Posted on 05/30/2008 10:21:34 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Some of you will remember my recent decision to become a Catholic. I suppose I should be surprised it ended getting derailed into a 'Catholic vs. Protestant' thread, but after going further into the Religion forum, I suppose it's par for the course.
There seems to be a bit of big issue concerning Mary. I wanted to share an observation of sorts.
Now...although I was formerly going by 'Sola Scriptura', my father was born and raised Catholic, so I do have some knowledge of Catholic doctrine (not enough, at any rate...so consider all observations thusly).
Mary as a 'co-redeemer', Mary as someone to intercede for us with regards to our Lord Jesus.
Now...I can definitely see how this would raise some hairs. After all, Jesus Himself said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that none come to the Father but through Him. I completely agree.
I do notice a bit of a fundamental difference in perception though. Call it a conflict of POV. Do Catholics worship Mary (as I've seen a number of Protestants proclaim), or do they rather respect and venerate her (as I've seen Catholics claim)? Note that it's one thing to regard someone with reverence; I revere President Bush as the noted leader of the free world. I revere my father. I revere Dr. O'Neil, a humorous and brilliant math teacher at my university. It's an act of respect.
But do I WORSHIP them?
No. Big difference between respecting/revering and worshiping. At least, that's how I view it.
I suppose it's also a foible to ask Mary to pray for us, on our behalf...but don't we tend to also ask other people to pray for us? Doesn't President Bush ask for people to pray for him? Don't we ask our family members to pray for us for protection while on a trip? I don't see quite a big disconnect between that and asking Mary to help pray for our wellbeing.
There is some question to the fact that she is physically dead. Though it stands to consider that she is still alive, in Heaven. Is it not common practice to not just regard our physical life, but to regard most of all our spirit, our soul? That which survives the flesh before ascending to Heaven or descending to Hell after God's judgment?
I don't think it's that big of a deal. I could change my mind after reading more in-depth, but I don't think that the Catholic Church has decreed via papal infallibility that Mary is to be placed on a higher pedestal than Jesus, or even to be His equal.
Do I think she is someone to be revered and respected? Certainly. She is the mother of Jesus, who knew Him for His entire life as a human on Earth. Given that He respected her (for He came to fulfill the old laws; including 'Honor Thy Father and Mother'), I don't think it's unnatural for other humans to do the same. I think it's somewhat presumptuous to regard it on the same level as idolatry or supplanting Jesus with another.
In a way, I guess the way Catholics treat Mary and the saints is similar to how the masses treated the Apostles following the Resurrection and Jesus's Ascension: people who are considered holy in that they have a deep connection with Jesus and His Word, His Teachings, His Message. As the Apostles spread the Good News and are remembered and revered to this day for their work, so to are the works of those sainted remembered and revered. Likewise with Mary. Are the Apostles worshiped? No. That's how it holds with Mary and the saints.
At least, that's how my initial thoughts on the subject are. I'll have to do more reading.
FOUR CHURCHES
INTRODUCTION
The word “church” refers to people who are called out on some definite principle(s), and come together for some definite purpose(s). In the Scriptures, the particular people(s) who are thus called out, and the principle(s), and purpose(s) under which they are called out, must be determined from the context of the particular passage(s) (local context) you are studying. A common mistake made by many Baptists (as I identify with Baptist peoples) in our day is that of applying the same grand usage of the word to every context where the word “church” is found. This kind of failure to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15), and failure to compare spiritual things with spiritual (1 Corinthians 2:13), has led to Baptist “Bride-ism,” Romanism, Campbellism (”Church of Christ” and “Disciples of Christ,” American denominations which teach baptismal regeneration) and many other cults and factions. Failure to distinguish between various usages and the difference between peoples according to context (see 1 Corinthians 10:32) is also the cause of the general weakness, in our times, with regard to Scripture knowledge and application. Many pastors, and others, spiritualize and devotionalize the Scriptures away, to hold either to a modern evangelical or ecumenical use for the word “church” (sometimes called the “Universal Church”), or to a century-old, hyper-local church position (which I call “Carrollism” after B.H. Carroll), which tends to promote an extreme successionism and, in the end, denies the fullness of Christ. Both extremes come preconceived to the Scriptures, based on motive: the motive of the given adherents.
