fury.
But God entered human history in a new and marvelous way. That Christ became Incarnate matters, how He became Incarnate matters. How He lived and what He did matters. What Mary did matters. What you and I do matters. The universe has meaning. It is infused with meaning in each moment of its creation.
Thanks for your reply.
FK: "Yes Christ says that [we must become righteous — exceeding the righteousness of the Pharisees], and no, as far as I know that does not go against the teachings of Luther and Calvin."
Kosta: "Oh, I think you are in denial! It does very much so show that both Luther and Calvin were in grave error. That command puts the "becoming" on our shoulders and does not in any way suggest righteousness by imputation."
Well, I think Joe got me there and I unwittingly agreed to more than I bargained for. :) The actual verse says:
Matt. 5:20 : For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
At the time I did not understand the distinction between the status of righteousness and actually being righteous, as regards this verse. Lucky for me, it makes no difference in this case, as I'll explain below.
In this verse, all it says is "your righteousness". It does not distinguish between the status of righteousness and actually being righteous. But even if it is the latter, that command does not put "becoming" on anyone's shoulders, by itself. It describes a condition that must occur, it does not specify the manner in which it is achieved. Reformers believe that all of the elect will, in fact, become actually righteous. It's a matter of timing.
[JK in his 6242 responding to the same] FK, you are blowing me away here. Over the course of these discussions, you have remained consistent in that God does everything, we do nothing towards salvation. There is no cooperation, no transformation internally in man. Thus, we enter heaven, according to Luther and you, through the external righteousness of Christ, who covers over our own wickedness - since we can do nothing whatsoever of merit, even AFTER our regeneration.
NOW, you talk about imputed righteousness? That man has an ability placed within himself (after regeneration) to turn to God - to cooperate with the graces given? I am beginning to wonder if you are not becoming Methodist (which is an improvement - congratulations!)
I honestly do not know if there is any difference between extrinsic justification and imputed righteousness. I found very little on the former term. In my understanding of imputed righteousness, I do agree with it, but I have no knowledge of it involving any cooperation on the part of us. Can you point me to something that says that? As far as I know, man's cooperation has nothing to do with imputed righteousness.
My understanding of the two views on justification is that Apostolic Christians and Reformed Christians both believe that God DECLARES righteousness (in a forensic [legal] sense), and that God MAKES us righteous in an actual sense. Apostolics believe that both the declaration and the making happen at the same time, at Baptism. Reformers believe that the declaration happens at belief, when God imputes the righteousness of Christ on the believer. Then, God actually makes us righteous after physical death, for the elect.
I agree, thanks for your answer.
I was specifically asking about the actual beliefs of Honorius I. It appears that is the minimum he was held accountable for. Since an infallible Council declared that he had heretical beliefs, is this not a matter of faith and morals? How can a heretic be whole with the faith?
The Jews looked for a sign, and God provided that. (They were told all through the OT what to look for in the case of the Messiah.)
Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Now, the signs were not given to anyone else.
1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom....
THEN, when the Gospel was no longer being preached to the Jews, the signs stopped.
Go to www.justbible.com and see the pattern by searching using the word signs.
Sister.....
Absolutely correct. We can only read what the scriptures states.
Since I have no reason to think Paul wrote gnostic texts, I will not waste my time wandering around the internet looking for them.
Likewise. My feeling is that if I have to choose between the inspired word of God or someone claiming certain elements of the scriptures is suspect because it's Gnostic, I'll side with the scriptures. Otherwise one might as well become an atheist.
What an adorable two year old.
Intriguing observation, yet who believes the Da Vinci code and hopes it's true? Nobody I know. I suppose , using that analogy, it's ridiculous for a 20th century American to understand Greek and Hebrew or Pythagoras's theorem.
Yes, I believe that the Apostles were in a class by themselves.
The Church was still growing and were looking for ADULT converts to continue the faith. Once settling in, once they saw that Christ wasn't about to come again in glory in the next week, I think they saw that it was time to allow or expand the practice (to loosen, as their authority was given to do) to include infants.
But the Apostles could not have taught that it was proper to baptize an adult who was a non-believer. Surely, they understood that infants were also "non-believers" just in a definitional sense. So, it doesn't seem to me that they would be just expanding a practice to include more people, they had to change the meaning of it, didn't they?
On Mary being sinless, this would likely be more of a "feeling" based on the total teachings given. Being that the Apostles were around her for the entire three years of Jesus' ministry, she was in the Upper Room during Pentecost, was alive and under John's care for a number of years, I would say theologically AND historically, they had the evidence available to them to make the statement.
