Posted on 02/19/2008 11:55:18 AM PST by NYer
I know that I was not the first Protestant to learn the truth about the Catholic Church; I am sure that this is a story you could probably hear from countless other people, changing only the names and places. I know that many have walked the road that I have; that road which leads home, to Rome!
I was born in 1975 to two God-fearing Southern Baptists in Dallas, Texas. My father had grown up Methodist, but became Baptist when he married my mother in 1968. From what my father has said, his family was mostly Methodist. His father and his paternal grandfather were both Thirty-Third Degree Masons. My father's paternal grandfather's father was even the founding pastor of the First Methodist Church of Dallas. Though I have heard the history of my father's family, I myself knew only a very few of them. A great majority of my mother's family was Baptist, with a smattering of Methodists here and there. I am fairly certain of one thing, however: there were no Catholics.
Since a very young age, I can remember going to church and Sunday school on Sunday mornings to listen to the preacher and my Sunday school teachers talk about Jesus, and how He would save us from the fires of Hell. Every Sunday morning, my parents and I would sing in church and listen to the sermons. Though we didn't usually attend the Sunday evening services, I knew that once a month on a Sunday evening, an event called The Lord's Supper would happen. At this Lord's Supper, the preacher would begin passing around large round trays made of chrome. One of the trays had tiny crackers on it, and the other one had little cups of grape juice. I can remember that before I was baptized I wanted to take part in this event, but my parents would not let me. They did not explain why I shouldn't, other than I hadn't been baptized yet. Just as it is in the Catholic Church, Baptism is an initiation of sorts into the active life of the church community. (Of course, to a Catholic, it is that and much more. I would not know this until much later.) A few years went by, and when I was about eight years old, I decided that I wanted to be "saved" and get baptized. To get "saved," you would pray a little prayer like, "Dear Jesus, please come into my heart and forgive me of all of my sins. I ask you to become my personal Lord and Savior. All these things I pray in Jesus' name. Amen." From a Baptist viewpoint, being baptized is only a symbol, and nothing more. In other words, for a Baptist, baptism isn't really necessary for salvation. After I got baptized, I was able to partake in the Lord's Supper. I asked my father what the Lord's Supper meant, and he said that it represented the body and the blood of Jesus. That is to say, it represented the sacrifice that He made for us on the Cross. My father then read the passage from a King James Bible that told about the establishment of what we called The Lord's Supper: "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:19-20, KJV)" I asked why it was that we only did this once a month, and even then at the evening service (most people went to the morning service). My father thought about it for a minute, then he said that the Catholics do it every Sunday at all of their services. (In actuality, most Catholic churches have at least one Mass every day except Good Friday; Catholics are bound to attend Mass only on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.) He said that perhaps we do it less often so as not to imitate them. As you can imagine, I did not understand this for what it was. The Baptists, and many other Protestant groups, were concerned that the "Lord's Supper" would become the focus of the church service rather than the sermon. Though there are some Protestant churches that have communion every Sunday, none of them place the same importance on the Eucharist that the Catholic Church does.
My father had nothing personal against Catholics; in fact, of all the people in my family, he probably liked them more than anyone else in our family did. My mother had a problem with the Catholic Church, but if you asked her why, she really couldn't tell you. She would give the same rote answers that many Protestants had been giving for centuries. "They worship the Pope, Mary, and the Saints." "They think a person can forgive their sins rather than God." She couldn't explain why she believed these things, or in the case of the last statement, she couldn't explain why a person couldn't say that your sins are forgiven. When I finally asked her why she thought a person could not forgive sins after the Bible said that Christ gave that power to the Apostles, she said she'd just rather confess directly to God. I believe that the real reason that she did not like Catholicism was because her father did not like it. I really believe that was the main reason. For some reason, my maternal grandfather (whom we have always called "Smittie") has a fairly wide streak of anti-Catholicism in him. Even as a child, I remembered him complaining every time the Pope was on television or in the newspaper. Whenever we were at a restaurant or shopping and we saw someone with a large family (four or five kids or more), he would often joke that they must be Catholic. The ironic thing about his dislike of the Church is that virtually all of his friends (excepting those from his church) since he became an adult were Catholic. I don't think that he had anything personal against individual Catholics; it was the Church that bothered him. Smittie was in England during World War II, and he found many friends there, all Catholic. He always spoke highly of them. He missed them all very much, too; all but a few of them had been killed in the war and those few survivors had died since. To this day, I do not know what makes Smittie think that the Church is somehow diabolical or at the very least, misled. I've often wondered if it had something to do with his association with Freemasonry. By the way, he is a Third Degree Mason (Master Mason), though he has not been an active Mason for many years.
