Posted on 04/18/2008 11:33:27 AM PDT by annalex
You never quoted to me the Scripture that you said you were going to quote. What is it, if not from Luke? Please explain how what I said shows that I have only the "barest awareness of Catholic teaching on the matter".
Revelation 12 is certainly debatable, and I have studied it some, and the best exegesis I have seen from scholars is that the woman is Israel who brings forth the Messiah. The argument from the Catholic side (while perhaps not "nothing") that this is Mary doesn't hold water for too many reasons to go into here (but I can recommend a number of excellent commentaries - Baker Exegetical Commentary, "Revelation", by Grant R. Osborne is one of the best - you can check the Amazon reviews on it). Even should one accept the Catholic exegesis on Revelation 12, there is nothing in that to suggest that Mary should be prayed to, or can "intercede", etc.
"What Catholic sources have you availed yourself of?"
The Catechism. Also, I have read a lot of the early history of the church and writings of the early church fathers.
"You are familiar with the "New Eve" and "New Ark of the Covenant" teachings? My understanding is much of it comes from Irenieus (sp?) in the second century."
Yes, I am familiar with it, and I have no problem with it. Still, what does this have to do with praying to a person who is dead and now in the presence of the Lord? There is nothing in scripture that indicates the dead in Christ can do anything, are aware of anyone here on earth or what we're doing, or that they can "intercede" for anyone (or any other activity), except one offhand verse in Revelation that Catholic teaching extrapolates to a ridiculous level.
The verse is in Revleations (as I'm sure you know), the "elders" bringing the "prayers" to the throne of the Lord: from that one verse, Catholic teaching has extrapolated and invented a whole teaching about praying to saints and to Mary. It is, at least, the only thing I have ever heard John Martinoni(sp) or Scott Hahn or any other Catholic apologist ever be able to muster up to offer any evidence, scriptural or otherwise, for what is clearly an invented doctrine. It is, to say the least, a thin and hardly convincing argument on which to base an entire doctrine that borders, if not crosses, the line of idolatry.
Umm, I respect quite a number of Catholic teachers, theologians and scholars. But to suggest that Catholics are MUCH smarter is simply vainglory.
Let me quote you some names - if you're not familiar with them, go look them up on-line, better yet, check out their books. Catholics hardly have a lock on "SMART", because these gentlemen are some of the greatest scholars in the world, and generally recognized as such by even their liberal peers.
Craig A. Evans, Donald A. Carson, Darrel Bock, Daniel B. Wallace, Gary Habbermas, Craig Blomberg, Luke Timothy Johnson, and Bishop N.T. Wright.
Anyone of those gentlemen would give the best Catholic scholar a run for their money and then some. You don't find better scholars on the conservative side of things than Evans, Carson, Blomberg and Wright.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
AMEN! That is the way God intends for His will to be made known to His creation -- through the preaching of His word, received by the renewed mind and the new heart.
IMO any Protestant who would convert to Rome is somehow attracted to the outer appearances of things and not the inner truth. They are drawn to the colorful icons and pictures and wafts of incense and sounds of bells and the physical prostration of kneeling and the tactile sense of the Lord's Supper and the image of Mary smiling down on them and the rosary beads in their hands and the mnemonic sounds of the mass chanted over and over...
All very intoxicating. And none of it Scriptural. Instead of pointing to Christ risen, it all points to the creature's response on earth, and ignores the fact that we are spiritual beings made new in Christ who now, by God's grace alone, understand "spiritual things."
But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." -- Philippians 3:3;7-21"For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh...
Excellent points quite emphatically true.
Thx.
AMEN!
While it's more than clear that there are dozens and dozens of RCC doctrines without any basis in Scripture, I know of no Christian doctrine that does not have Scriptural support.
That is the definition of doctrine -- God's teaching in Scripture by His holy word and will.
Protestants may differ on infant baptism as opposed to adult baptism, but both views have their foundation in Scripture. Our job is to weigh the Scriptures and see where the truth resides, not to ignore the Scriptures and look to men and magisteriums for our reason to believe.
You never agreed to the reasonableness of my offer. That is, refrain from gratuitous assertions if I could prove the BVM's unique status before God, and not just as the only woman to bear Christ, either.