Now, now, you know as well as I that sin is also in thought, which none of the Apostles could have known as regards Mary. One example of Mary's sin that I have heard of was at the wedding in Cana. Frankly, I'd be willing to let that one slide. Objectively, I honestly don't see enough evidence. However, and since I'm thinking of it at this moment, :) is it a sin to disbelieve when one has no excuse? If it is, then how does Mary get out of the scene when she went to the tomb to anoint the body? She didn't bring the spices because she expected a risen Lord, EXACTLY when He said He would rise. The angel's question confirms this.
AH! So YOU DO pick and choose what YOU think is important! Apparently, you think "FK's bible interpretation" = the "Word of God". Jesus' attitude was about placing man above the sabbath - thus, we can bend the sabbath "rules" to take care of a person in need, or walk a mile to feed someone. ... -- This doesn't mean we pick and choose what day to give to God!
No, Jesus demonstrated that He is a Christ of common sense, especially on this issue. The day of Sunday was selected to legitimately honor Him. By the words of Christ Himself:
Mark 2:27 : Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
May I assume that you ignore this verse in defending your position that the only legitimate Sabbath is on a Saturday? (I assume that because you said that we don't pick and choose which day to worship God.) I didn't even know that Catholics don't worship on Sundays!
Thanks!!
First of all, it seems you all believe that Mary just couldn't of had sex because that would of made her somehow sinful.
May I remind you that God himself says that the marriage bed is undefiled?
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
BUT, when and if Mary was married AND withheld sex, THAT would of definitely been sinful!!
1 Corinthians 7:5
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
Now, let's address the most important issue, the fact that the Word of God does say that Mary and Joseph enjoyed an intimate martial relationship.
Each time the phrase "knew her" is used by God, it plainly means sexual intercourse,
whether it happened,
or whether it did not happen,
or when it happened.
Genesis 38:26
And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.
(He'd has sex with her once, but not again.)
Judges 19:25
But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
(They had sex with her many times.)
1 Kings 1:4
And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.
(They didn't have sex at all.)
Matthew 1:25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
(They didn't have sex until after Jesus was born, signifying his virgin BIRTH, which was prophetic.)
Now, you see how every easy it is to understand just what God is saying?
You don't have to turn to "Fr." so and so at EWTN or be told what to believe by some vain tradition! Especially when the tradition is at COMPLETE ODDS with God himself!
Through belief and faith in Christ alone, you can be free of the bondage of a false belief, one that denies the complete power of Christ, and gives his intecessory powers to a mere human being.
Think of how you have been betrayed by a false system that would tie your soul to Hell, and consider the freedom found in Jesus Christ.
John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Of course not in isolation, I believe that it was God's work that assembled the books of the Bible, such that when one scripture refers to "scripture" it includes all of the books, past, present, and future. Apparently, God hasn't seen fit to make any changes in quite some time.
The Community makes the claim that "this is the Word of God" - not based on its own merit, but on the community recognizing the Writings as such.
Then God certainly owes those gentlemen a debt of gratitude, seeing as how God could not inspire a Holy work that was self evident.
Then why don't the Jews believe in Jesus Christ? Why don't THEY accept the NT as Scriptures?
God tells us that to the non-elect, the truths of scripture are nonsense. It is apparent that many of the Jews that are related in the NT during the time of Christ did not have real faith, but also that many Jews did accept Christ.
I am beginning to become concerned over your apparent worship of the Bible.
And I was already concerned over your apparent worship of dead men and one particular woman. :)
Boy you pegged that one!!
I watch you doing this stupid trick for an umpteen time in amazement.
Stubbornly, you quote Matthew 1:25 which does not say anything about Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus. Then you are, of course, challenged on it. Then you produce a proof of something that no one is disputing, that to "know" is indeed an euphemism for sexual relation.
Then you repeat that stupidity of yours time after time. Relax. You don;'t understand the scripture. Find some other occupation (knitting?). Seriously.
Just face the fact, Mary was a sexual being, just like most married women.
The difference is that the Pythagoras' theorem exists in the realm of mathematics, and the scripture in its historical and cultural context.
She was fully human, yes, and there is no sin in marital sex. If you were paying attention to what people were telling you all along, you would not have wasted all this bandwidth arguing these points, because no one disputes them.
It is even possible to read Matthew 1:25 the way you read it. In the cultural baggage of the 20th century that is even the natural reading. But it is not the correct reading in the context in which St. Matthew wrote his gospel. The correct reading is, St. Matthew did not know if Mary had marital relations with Joseph and was not venturing any guesses.
No, theology exists independent of culture.
God isn't the author of confusion.
And the Scripture here is very clear.
Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
It's not a bad thing for a married couple to have sex.
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.