Now you can see where I came from. A Southern Baptist upbringing with lots of anti-Catholic influence from just about everyone in my family and my church, with the possible exception of my father. If, when I was in high school, someone had told me that I would one day become Catholic, I would have literally laughed in his face. By the time I was fifteen, I had truly learned to have contempt for the Catholic Church. Not Catholic people, you understand, just the beliefs of and possibly the clergy of the Church. I figured that most Catholics were simply misled, and too ignorant to realize it. After all, "everyone knows" that Catholics are forbidden to read the Bible, right?! [a common Protestant myth]
I entered high school and turned fifteen at about the same time, and high school was a much bigger place than the middle school where I had attended. I decided to get involved in some of the clubs in school to make friends, and one of the clubs was called Raiders for Christ (the Raiders was the school mascot). This club was made up of mostly Protestant and "Evangelical" Christians of various denominations. In the meetings, we talked about "witnessing" to people, getting "saved," and how we should carry our Bible around as a good example to others. I decided that I would try to talk to people in classes and invite them to church with me. From some people, I got a fairly good response. Some would say they had already been "saved," and currently attended another church. Some would say that they had been "saved" and that they felt that church was not necessary because they read the Bible often anyway. I had no problem with these people. However, I ran into some that caused problems. As you can guess, these were the Catholics.
Many Catholics that I met did not know their faith very well, but they did go to Mass every Sunday. I derided them for not knowing why they believed the things that they believed. I said that it was apparent that the Catholic Church was based on blind faith and that reason was nowhere to be found. I told several people that if they did not renounce the Catholic Church and accept Christ as their "personal Lord and Savior," that they would most certainly go to Hell. I'm sure that these people did not appreciate what I was saying, and I am quite thankful that they were more charitable to me than I was to them. One particular Catholic with whom I made friends was a teacher at the school. In fact, she was one of the sponsors of an extra-curricular organization of which I was a member for three years. She knew her faith VERY well, and for that I am glad. I admit, however, it was quite frustrating at times. After all, I couldn't win a debate with her. While she did not convert me to Catholicism, she did put me on the right track. I quit harassing the Catholics so much and tried to see them as fellow Christians rather than "the enemy."
I graduated from high school, still a Baptist, though not a particularly devout one anymore. I didn't go to church very often, and I had begun to lose faith; not so much in God as in being Baptist. I felt that there were contradictions between what the Bible says and what the Baptists teach. For instance, Baptists teach that once you are "saved," you are always "saved." That is practically a dogma of the Baptist Church, as well as some other Protestant churches: "once saved, always saved." The problem here, is that there is no support in the Bible for this position. Scripture does refute this position: "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12, KJV)" (If you notice, I quote from the King James Version of the Bible because it is the universally accepted version of the Bible in Protestant churches.) Considering that a favorite saying of the Baptists was "No creed but the Bible," you can see why I was beginning to be skeptical. Here are some more (though certainly not all) doctrinal paradoxes:
|
The Baptist Myth |
What the (King James) Bible Says |
"Alcoholic beverages are inherently bad." |
"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. (1 Timothy 5:23, KJV)" "So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. (John 4:46, KJV)" |
"Dancing is bad." |
"And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. (2 Samuel 6:14, KJV)" |
"Salvation (being saved? occurs in an instant." |
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Phillipians 2:12, KJV)" |
"We only need Scripture, not traditions." (This is an attack on the Catholic belief in Sacred Tradition. It is a pillar of the Protestant Reformation known as Sola Scriptura) |
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2 Thessalonians 3:6, KJV)" |
"Everyone can interpret Scripture for him/herself." (In other words, we don’t need an authoritative body like the Magisterium, or teaching office, of the Catholic Church to interpret for us.) |
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20, KJV)" |
"Faith alone, not works, will get you saved." (This is one of the other main principles of the Protestant Reformation: it is called Sola Fide) |
"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:26, KJV)" |
The list is seemingly endless, so I’ll stop here. As you can see, many of the beliefs of both the Protestant Reformation in general as well as the Southern Baptist Convention were at odds with the Bible. And not just any Bible, but even the one that the Protestants so cherished! (Rest assured, these verses are not much different in a Catholic Bible.)
At any rate, I was nineteen years old, and attending a major public university. I was exposed to many things that I had never been around before, mostly because my parents were somewhat over-protective of me. I felt quite far from God during my first year in college. Toward the end of my freshman year, my girlfriend from high school, whom I had been dating for over three years, and I broke up. I started dating a younger Catholic girl who lived in the Dallas area. Her uncle was actually a bishop in the northeastern United States. She was not particularly devout, but at the time, it didn’t matter to me. Actually, I figured that if we ended up together it would be easy to convert her to Protestantism and away from the Catholic Church. After we had been dating for about a month, her sister was graduating from high school, so I went to see her sister’s baccalaureate Mass. I had never been to a Mass before; I had been inside a Catholic church maybe once or twice before in my whole life. When I got home that night, I cried because I thought that since she was Catholic, she would be doomed to Hell if I couldn’t help her "see the light". However, the more I thought about what I had seen, the more intrigued I became.