Please explain how what I said shows that I have only the "barest awareness of Catholic teaching on the matter".
Frankly, because your entire approach to the question evinces Protestant presuppositions, not the least of which is the idea that only doctrine demonstrated in Scripture can be binding.
The argument from the Catholic side (while perhaps not "nothing") that this is Mary doesn't hold water for too many reasons to go into here
Why not let's try one, and see how we do?
Even should one accept the Catholic exegesis on Revelation 12, there is nothing in that to suggest that Mary should be prayed to, or can "intercede", etc.
Why don't we restrict ourselves to one bird per stone? I find many truths of the Bible seem to be designed to be seen but not seen, and heard but not heard.
Also, I have read a lot of the early history of the church and writings of the early church fathers.
Does that mean you have not studied a systematic Catholic defense of the Marian dogmas?
Still, what does this have to do with praying to a person who is dead and now in the presence of the Lord? There is nothing in scripture that indicates the dead in Christ can do anything, are aware of anyone here on earth or what we're doing, or that they can "intercede" for anyone (or any other activity)
Are you aware of anything in Scripture that *specifically* precludes the possibility?
except one offhand verse in Revelation that Catholic teaching extrapolates to a ridiculous level.
Do you know of any Catholics that cite this verse as a basis for their belief, or do they cite it as an hopeful accommidation to Protestant demands for Scriptural proof of every practice they disapprove?
And if in fact the true basis of the Catholic practice of praying to the BVM or saints is rooted in what Catholics refer to as Sacred Tradition, rather than Scripture, are you not misrepresenting the Catholic position and berating them for not meeting a standard they never accepted in the first place?
It is, at least, the only thing I have ever heard John Martinoni(sp) or Scott Hahn or any other Catholic apologist ever be able to muster up to offer any evidence, scriptural or otherwise, for what is clearly an invented doctrine.
Are you opposed to "developed" doctrine? And even if that doctrine were "invented" as you say, under what principle do you deny the Church the authority to invent it, anyway?
It is, to say the least, a thin and hardly convincing argument on which to base an entire doctrine that borders, if not crosses, the line of idolatry.
Let us assume for a moment that the Marian devotion is indeed, idolatry. What does that matter so long as Catholics accept the Gospel as defined by Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-4? Is organized, albeit optional, idolatry more heinous than the myriad varieties practiced by Protestants each and every day through prideful ignorance of the more subtle but equally deadly sins?
No, it's tongue in cheek humour ;o) Please note who I was addressing.
Have you ever read D.A.Carson's comments regarding Matt 16:18? Google them sometime.
Yes, I have, and this line is of particular importance:
"Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken "rock" to mean anything but Peter."
Carson is hardly on the Catholic side, and he refers to the extremes with which Catholics interpret Jesus' words to Peter. In fact, I am in complete agreement with Carson and with the Catholic Church in regards to Jesus' referring to Peter as the rock, and not the very tortured extremes Evangelicals go to in denying that it is Peter that is the rock of which Jesus is speaking. I believe Jesus means Peter is the rock, just as Carson does. However I in no way extrapolate from that statement all that the Roman Church has arrogated to itself from that statement.
No more so than munching on heads of grain is "harvesting on the Sabbath."
...someone who says they will "...incur the wrath of Almighty God..." 1900 years after the fact, for not following an "assumption" is being rather elitist and hypocritical towards the very own words of the Father, through Jesus Christ Himself.
Not of necessity. The relevant question is "true or not."
And recognize, the man who denounces a prophet for presuming to speak for God is assuming the exact same authority, albeit in the negative, that the prophet claimed with his original proclaimation.
Really?
Now isn't it strange how Jesus Himself preached and expounded on the Scriptures for six or more hours to the disciples on the Emmaus road, but their eyes weren't openned to recognize him until the "breaking of the bread."
I won't bother to ask where that "definition" came from.
I don't know what you want me to agree to. But I am happy to hear what you have to say. Either say it, or let's just drop it.
"Frankly, because your entire approach to the question evinces Protestant presuppositions, not the least of which is the idea that only doctrine demonstrated in Scripture can be binding."