Temples (or gatherings) of Pagan worship are called “churches” (Acts 19:37), because they housed (or included) people called out and assembled; and that, to worship a false deity. They were meeting the basic definition of the word “church” as they were called out and assembled. Is the King James Bible mistaken by using the word “churches” in Acts 19:37? Certainly not! The Holy Spirit gave us such references so that we would know better than to believe that the word “church” always fits the “Baptist Brider’s” or the Vatican’s definitions (there are similarities between the doctrines and leadership styles of Rome and those of the “Baptist Briders,” especially in Roman Catholic-dominated countries where Baptist Briders have operated).
The root of the English word “church” is akin to the Scottish and Old English “kirk,” identifying something that “belongs to the Lord.” The word itself, as used in the English King James Bible, however, does not determine which lord, the true Lord God, or a false deity. This must be determined (and properly so) from the context.
It is interesting to note the New Testament books in which the word “church” is never used. They are Mark, Luke, John, 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter, 2 John and Jude. The books containing the most frequent uses of the word “church” are Acts, Revelation, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and Ephesians. The reasons will yield fruitful study, and so we give this listing. We don’t have space here, however, to follow this line of study out. You may want to do that yourself.
I ask my readers to consider one additional thing by way of introduction to our subject. If you were a Grecian, reading a Greek Bible, you would run across the Greek word “ekklesia” in the Old Testament for congregation or assembly. If you were a Hebrew, reading a New Testament translated into Hebrew, you would read the word “kahal” instead of either the word church or ekklesia. This is interesting in that it means that it would be difficult for Baptist-Briders to use the same arguments in those languages that they use by their manipulation and construction of English definitions.
James Christopher Smith was correct when he wrote that the word “church” “is never applied to a building or edifice, but always to people; never to the place of assembly, but to those assembled; not to the place of worship, but to the worshippers.”
The following will be a study from the exact words of the King James Bible. It will disregard tradition and the Baptist handbooks. The author encourages all readers to examine the Scripture references as you come across them.
Now on to visit the Four Churches. First we meet........
THE CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS
Acts 7:38
The first “church” in the Bible consisted of the Children of Israel; an assembly which was called out of Egypt into the wilderness for definite purposes (e.g. Deuteronomy 4:1-13). This is the church in the wilderness, led by God’s servant Moses (Acts 7:38). Israel was corporately God’s firstborn son (Ex. 4:22) and God called that son out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1). Yes, Hosea prophesied of God’s only begotten Son, Jesus (Matthew 2:15), because Israel itself, as a corporate Nation, was an Old Testament type of Christ, according to the flesh. The fact that Hosea chapter 11 refers to the Nation of Israel coming out from under Pharaoh’s bondage, however, is in no way negated. The “church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38) consisted of a single chosen and assembled Nation. In the case of Israel, not all of its individual members were saved, especially not in any New Testament sense. Not all of the Israelites in that “church” were the spiritual seed of Abraham.
To emphasize once again, in Acts 7:38 we read about a church that was a nation. This church was a political as well as a spiritual entity, and at times the spiritual part was all but non-existent. This church was a kingdom among the kingdoms of the earth. This church had earthly geographic and political boundaries. This nation-church had physical land grant promises made to it by God Himself. This church had laws that governed all earthly aspects of day-to-day life, similar to civil and criminal codes in modern nations. The Church of the current dispensation, the Body of Christ, on the other hand, has no earthly political position, as did Israel, because the Body Church is a heavenly people, not an earthly people. Also, no local church can be likened to the political earthly church spoken of in Acts 7:38 as far as its geopolitical presence. God promised no territory, political or otherwise, to either the Church which is Christ’s Body, or to any New Testament local assembly! The New Testament Church, while made up of “strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (Hebrews 11:13; 1 Peter 2:11), is subject to the laws of the various countries where Christians might be residing.