First of all, the Mass was not what I had been told that it was: a pagan ceremony. To those of you reading this who are Catholic, this may seem humorous, but many Protestants, especially those leaning toward "fundamentalism," seem to think that Catholics are pagans or Satan worshippers or something along those lines. I don’t know where this myth got started, but I would sure love to put it to rest. For those of you not familiar with the Mass, here is the basic structure:
Uncomfortable? Oh my. I proclaim it. I rejoice in it. I trumpet it. I have gone on at excessive length about how the only thing I can do to contribute to the process is die, die daily. If any good at all is ever done in the "saint" it is done by The Most Holy Trinity. And you say I am uncomfortable.
Inkblot again, I think. You are bringing to your reading your assumptions about me.
MY soteriology? What do you know about my soteriology? I mean that literally, not as a rhetorical way of saying, "You know nothing about my soteriology." And are you speaking of M-D's soteriology or of the RC Church's soteriology?
I think the differences between most "reform" Prot. soteriology and RC soteriology is subtler than people see and that people keep on using a chain saw on a question that needs a scalpel.
My complaint is that if I said "have faith," or "try faith" I fear you all would immediately say, "See there? Works theology!" And when I assert that we speak loosely, that there is a difference in language between the advice of piety and the attempt of theology this is treated as a new idea.
You all say there is this great huge difference between us, and then you blame a misunderstanding on my perversity.
What I AM uncomfortable with is that when I say "A," you say I said "B" and that "A" makes me uncomfortable. It is as if I never spoke at all, that long long ago someone decided what Catholic beliefs were and the testimony of an fairly articulate Catholic who is a former Calvinist is taken as so remorselessly unreliable that he can say in a hundred different ways, "It's ALL gift -- ALL of it!" and he will be told, "You don't mean that, you don't think that. I know what you think better than you do."
THAT makes me uncomfortable.
Oh well, it's good preparation for a talk to a group of people who will come into the Church on Easter: Prepare to have a bunch of folks never believe a word you say for the rest of your life -- only stupid venal fools utterly incapable of personal insight would become Papists, so you poison your well merely by annoiuncing your religious affiliation.
As I said, someone was so outraged by my conversin that she lit into me at my Mother's funeral! Being Catholic was so grave a crime to this Protestant that I forfeited the basic courtesies owed to the bereft.
I should take it as an honor that such people say I am willfully disingenuous.
This thread has become contentious and I am out of here. Too many people know too many things that aren't true for any good to come of this.
The Psalms must be missing from your Bible, as well as Revelation.
“Say 5 Hail Mary’s and you will be forgiven”,
You don't understand how the sacrament of Confession works. If you did, you wouldn't make a misinformed statement like this. Really. If you're going to berate my religion, at least know what you're talking about.
Please point out where Scripture identifies itself as the sole deposit of faith.
[crickets]
Read Psalm 119.
Why is God’s word not sufficient for you?
God’s Word doesn’t instruct that it’s sufficient. If God’s Word was sufficient, Our Lord would not have sent the Apostles out to preach. He would have ordered them to sit down and start writing the Gospels, and then hand out texts. Since the Gospels were not written for several decades after the death and Resurrection of Our Lord, anyone who declaims oral tradition needs to first demonstrate why Jesus left a Church without any New Testament with which to convey His Word, and why He would deprive anyone of the sole deposit of faith for roughly forty to fifty years.
As I stated, Sola Scriptura demands that matters of faith depend only on Scripture, yet Sola Scriptura is a concoction of Protestant traditon, not anything based in the Scripture it gives sole power to. If there’s no proof in Scripture that Scripture alone is efficacious, on what basis do you believe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?
With regard to “vain repetition”, I recommend reading Psalm 136, and see if you can identify any repetition.
I also recommend Revelation 4:8:
“And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all round and within, and day and night they never cease to sing, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”
Are the angels defying Christ? That would make them demons.
So what’s the definition of “repetition” vs. Jesus’ words “VAIN repetition”?