Only the doctrine demonstrated in Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I do not agree to the magisterium of the Church, or that it is infallible, or that it is always (notice, I don't say it can never be, just not always) of the Holy Spirit. Are you telling me that a Church that elected a Borgia as Pope, who had orgies in the Vatican, is infallible and always inspired by the Holy Spirit? Think again. In fact, I believe strongly that Martin Luther was God's judgment upon the Church for all of the evils, corruption, greed, and arrogance the Church descended into by the 1500's. The Church lost its way, and Martin Luther began the Reformation which returned Christ front and center, and punished the Church for its abandonment of its original mission. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
The argument from the Catholic side (while perhaps not "nothing") that this is Mary doesn't hold water for too many reasons to go into here.
Why not let's try one, and see how we do?
I gave you one of the primary arguments, that the woman in Revelation is not Mary but is Israel. The details of that argument are found in many good commentaries, specifically I mentioned Grant R. Osborne (you can look up his credentials, they're impeccable) and the Baker Exegetical Commentary. There are others. The primary argument is that this woman is not Mary but is Israel.
Also, I have read a lot of the early history of the church and writings of the early church fathers.
Does that mean you have not studied a systematic Catholic defense of the Marian dogmas?
I have read various things: the Catechism, the web pages on this issue from "Catholic Answers" (a good on-line Catholic apologetics resource), and various other items from Catholic web resources, as well as having listened to various Catholic apologists on EWTN radio, and such. Enough to get a detailed understanding of the doctrine and where and how they derived it, and what the standard apologetic arguments are for defending the doctrine. As to my opinion of the adequacy of their defense of the doctrine, well, I already gave you that.
Are you aware of anything in Scripture that *specifically* precludes the possibility?
This is an illogical argument. There's nothing in scripture to preclude me believing in elves or trolls, either, but I don't feel the need to make things up or try to derive arguments for things, when it comes to Jesus or my faith, simply because scripture doesn't preclude them. It's silly, to say the least, and a silly argument.
Are you opposed to "developed" doctrine? And even if that doctrine were "invented" as you say, under what principle do you deny the Church the authority to invent it, anyway?
The principle that I believe in the First Commandment.
Let us assume for a moment that the Marian devotion is indeed, idolatry. What does that matter so long as Catholics accept the Gospel as defined by Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-4? Is organized, albeit optional, idolatry more heinous than the myriad varieties practiced by Protestants each and every day through prideful ignorance of the more subtle but equally deadly sins?
What does it matter? Are you serious? How can you even ask such a question? Go to Exodus, find the Ten Commandments, read #1.
Yes, idolatry is more heinous. Idolatry is numero uno on God's list of commandments, and it's #1 for a reason. And this has nothing to do with the myriad other sins of Protestants or Catholics or Orthodox. We're not discussing any of that. Of course sin is sin and it's all equally ugly to God. Any Protestant denominations that are engaging in anything that is idolotrous (especially those that follow the Theology of Glory and the "Prosperity Gospel") are on the fast path to damnation and taking others with them. It's all wrong. But the worst possible thing one can do (it's a common liberal Democrat tactic, remember) is to say, "Well, maybe we are...but look at them, they do it too, see!". Come on, I respect you more than to believe you would resort to that kind of argument.
You said: ...their eyes weren’t openned to recognize him until the “breaking of the bread.”
Don’t confuse the matter by introducing real Truth, it interferes with the comfortable path of heresy.
Of course he's not, but that wasn't my point.
My point is Carson's explicit admission to widespread Protestant eisegesis (sp?) posing as exegesis.
That he tries to mitigate it is irrelevant to my point.
Christ said no, bless is he that hears/follows the Word.
Did not see anything about “harvesting on the Sabbath.”
But in the end it is what it is yet your figure head/tradition of man says otherwise 1900 years later.
Did not know Jesus said you soul rest on the fact that whether you believe or not who He “assumed” into heaven. I guess Paul/Peter/John forgot to mention that part, 1900 YEARS AFTER THE ASSUMED “TRUTH”.
In terms of salvation it's a MOOT point. In terms of truth it's 1900 years of idle speculation with the last 50+ a damnable offense. Get real.
God Bless.
Men's eyes are opened not by bread nor by words, but by the Holy Spirit at a time of God's choosing.
The bread and the words are instruments of grace. They are not the grace itself. And all who shun idolatry know the difference.
They are in error, of course. But they're free to do so.
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.