Christians in our current dispensation are not instructed to build separate Christian political entities reminiscent of Old Testament Israel. This mistake was made by Calvin in Geneva, and is attempted by the British Israelites and Postmillennial Reconstructionist cults. A nation may be overwhelmingly Bible-influenced and Christian-influenced, as was the United States at the time of its founding, but the New Testament Church has no land or territory promises, the likes of those God made to Abraham and his physical seed. Pastors are not kings on earth, nor are they earthly priests. Although faithful believers shall reign as kings and as priests unto God in the Millennial Kingdom, we do not assume any such position before we have our new bodies (Philippians 3:21). Pastors, therefore, are wrong to take to themselves the prestige or stature of kings or of priests. The error of men in the ministry assuming priestly position over other believers began to occur more and more from the third century, and that is why there is a Vatican State as a political entity with a king sitting, calling himself the Bishop of Rome and the Vicar of Christ. There are many pastors today who use Old Testament Israeli national kingdom passages to give themselves superiority and power over common people in their churches. They are mini-popes and their churches are mini-Vaticans.
Some of the Israelites were mere specks of the “dust of the earth” (Genesis 13:14-17), enjoying in their earthly lives God’s blessings and protection upon the physical Nation through which He would bring forth His Savior and King Son (the promised Seed of Genesis 3:15; Galatians 3:16). Those were mere earthly seed. Others, though, followed the faith of Abraham, and are typified by the untellable stars of heaven (Genesis 15:5, 6). Those will, in the resurrection and regeneration of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-7; 54:13-17; Jeremiah 31:34; Hebrews ch. 8; Ezekiel 36, 37; etc.), ascend to be more than a mere earthly people, along with receiving the land and Kingdom promises made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Christ. This, though, is not the New Testament Church (the Body of Christ).
Israel was a called out “congregation,” and thus could be called a “church” when mentioned in historical reference in the New Testament. It is the use of New Testament literary terminology to describe an Old Testament entity. See Exodus 16:2; 29:44; 33:7; Lev. 10:17; 16:33; Psalm 22:22; Isaiah 14:13; Joel 2:16. Just take your concordance and start looking up all of the Old Testament references to “congregation,” and you will see that this word describes Israel.
Israel was an “assembly,” again meeting the definition of a church (See Ecclesiastes title). As with “congregation” use your concordance and run the words “assembly” and “solemn assembly(ies)” and “assemble.” Examples include Isa. 11:12; 48:14; Jer. 4:5; Eze. 11:17; Deu. 9:10; 10:4; 18:16; Ps. 107:32; 111:1; Lev. 23:36; Num. 29:35; Neh. 8:18.
Treat what we are writing here with this caution: Israel, as an Old Testament “church,” should never be mistaken for any New Testament Church, or for the local churches of the New Testament era. Israel must never be equated with the “church” of Covenant Theology (of the Calvinistic, Amillennial or Postmillennial Reformers). We are allowing contexts to determine the usage of the term, “church.” We are not mixing up distinct bodies of people. The Holy Spirit keeps distinct bodies of people distinct (1 Cor. 10:32).
The members of this Old Testament Church, Israel, were those physically born in the seed line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with the promises and privileges thereof. Members could be added from among Gentiles—”strangers,” under certain God-ordained conditions, including circumcision (Ex. 12:48; 33:34; Josh. 5:2-5; many other passages). Membership could also be stripped (Ex. 12:19; Lev. 17:8; Num. 15:30; 1 Corinthians 10:5; many other passages).
Secondly, we examine….
That should actually be funny and it did make me laugh but there are so many out there who think that the same circumstances of America today were present almost 2000 years ago.
Yes, let the Lord do it. Certainly the protestant camp has failed miserable to do anything with the exception of delivering a variety of inelegant “Nuh-uh’s!”
You’d think a putative advanced education could improve on that, but not so far.
Cutting and pasting from various online protty sites, html colors and varying font sizes just don’t impress people like they used to. :D
I never heard of a practicing Christian asking some dead Christian to pray for them. Nor asking for prayer FOR the dead, whose fate was sealed in their lifetime by whether or not they accepted Christ as their Lord, and as the crucified and risen Son of God.
John 3:16 does NOT say, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that all who believe in Him might not perish, but have life everlasting... oh, yeah, and all those whose buddies prayed to Mary after they died. They're okay, too"
And in the Bible, Jesus Christ did NOT say, "I am the way and the truth and the life, and none shall come to the Father but through me... oh, yeah, except for all those whose family prayed to Mary once they had died. They'll get to God, too."
You big silly. What a card you are!
;-/
Maybe we should call all those priests in the news "pedo's." That would certainly take the sting out of their rampant, widespread and well documented practice of molesting children, huh?