The definition of “vain” is as follows:
“Characteristic of false pride; having an exaggerated sense of self-importance”
Jesus’ specifically condemned VAIN repetition, not “repetition” itself. Since you place the utmost importance in every word of Scripture, I find it puzzling that you ignore this adjective for the sake of condeming any kind of repetition whatsoever. The Lord made clear that vanity in prayer is a sin - i.e., the Pharisees on the street corner vs. praying in your room where only God sees you. Thus, repetitive prayer designed to draw attention to oneself instead of to God is worthy of condemnation, but to extend this to all repetitive prayer is not exegetically sound, since the angels contradict this very command.
>>God’s Word doesn’t instruct that it’s sufficient.<<
On the contrary, it does. Why would God leave us His word to guide adnd direct if it werent’ sufficient?
Ps 119:160 - “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.”
Moses instructed not to change the Word in the OT, the angel warned John not to change it in the NT. Why would such warnings exist if scripture wasn’t sufficient? Why would such care be necessary?
>>He would have ordered them to sit down and start writing the Gospels, and then hand out texts.<<
All in His time, according to His perfect plan. Read John 16. The Holy Spirit would come to them at the appointed time, and at the appointed time would remind them of what He had spoken to them. The oral tradition came directly from first-hand accounts. Paul’s writings and teachings were written as letters and sent to individual churches to be read and passed along to others. Paul based his understandings through the Spirit on what was already written. The Bereans didn’t accept his teachings until they compared them to scripture. Scripture is the benchmark - not fallible, sinful men in funny looking hats.
>>Vain = “Characteristic of false pride; having an exaggerated sense of self-importance”<<
And “Hail Mary” is exactly that.
We repeat the choruses in many hymns, that does not make them vain. David’s psalms used repetitive text to glorify God, that is not vain. The angels worship the Lord using repetitive language, that is not vain.
Repetitive hailing and giving glory & grace to a dead female sinner; and expecting her to pray/petition/intercede for you IS vain. And it will gain nothing. We have only one who intercedes to God the Father (the ONLY “Holy Father”, by the way), and that’s God the Son - Jesus Christ.
>>Jesus’ specifically condemned VAIN repetition, not “repetition” itself. Since you place the utmost importance in every word of Scripture, I find it puzzling that you ignore this adjective for the sake of condeming any kind of repetition whatsoever.<<
I most certainly did not ignore it. I suggest you go back and re-read my earlier post, I included the word ‘vain’.
Secondly, I was not equating ‘vain repititions’ to any prayer offered in Scripture. I equated vain repititions to the ‘Hail Mary’ chants and the Emergent Church’s ‘Sinner’s Prayer’ - neither of which we are exhorted to do according to Scripture.
If Scripture is all there is, why didn't He just leave it behind when He ascended to heaven? The implication from your POV is that Jesus purposely left the Apostolic Church adrift without the lifeboat of the New Testament. Do you really believe that?
The obvious retort will be, "well, that's why the Holy Spirit came". Which would beg the question, at what point did the Holy Spirit leave and Scripture took His place? If you want to state that "only Scripture" is beneficial, then there is no other conclusion but that the Holy Spirit is incapable of enlightening man by His own power, which, I think you would agree, is heretical.
Ps 119:160 - “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.”
Amen, my friend! But His "word" is not only that which is written, but that which is passed on orally from generation to generation. "Words" are spoken much more frequently than they are written, so I don't see any explicit evidence that "word" refers only to its written form. God's act - Creation - was the Word spoken ("And God said...and God said...And God said..."), not written.
Moses instructed not to change the Word in the OT, the angel warned John not to change it in the NT. Why would such warnings exist if scripture wasn’t sufficient? Why would such care be necessary?
Yes! Every single word of Scripture is Truth. But nowhere does it claim to be the only source. If it were, then Sacred Scripture could not be inspired by the Holy Spirit, since the New Testament authors were not working off Scripture, but employing the oral tradition which WAS the Gospel. If Scripture is the only source of Truth, then the New Testament itself is suspect by virtue of its origins. That said, because it is Truth, any alteration would be a grievous sin. But if it were the only source, the nascent Church would have died in the cradle for lack of a source of Truth.
All in His time, according to His perfect plan. Read John 16. The Holy Spirit would come to them at the appointed time, and at the appointed time would remind them of what He had spoken to them.
Yes. The Holy Spirit came at Pentecost. When does Scripture say that the Holy Spirit left? And again, Jesus never commanded the Apostles to write anything down. If it was the sole matter of importance, as you claim, how could the Lord neglect to instruct them of this? That's simply not a credible stance. Scripture doesn't even indicate that the Holy Spirit told anyone to write the Gospels. The only instance of anyone being told to write anything is found in the Revelation to John, which was written much later than the Epistles.
The oral tradition came directly from first-hand accounts. Paul’s writings and teachings were written as letters and sent to individual churches to be read and passed along to others.
