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.
In fact I would see the Jer 31:33, Heb 8:10, and Heb 10:16 as saying there will be a time when we won't need Scripture. because the Torah will be written in the hearts of men. That in the new coveneant Sola Scriptura, if it ever was valid, will be superseded by communication directly to the heart.
And 2Pe 1:21 says the old prophecies were not of the will of men but of the Holy Spirit moving men. That doesn't say that writings (the old time prophecy) are the only way the Spirit can or will communicate God's revelation to men. It only says that it's a way.
They're fine texts, but they don't seem to do the job you want them to do.
You excerpted from my post this:
“***But, of course, He did tell all those that recorded the books that make up the scriptures to indeed write them down—by His Spirit.***
...then asked this question:
Where does it say that? Are you making this up? Chapter and verse please.”
Here is one scripture that answers your question:
2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
You excerpted from my post:
***Yes. He said at one point to the Jews, “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” ***
And then stated:
Testimony is not all encompassing. It by itself does not necessarily consitute proof. It is evidence.
To which I reply:
Are you questioning Jesus’ veracity? It is His testimony about the (OT) Scriptures to which you are referring. Given that they (the Scriptures) speak of Him (and of course, He is the author, and, as time will reveal, they and everything else are all about the Lord!) I would say that His testimony not only constitutes proof, but concludes the matter.
You excerpted from my post:
***And, of course later He said, “Follow Me.” ***
Then you stated:
To the Apostles, to which He later told them to go to the whole world.
To which I reply:
Did He not say this (Come follow Me) to you, as well? I know He said it to me.
What matters is not what you or I or anyone else thinks. What matters is what God thinks.
The Lord is always with His church. Whether she reciprocates or not is a daily issue of the heart.
When you listen to the sermons week-after-week from the Martyr’s Memorial Presbyterian Church, you will hear that the sermon content is richly varied in Biblical substance, and not at all singularly focused on government, the Bitish/Irish context, the Catholic Church, or any other single issue. The doctrinal positions of the church, nor the content of the preaching suggust any allegience to Martyr’s Mem., nor to their denomination to have a right relationship with God.
The foundings of Martyr’s Mem. Church have their roots in the departure of their former Presbyterian denomination from the strict rule of the Scriptures, and the worldliness in the activities of that former denomination. The resaons for founding the church had nothing to do with the other issues that Mr. Paisely stands to fight for.
That doesn’t mean that the subject of the Catholic Church never comes up in the Martyr’s Mem Presb. Church. Of course, it does. Just as the subject of non-Catholic churches comes up in the pope’s addresses and encyclicals.
But the difference is this. Ian Paisely never has preached that joining his church could make you any closer to God, or suit you up any better for meeting God, than joining any other church. Dr. Paisely is in regular Christian fellowship and cooperation even with other churches that do not call themselves “Presbyterian,” or even “Protestant.”
OKay, then whether or not I’m a bad guy, I STILL don’t see how those verses could be taken as proving Sola Scriptura by anyone who did not come to them assuming Sola Scriptura.
“He created his own church. “
*********************************
We have been used to found three autonomous local churches in our work. Martyr’s Mem. is an autonomous congregation.
***Here is one scripture that answers your question:
2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.***
It most certainly does not answer the question as to where God instructed men to write the NT (or the Old for that matter). God wrote the 10 commandments on stone tablets; Jesus wrote in the dust. That’s it.
***Are you questioning Jesus’ veracity? It is His testimony about the (OT) Scriptures to which you are referring. Given that they (the Scriptures) speak of Him (and of course, He is the author, and, as time will reveal, they and everything else are all about the Lord!) I would say that His testimony not only constitutes proof, but concludes the matter.***
It says that the testimony is there. He does not say that it is all encompassing or that that is that.
***Did He not say this (Come follow Me) to you, as well? I know He said it to me.***
Mark 1:
14
After John had been arrested, 8 Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God:
15
“This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”
16
9 As he passed by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting their nets into the sea; they were fishermen.
17
Jesus said to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
18
Then they abandoned their nets and followed him.
19
He walked along a little farther and saw James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John. They too were in a boat mending their nets.