And what about the various Diocese's practice of just shuffling them around to other churches instead of defrocking them? What a nice, Christian bunch. You must be SO proud!
:D
I just begged off on a couple of threads after actually spending the time to compose a reply. I compared my interactions with many non-Catholics as trying to argue with an alcoholic. You can never win an argument with an alcoholic because they are patronizing, condesending, their conscience is numb and they are always right. They know just how to needle you and push your buttons and if you ever get upset, they didn’t do a thing and are as innocent as the driven snow.
(Disclaimer) I’m not saying anyone is an alcoholic, I’m saying their behavior often resembles that of alcoholics.
What is this affinity the protestants have for demanding, over and over, answers to the same questions that have been addressed multiple times on this thread?
How is it that they miss whole discussions for which the explanations they’ve demanded yet anew from yet another prottie poster who is new to the thread?
Between the protestants who are asking the same questions multiple times, and the ones going back a thousand posts every night to post one line answers that make no sense but effectively interrupt the discussion under way, you’d think that’s all the protestants have to argue with.
So, where in the bible is sola scriptura found? Hmmm? Why don’t protestants have saints? How many elect are there, and how do you know if you are one of them? What if your children aren’t elect, but you are? Is it okay with you to accept the will of the made-up deity of a sick old man — essentially a dead God — over accepting the Saving Love of Christ the Living Son of the REAL Almight God? Why don’t protestants study the WHOLE bible?
Thanks. I got it from Quix, so I knew it would be okay.
Reminds me of the Baptist registry of pastors available to be assigned to congregations, who were convicted of sex crimes.
Right.
As far as I am aware, it is only her prayers united with one's own to God, that anyone looks to Mary. If that is one thing to many, I can appreciate your point, but it does beg a question. What do you mean by EVERYTHING? If you look to your spouse to prepare your breakfast, would that affect your salvation?
too
I know that you don't need anybody's input for anything.
Ooops. Wxxcept for one thing: there’s only one God. Do what ever the F you want.
TOTALLY INCORRECT!!!!!
What a tiny little itsy-bitsey box that Petronski built for you.
She's not dead.
There is only one True God.
Then there’s that dark overlord invented by Jean Cauvin. Amazing how many people gamble their lives on the dark rantings of an autocratic French lawyer.
***Nowhere does Jesus say “...confess your sins to a priest and then repeat memorized prayers over and over like the heathen.” ***
Interesting statement.
1 Thess 5:
16
Rejoice always.
17
Pray without ceasing.
Phil 4:
4
Rejoice 4 in the Lord always. I shall say it again: rejoice!
5
Your kindness 5 should be known to all. The Lord is near.
6
Have no anxiety at all, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God.
Eph 6:
18
With all prayer and supplication, pray at every opportunity in the Spirit. To that end, be watchful with all perseverance and supplication for all the holy ones
19
and also for me,
The Orthodox have arguably the best understanding and practice of prayer:
The oral prayer (the prayer of the lips) is a simple recitation, still external to the practitioner.
The focused prayer, when “the mind is focused upon the words” of the prayer, “speaking them as if they were our own.”
The prayer of the heart itself, when the prayer is no longer something we do but who we are.
They also talk to:
The prayer of the lips.
The prayer of the mouth.
The prayer of the tongue.
The prayer of the voice.
The prayer of the mind.
The prayer of the heart.
The active prayer.
The all-seeing prayer.
The contemplative prayer.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
I see that Mad Dawg’s Scriptural quotations have no effect upon your grasp of the Sacrament of Penance. If you will not accept the direction of Jesus in this matter, what other matters do you ignore Him in?
***That should actually be funny and it did make me laugh but there are so many out there who think that the same circumstances of America today were present almost 2000 years ago.***
I had a fundamentalist Church of Christ pastor tell me in a rather heated conversation that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, then it was good enough for me.
***What is this affinity the protestants have for demanding, over and over, answers to the same questions that have been addressed multiple times on this thread?***
You must remember Judith that each Protestant has his own theology which varies with the seasons, the time of day, the emptiness of the belly, the nagging of the wife, and so on. There is no fixed theology, just a foggy area in which something may be relevant now, but be irrelevant after Miller time tonight.
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.