Sorry to disagree, but the Gospel of Luke employed the sources of Paul and Mark - both of whom qualify as second-hand testimonies. Luke was totally removed from the original Twelve. The only firsthand witness he had access to, it appears, was Mary.
Paul based his understandings through the Spirit on what was already written. The Bereans didn’t accept his teachings until they compared them to scripture. Scripture is the benchmark - not fallible, sinful men in funny looking hats.
If you think the Church doesn't use Scripture as a benchmark for its teachings, it only demonstrates that you haven't actually read any of the encyclicals, proclamations, and letters of the Vatican, nor the Catechism itself. The difference is, Scripture isn't the only source, but Tradition as well, which the Church teaches is protected by the Holy Spirit which remains with her. Again, if the Holy Spirit went away, I'd love for you to point it out. And if the Holy Spirit's only role were to inspire Scripture, then His work is done? You can't have it both ways. As for "funny men in hats", Jesus' delegation of authority to Peter and the Apostles directly contradicts the notion that fallible, sinful men - such as the Apostles - are superceded by Scripture which did not exist during their time on Earth. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom - why didn't Jesus just whip up a New Testament and distribute an endless supply of those like loaves and fishes? Your stance insinuates that Jesus cared more about handing out fish instead of providing the almighty single source of Truth.
Repetitive hailing and giving glory & grace to a dead female sinner; and expecting her to pray/petition/intercede for you IS vain.
You've chosen to define "vain" as an unproductive effort, not "self aggrandizement". Can I ask why? This approach contradicts Christ's own testimony about the woman who repeatedly petitioned the judge who finally granted her request. Christ advocated never giving up in prayer, but your stance advocates that repetition is not only useless, but evil. Who should I believe? Your view seems to stem from prejudice against the Church. Mine is supported by Jesus' similar discussions about vanity in prayer.
Additionally, prayer is not "giving grace". And if Mary is "dead", then I take it you don't believe in eternal life? God described Himself as "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob", all of whom were dead when these words were spoken. Why would He refer anyone to a bunch of dead guys?
You're probably going to respond that dead people can't hear our prayers. And I will then ask you to explain how Peter raised Tabitha from the dead at the sound of his voice. Scripture proves indisputably that the dead can hear our prayers. The book of Revelation explicitly demonstrates that the saints intercede for us.
>>Vain = “Characteristic of false pride; having an exaggerated sense of self-importance”<<
And “Hail Mary” is exactly that.
It is? Just because? I wish you'd pick a defintion of "vain" and stick with it.
What about, "all generations shall call me blessed"? That's pretty vain, wouldn't you say? I would think that would immediately disqualify her for the motherhood of the Son of God, don'tcha think? Especially for someone "full of grace" (what, an archangel heaping praise on a human being!??)
I most certainly did not ignore it. I suggest you go back and re-read my earlier post, I included the word ‘vain’.
You included the word, but subtracted its meaning from your exegesis, therefore, it appears that you ignored that the word was even there.
Secondly, I was not equating ‘vain repititions’ to any prayer offered in Scripture. I equated vain repititions to the ‘Hail Mary’ chants and the Emergent Church’s ‘Sinner’s Prayer’ - neither of which we are exhorted to do according to Scripture.
Once again, I challenge you to demonstrate where Scripture presents itself as the sole deposit of faith. You continue to appeal to Protestant tradition instead of Scripture. If Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture, then it's not scriptural, and by virtue of your own faith system, must be rejected. Will you meet this challenge or continue to throw up strawmen?
Jesus didn't command anyone to "write down what I do" while He was on earth. Then again, He might have, but since it's nowhere in Scripture, according to your POV, it's impossible to believe that He ever did.
>>If Scripture is all there is, why didn’t He just leave it behind when He ascended to heaven? The implication from your POV is that Jesus purposely left the Apostolic Church adrift without the lifeboat of the New Testament. Do you really believe that?<<
Of course not. He instructed them to go into all the nations and make disciples; and they used his teachings to do so. When the Holy Spirit came upon them at Pentecost, it guided them in truth.
>>Which would beg the question, at what point did the Holy Spirit leave and Scripture took His place?<<
Never. The two go together. The unsaved can read all the Scripture he wants, but it won’t mean anything without the Holy Spirit - to interpret, convict, and guide.
I never said that “only Scripture” is beneficial. I said it is the benchmark to which teachings are to be compared. If the teaching doesn’t align with Scripture, it’s heretical and false.
>>but that which is passed on orally from generation to generation.<<
As long as what’s being passed on can be approved by Scripture, then fine. If it can’t, then it has no place being taught.