20
Then he called them. So they left their father Zebedee in the boat along with the hired men and followed him.
If your name is not Peter, Andrew, James and John, then Jesus didn’t speak to you here. Where did He speak to you and when?
I don’t think one way or another about you. I do not know you, have only seldom communicated with you (in truth, most of the time I am not cognizant of responding to this one or that one—I just post and move on. If I have come across in an offensive way, I apologize. That was not my intention and is the reason I refrain more and more from engaging in these “discussions”—too easy to read emotions into them, where none is intended.
The point I was trying to unearth from scripture was that God’s desire is to communicate directly with His people (by His Spirit). John records the Lord’s promise of His Spirit that will guide His disciples into all truth. This was not intended only for those in His current hearing but all who receive His Spirit. You are correct about the OT verses I cited describing a future day when Israel would be brought back to the Lord, but the NT writer of the Hebrews cites the verse for the benefit of NT Hebrew believers who were in need of understanding the New Covenant they had been brought into.
In the meeting of believers I attend, we use the scriptures for all issues pertaining to life and godliness. Is the “church” important to us? Of course it is, it is where we meet, fellowship with/worship with like-minded believers. It is what the believer in Christ has been called unto. Does it play a role in our salvation? No. Salvation is all of the Lord. Does it play a role in our justification? No. Justification is by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Does it play a role in our sanctification? No. The Holy Spirit and the Word of God sanctifies. One’s presence in His church gives testimony to the works of God being done in the life a believer.
Why does he have a separate organization then? And what is the "regula" by which his fellowship and cooperation are "regular"?
"How DARE they!" they said. "The SUN is the only source of light in this system! How impious to praise a mere satellite or a sunset or the light shining on the clouds! And I don't even want to HEAR about rainbows! Don't they know they must praise only the Sun and never his works in which he shows his glory?"
Lovely analogy, and although you didn't post it to me, I thought you might like to know that at least one reader found it helpful. Thank you :)
So the verse do not prove Sola Scriptura.
Judith Anne...I agree completely with Petronski....take a few days breather, and come back refreshed....I would personally miss greatly your presence on these threads, and miss your fine posts....please, reconsider...
***When you listen to the sermons week-after-week from the Martyr’s Memorial Presbyterian Church, you will hear that the sermon content is richly varied in Biblical substance, and not at all singularly focused on government, the Bitish/Irish context, the Catholic Church, or any other single issue. The doctrinal positions of the church, nor the content of the preaching suggust any allegience to Martyr’s Mem., nor to their denomination to have a right relationship with God.***
Can you demonstrate any substantive difference between Ian Paisley and, say, Jeremiah Wright?
***The foundings of Martyr’s Mem. Church have their roots in the departure of their former Presbyterian denomination from the strict rule of the Scriptures, and the worldliness in the activities of that former denomination. The resaons for founding the church had nothing to do with the other issues that Mr. Paisely stands to fight for.***
I am not speaking to the church and haven’t been in this conversation except to note that Ian Paisley founded a church and that he has profited by it. I am satisfied to remain in the Church founded by Jesus, but, a lot of people aren’t.
***But the difference is this. Ian Paisely never has preached that joining his church could make you any closer to God, or suit you up any better for meeting God, than joining any other church.***
He certainly does. Have you been to his site where he rants and raves against the Catholic Church? Catholics cannot be saved until they reject the Church.
The Free Presbyterian (an oxymoron) Church has been around for fifty years and is tailored to his personality and prejudices.
Christian fellowship based upon the Authority of the Scriptures and the Fundamentals of Biblical Christian faith and practice. One example: Dr. Paisely’s church recently had as guests the pastor and others of the Temple Baptist Church, Powell, Tennessee, USA. TBC would never confess to be being “Protestant” in the Geneva sense (Dr. Paisely would), not by a long shot. Dr. Paisely has also spoken at TBC in Tennessee.
***We have been used to found three autonomous local churches in our work. ***
Christians are not autonomous. They are subject to the Bishops of their area, and finally to Christ.
That's an indictment like no other.
Why don’t you finish the verse and put it into context?
John 5:
37
Moreover, the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf. But you have never heard his voice nor seen his form,
I have indeed heard His voice...through His word...”My sheep hear my voice and they follow me.” I follow Him, imperfectly, yes. But, I follow Him...