>>”Words” are spoken much more frequently than they are written, so I don’t see any explicit evidence that “word” refers only to its written form. God’s act - Creation - was the Word spoken (”And God said...and God said...And God said...”), not written.<<
And His law was then written down. First on the heart, then as the Law. If what you claim is true, Christ himself, as well as the authors of the Epistles would have never needed to reference OT law.
>>Every single word of Scripture is Truth. But nowhere does it claim to be the only source.<<
Then why do you need another source? If every word of Scripture is true, why do you need to go elsewhere?
Either:
1. You don’t trust Scripture
2. You don’t trust the Holy Spirit to illuminate Scripture for you
3. You prefer to trust fallible, sinful men instead.
>>But if it were the only source, the nascent Church would have died in the cradle for lack of a source of Truth.<<
Again, you deny the power of the Holy Spirit (which is infallible), and place your trust on men (who is very much fallible).
>>And again, Jesus never commanded the Apostles to write anything down.<<
How else are you to teach something to someone, and have it stand the test of time, unless you write it down? Ever play the “telephone” game as a kid, where you start at one end of the line with a phrase, and after it’s whispered one to the other to the other, down a line of 20 kids; by the time it gets to the end it’s nothing like the original. Writing down the message is a pretty important way to ensure it will stand the test of time.
Again, men are sinful, God is not - his Spirit is not. I’ll trust Him over men any day of the week.
>>Peter was given the keys to the kingdom - why didn’t Jesus just whip up a New Testament and distribute an endless supply of those like loaves and fishes?<<
Gifts given to the 1st Century church were to establish the authenticty of what they were preaching. They were to lay the foundation with Christ as the cornerstone. That included documenting and writing letters to other churches.
>>You’ve chosen to define “vain” as an unproductive effort, not “self aggrandizement”.<<
I haven’t. Worshipping Mary is both unproductive and vain. Not to mention a violation of the 1st and 2nd commandments (2nd for the front lawn ‘Mary on the Half-Shell’ crowd.)
>>Christ advocated never giving up in prayer, but your stance advocates that repetition is not only useless, but evil.<<
Not in the least. Abraham repeated his prayer to God to spare Sodom & Gomorrah and it worked. We are certainly to be fervent and persistent in our prayer life. But hailing Mary does neither of those, as she’s not our intercessor to God the Father - Christ, and Christ alone, is.
>>And if Mary is “dead”, then I take it you don’t believe in eternal life? God described Himself as “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob”, all of whom were dead when these words were spoken. Why would He refer anyone to a bunch of dead guys?<<
Mary is physically dead. She cannot hear you any more than my grandfather can hear me. Spiritually-speaking, I have no idea, as Scripture never mentions her anywhere else outside of the Gospel. If prayers to her, begging for her intercession were important, why wouldn’t anyone else mention it in scripture?
>>And I will then ask you to explain how Peter raised Tabitha from the dead at the sound of his voice.<<
See the above note on the special gifts bestowed to the 1st Church to establish it’s credibility.
>>Scripture proves indisputably that the dead can hear our prayers. The book of Revelation explicitly demonstrates that the saints intercede for us.<<
No, they don’t. Their offering of the bowls of ‘the prayers of the saints’ can only be loosely interpreted to mean what you wish it to mean. Revelation is largely symbolic, with literalism mixed in, and interpreting it is a careful process; whereas Romans and Hebrews are quite clear and literal on Christ’s role as our only intercessor and Great (final) High Priest. You can take the challening over the obvious if you wish, but I won’t.
Why is there a need for the saints to intercede for us? Is Christ not sufficient? Why is anything or anyone else necessary, unless Christ’s work on the cross was not complete?
>> I would think that would immediately disqualify her for the motherhood of the Son of God, don’tcha think? Especially for someone “full of grace” (what, an archangel heaping praise on a human being!??)<<
She’s no more full of grace or favored than anyone else in Scripture who was chosen by God for a specific purpose. Joseph, David, Abraham, etc. In fact, any saved Christian, saved by grace and indwelled with the holy spirit, is exactly as “full of Grace” as Mary was. God shows no partiality, but uses certain people for certain reasons to carry out His perfect will.
Would you hail Ruth? Esther? Hannah? in the same way?
So, in closing, I’ll reiterate my questions to you:
1. Why do you, personally, need anything more than Scripture?
2. Why do you, personally, need any other intercession than Christ’s?
3. Why do you, personally, need the interpretations and traditions of men over trusting the Holy Spirit to illumine scriptural truths for you?
Why are those things not sufficient for you? Why do you need Christ + ___, or the Scriptures + _____, or the Holy Spirit + ______.?
Sola is a beautiful and uncluttered word!
I don't disagree.
Never. The two go together. The unsaved can read all the Scripture he wants, but it won’t mean anything without the Holy Spirit - to interpret, convict, and guide.
The Holy Spirit only enlightens the "saved"? How is someone guided off the path of destruction if the Holy Spirit only ministers to the "saved"?
I never said that “only Scripture” is beneficial. I said it is the benchmark to which teachings are to be compared. If the teaching doesn’t align with Scripture, it’s heretical and false.
Your previous posts indicated pretty clearly, "only Scripture". Are you flip-flopping now? I still don't see any scriptural evidence that it's the only benchmark. Especially since the very discernment of which books would comprise the canon was gauged by whether or not the scripture squared with oral Tradition. If anything, Oral Tradition is the elder of the written Word. Yet, they are BOTH, equally reliable deposits of faith.
As long as what’s being passed on can be approved by Scripture, then fine. If it can’t, then it has no place being taught.
Again, this flies in the face of the very fact that the various inspired/uninspired Gospels, letters, and apocalyptic writings were differentiated by virtue of whether or not they squared with the accepted oral traditions of the Church. They couldn't be squared against a New Testament canon that didn't exist, could they?
And His law was then written down. First on the heart, then as the Law. If what you claim is true, Christ himself, as well as the authors of the Epistles would have never needed to reference OT law.
The written law did not eliminate the spoken one. The two co-exist - they are not exclusive to each other.
Christ didn't need to reference the old law. He did so because the people were well versed in what it said, and employed it to draw the connection that it was being fulfilled in their presence. But Christ didn't walk around citing the old law. He even gave two NEW commands which were not written down until the Gospels came to be. Paul neither gave exclusivity to the old law, but also cited the importance of carrying on tradition.
Then why do you need another source? If every word of Scripture is true, why do you need to go elsewhere?
It's not a matter of need. God didn't need the Apostles to go out and make disciples of all nations, either, since He can simply will it of all people. But it was His will that they do so. Will you argue with that, too? God empowered the Apostles to make disciples by the spoken word, not the written. The written New Testament is no less efficacious, but there is no proof anywhere whatsoever that it supplanted oral tradition.
Either:
1. You don’t trust Scripture
2. You don’t trust the Holy Spirit to illuminate Scripture for you
3. You prefer to trust fallible, sinful men instead.
1. I totally trust Scripture. I also totally trust oral tradition. You want to make it mandatory that it's one or the other, and nowhere does God command this, in either oral tradition or Sacred Scripture.
2. No, I don't. Bible Christians can't seem to agree on anything. Why is the Holy Spirit failing so miserably?
If the Holy Spirit willed to enlighten us directly, one-by-one, there would be NO disagreement. How can anyone assert otherwise? Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, and by the laying of hands, this has been passed on from generation to generation through the Church which He established. The Holy Spirit guarantees the teaching authority of the Church, not do-it-yourself exegesis. The results of Protestant do-it-yourself exegesis are staggeringly bad, given the grotesque lack of unity among the various sects. (Really? The Holy Spirit wants gay, women bishops?)
3. Jesus preferred fallible, sinful men for the gargantuan task of spreading the Gospel to the world. Do you doubt His wisdom in doing so? Why or why not?
Again, you deny the power of the Holy Spirit (which is infallible), and place your trust on men (who is very much fallible).
No one's denying the power of the Holy Spirit to guide men. You're denying the power of the Holy Spirit to use whatever means He chooses to do so:
John 3:8
The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
How else are you to teach something to someone, and have it stand the test of time, unless you write it down?
Jesus taught by example. Was this lacking?
Gifts given to the 1st Century church were to establish the authenticty of what they were preaching. They were to lay the foundation with Christ as the cornerstone. That included documenting and writing letters to other churches.
So, at last count, only Matthew, Peter, Paul, James, and John, and Jude wrote letters/Gospels. Did all the others fail in their mission? And as far as I can tell, none of what you said can be found in Scripture.
Additionally, Christ can't be the Creator and the creation, so casting Him as the cornerstone implies that He is a part lesser than the whole (the Temple).
Not in the least. Abraham repeated his prayer to God to spare Sodom & Gomorrah and it worked. We are certainly to be fervent and persistent in our prayer life. But hailing Mary does neither of those, as she’s not our intercessor to God the Father - Christ, and Christ alone, is.
This belief contradicts Scripture:
1. Luke 6:28 - Jesus: "Bless them that curse you, and pray for them that calumniate you."
2. Matthew 5:44 - Jesus: "do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you:"
3. 2 Corinthians 13: - Paul: "For we rejoice that we are weak, and you are strong. This also we pray for, your perfection."