38
and you do not have his word remaining in you, because you do not believe in the one whom he has sent.
I do believe He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. He is the promised One of God, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. I read His word daily, and “work out my own salvation with fear and trembling,” taking heed according unto His word (that I, though not a young man, might cleanse my ways...)
39
You search 14 the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.
I do search the scriptures, like the noble Bereans searched the scriptures, comparing scripture with scripture. I do find them all to be about the Lord Jesus Christ, from beginning to end. God’s word is a vast, measureless trove of treasure.
40
But you do not want to come to me to have life.
To whom (else) shall I go, Lord, it is you who have the words of life. I have indeed come to Christ for salvation, convicted of my sin and prompted by His Spirit to repent and plead for mercy and forgiveness based on the atoning work of Christ Jesus’ blood that was shed on the cross of Calvary alone. In April, 1986 I became a born-again believer in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
41
“I do not accept human praise; 15
I know, Lord, it brings little honor to you to hear my lowly voice proclaim your goodness and lovingkindness to this lowly sinner. Your true honor comes from Your Father. But, nonetheless I am glad that you have put a new song in this sinner’s heart and on his lips, even praise to our god.
42
moreover, I know that you do not have the love of God in you.
All I can say, along with Peter is, “Yes, Lord. You know all things. You know that I like (philios) you, Lord.”
43
I came in the name of my Father, but you do not accept me; yet if another comes in his own name, you will accept him.
There was indeed a time when I rejected you, Lord. I wanted to live my own life, my own way, for my own ends. But now, now that I have been accepted in the beloved (indeed, I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine!) now I can say with all the certitude of (again) Peter, “Though all forsake you, Lord, I shall never forsake you.” (How many, many times have I had to pray forgiveness for that one!)
44
How can you believe, when you accept praise from one another and do not seek the praise that comes from the only God?
Oh, Lord, I thank you for being patient with my prideful, resistant heart. And, yes, there have been times when I did indeed prefer the praise of men, rather than your praise. I thank you that you are a patient Father, and, as such, have continued to wait until my foolish, foolish heart will at last shrug off every last bit of delight in the trappings of this life that seduce and delude me into thinking that there could ever be anything greater than knowing you and being like your obedient Son.
This is why you guys so badly need the Magisterium.
No. This is why I need the Lord!
So if we've left behind the notion that those verse proved Sola Scriptura, let's look at other stuff together.John records the Lord’s promise of His Spirit that will guide His disciples into all truth. This was not intended only for those in His current hearing but all who receive His Spirit.
How do we know this?
Of course it is [important to us], it {church] is where we meet, fellowship with/worship with like-minded believers. It is what the believer in Christ has been called unto.
I certainly think this aspect of going to church should not be minimized. But I would say that all this is a vehicle for the "Word and Holy Spirit" to do their sanctifying.
You say:,br>One’s presence in His church gives testimony to the works of God being done in the life a believer.
Seriously, what is the good or purpose or point or benefit of giving such testimony?
My fave, now dead, prof and I agreed that since we are justified by Grace, we do good works because they are fun, especially when compared to bad works.All these things are gifts from God. The difference, I think, in our thinking is that I think they are sanctifying gifts.
I am one of those Cahtolics that goes to mass nearly every day of the week and nearly six days a week, I also pray the rosary with others. (And on the 7th day, usually, I pray it at home with my wife, or by myself.)
I don't do these things thinking that I am wracking up credit in the celestial accounting book or that there is some kind of sanctification vending machine.
But still I think some good is given to me, some lingering good which has to do in a vague way with increasing closeness to God and an increasing desire that my will be conformed to His, that he accept and use me as His servant.
(And as I always say, if the "me" we have to deal with no is more sanctified than t he previous me, that previous me was REALLY a mess!)
Oh well, I'm too tired to make sense. Have a blessed night.
“If your name is not Peter, Andrew, James and John, then Jesus didn’t speak to you here. Where did He speak to you and when?”
I guess He had been talking to me for a while. I finally heard His voice in April, 1986. I’ve been listening to Him (imperfectly) ever since.
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.