4. Colossians 1:9 - Paul: "Therefore we also, from the day that we heard it, cease not to pray for you..."
5. 1 Thessalonians 5 - Paul: "Brethren, pray for us."
6. 2 Thessalonians 3 - Paul:"For the rest, brethren, pray for us, that the word of God may run, and may be glorified, even as among you;"
7. Hebrews 13:18 - Paul: "Pray for us. For we trust we have a good conscience, being willing to behave ourselves well in all things."
8. James 5:16 - James: " Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much."
But hailing Mary does neither of those
Luke 1:28 - Gabriel: "Hail, full of grace..." Comments?
Mary is physically dead. She cannot hear you any more than my grandfather can hear me.
Again, I ask you, how did Tabitha hear Peter? How did Lazarus hear Jesus? The evidence in Scripture indicates that the dead can hear our prayers.
Spiritually-speaking, I have no idea, as Scripture never mentions her anywhere else outside of the Gospel. If prayers to her, begging for her intercession were important, why wouldn’t anyone else mention it in scripture?
Scripture doesn't mention a lot of things that we all, as Christians believe in - e.g., the Trinity, Christmas on December 25th, Sunday worship. Since Scripture abundantly endorses interceding to God for one another, and since the Catholic Church believes that the saints can and do intercede for us, there's nothing wrong with asking Mary for her assistance anymore than it would be wrong to ask a friend or loved one to say a prayer on your behalf.
See the above note on the special gifts bestowed to the 1st Church to establish it’s credibility.
That doesn't disprove that the dead can hear our prayers in Heaven. The proof is that she responded to his voice. Where's the contrary evidence?
No, they don’t. Their offering of the bowls of ‘the prayers of the saints’ can only be loosely interpreted to mean what you wish it to mean.
What does it mean then?
Revelation is largely symbolic, with literalism mixed in, and interpreting it is a careful process; whereas Romans and Hebrews are quite clear and literal on Christ’s role as our only intercessor and Great (final) High Priest. You can take the challening over the obvious if you wish, but I won’t.
A challenge? But I thought the Holy Spirit interprets Scripture for you. How can this be a challenge for someone who is enlightened by the Holy Spirit just by reading Scripture?
Why is there a need for the saints to intercede for us? Is Christ not sufficient? Why is anything or anyone else necessary, unless Christ’s work on the cross was not complete?
There's no need at all. It's a blessing that they do. But there it is, plain as day, in Revelation.
Christ is sufficient, but then, it was sufficient for Him to die for just one soul, if that's what He desired. He desired more and He gave us more. The communion of saints is a blessing, not a curse.
Why is anything or anyone else necessary, unless Christ’s work on the cross was not complete?
Christ's work on the cross completes mankind's atonement for Original Sin and give us access to the graces that Original Sin prevents us from having. By receiving these graces through the sacraments of penance, we receive forgiveness for our sins. Since we are still cursed with concupiscence, we still sin, and still require God's mercy. The death of Our Lord saves us from certain condemnation and provides the path to salvation, but it does not impose salvation on anyone since we all have free will to accept or reject those graces.
She’s no more full of grace or favored than anyone else in Scripture who was chosen by God for a specific purpose.
Facts are not in evidence. No one else was called "full of grace" (kecharitomene), so I don't see how you compare her with others who were given special missions.
In fact, any saved Christian, saved by grace and indwelled with the holy spirit, is exactly as “full of Grace” as Mary was.
Except that Mary was called "full of grace" before the act of Redemption. How is that?
God shows no partiality, but uses certain people for certain reasons to carry out His perfect will.
God showed an awful lot of partiality to Israel, wouldn't you say? They certainly did nothing to earn His affection.
Would you hail Ruth? Esther? Hannah? in the same way?
If a heavenly messenger, created as a higher being, came to them and saluted any of these women with praise, I would. But Mary is the only human being in Scripture (other than Christ) who enjoyed the veneration of an angel (an archangel, much less).
1. Why do you, personally, need anything more than Scripture?
As soon as I figure out why God needed to create the universe in the first place, I'll have an answer.
2. Why do you, personally, need any other intercession than Christ’s?
Because Christ Himself commands us to intercede for one another.
3. Why do you, personally, need the interpretations and traditions of men over trusting the Holy Spirit to illumine scriptural truths for you?
So I don't go off and create my own church, which ultimately belies the notion that the Holy Spirit is guiding much of anything.
Why are those things not sufficient for you? Why do you need Christ + ___, or the Scriptures + _____, or the Holy Spirit + ______.?
Because by that line of thinking, Christ, above all, is enough, and therefore, we do not even need the Scriptures or the Holy Spirit.
Sola is a beautiful and uncluttered word!
I'm grateful that God was not content with being Sola.
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.