Posted on 03/19/2011 10:57:34 PM PDT by dangus
"My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." -- Luke 1:47
It is undeniable, that "Savior" in this sense alludes to being saved from sin. So the question is: If Mary had never sinned, or was never guilty of original sin, as the Catholic Church states, why would she need a Savior?
As in English, in Greek word for "Savior" ("soter") comes from the word for "safe" ("sozo"). In modern English, the connection between "safe" and "heal" is largely lost, but "salvation" retains the root, "salv," from "salve," meaning "heal" or "a healing ointment." Thus, the notion of a "savior" being one who restores health, or undoes harm is not a completely incorrect notion. But neither should it overshadow the fundamental meaning that a "savior" is one who prevents harm, as much as one who restores one from harm.
Therefore, it should hardly be surprising that one who has been prevented from original sin should rejoice in her "savior" from original sin.
In fact, the term "savior" in Greek has a connotation of a god who preserves his people. As explained in the Protestant lexicon, Strong's Concordance,:
The name was given by the ancients to deities, esp. tutelary deities, to princes, kings, and in general to men who had conferred signal benefits upon their country, and in more degenerate days by the way of flattery to personages of influence.(Wigram) The word soter was a common Greek epithet for the gods (e.g., Zeus, Apollo, and Hermes), active personalities in world affairs (e.g., Epicurus) and rulers (e.g., Ptolemy Philopator, and later Roman Emporers). (cf. LSJ and BDAG)God certainly was Mary's Lord and Protector, who kept her safe from sin. That does not mean she sinned.
But doesn't Paul state that "all have sinned?" Is Paul wrong?
Not in the least. As Protestant theologian Charles Spurgeon explains (in an alternate context) the meaning of "all," (in Greek, "pas"):
"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).In context, what Paul is saying is that Jews (in general) and Greeks (in general), and every other people (in general) have sinned. To establish that Jews are no better than any other people, he quotes the prophet Isaiah,
What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.In this passage, the prophet is describing the Jews around him, and uses the phrase, "There is no-one righteous, not one." It's been argued that the prophet is describing in a prophetic sense not just the Jews around him, but the universal condition of man, as a result of original sin. It might make sense to say that all we who have committed original sin are not righteous in a sense, since our righteousness is imputed righteousness, earned not by our own effort, but by Christ's sacrifice on our behalf.
As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
"Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips."
"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways and the way of peace they do not know.
" "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
But that same passage asserts that not one has done anything good at all, that they know not the way of peace, and there is no fear of God among anyone. Even if our righteousness is merely imputed, and our ability to do good relies entirely on Christ acting through us, regenerated Christians do good, know the way of peace and fear God. As such, we know that Paul is using that passage only to establish that Jews need Christ as much as Gentiles, for they have been as wicked as Gentiles, he is not using that passage to describe saved Christians.
But the Blessed Virgin Mary lived (in part) before the Holy Sacrifice, the Resurrection and the Descent of the Holy Spirit? How can she have been saved from sin?
The bible explicitly states that salvation occurred anticipating these events. For the prophet Simeon stated upon seeing the infant Jesus, "Mine eyes have seen thy salvation." How could this be? Whose salvation has he witnessed?
Mary's.
bb: Amazing! It sure sounds like either Mary can be tricked or she can be used as a cover for someone who wants to sneak past the justice of Christ. Both are outlandish and neither is Scriptural.
Sounds more like they're replaced Jesus with Mary. Instead of going to God the Father through Jesus the son, as was intended and is clearly taught in Scripture, they have us going to Jesus through Mary.
No wonder Catholics reject the authority of Scripture. It demolishes every corrupt doctrine the Catholic church has erected over the centuries.
Raising Mary to these levels is idolatry.
Thank you, too. Sweet dreams!
Where ever the Catholic church got such a distorted view of Christ as to think that Jesus is not compassionate, is beyond me.
And one (me) can be quite proud of his humility. Ouch!
Well, it can be officially denied, but as with many other things, what is effectually conveyed can be another. By us all as well.
AMEN!
The Roman Catholic church negates the very purpose God had in coming to earth and taking on human form. He was supposed to be born of a normal woman who was a sinner just like the rest of us. That was the plan.
The RCC is anti-material world. It sees corruption in the flesh and not in the spirit. That's why, like the Taliban, it covers up its women in nun's habits and cloisters them behind gates and then holds these women up as role models. But men and women are not fallen because they are somehow dirty or "impure," but because their spiritual natures have been corrupted by sin.
The RCC keeps Christ as an infant dependent on mommy, usurps the work and position of the Holy Spirit and elevates a simple Jewish girl to "queen of the universe."
Thank God we "have not so learned Christ."
"Rome has so built up the Mary role that it has become an indispensable part of the present day (Roman Catholic) Church, so much so that if Mary were placed back in the position given her in Scripture it would change the whole character of Roman Catholicism. Some have even suggested that the Roman Catholic Church should be called the ‘Marian Church’, because in its life and practice it gives first place to Mary rather than to the Lord Jesus Christ." -- Loraine Boettner
Any chance of you offering evidence of this?
I understand completely. That I think is one of the tragic consequences of the Reformation. Let me try to explain. It used to be that sacrifice was the way we gave adoration to God. Not just prayer, but primarily sacrifice. Cain and Abel made sacrificial offerings. Abraham the same. And when the Romans were trying to smoke out the Christians, they didn't just say "pray to Minerva", they tried to make them sacrifice to Minerva.
We are not told by Moses the exact instruction given Able and Cain as to 'what' made the acceptable sacrifice. What we can learn is that Abel's sacrifice was acceptable and pleased the Father. So it is NOT a leap of faith to believe, even though the words are not specifically given, that Able listen and fulfilled a specific instruction... WHY? Because it is unnatural in the most perfect sense of 'judgment' for the child to NOT be instructed as to what specifically is required from them. And since the beginning of this flesh age we are instructed that more than the majority did things their own way and even expected their own ways to be acceptable. NOT a whole lot has changed all these many years later.
Now Christianity had sacrifices and altars as well, since the very beginning. The offering was of course not bulls or goats but the Eucharist, but it was still regarded as a true and proper sacrifice. This changed with Martin Luther. The only kind of offering he would admit was the sacrifice of praise and worship. So what happened in Protestantism was a total abandonment of the idea of the Eucharistic sacrifice in favor of personal prayer.
Up until Christ's death, there was a requirement of a blood sacrifice by the priests for atonement of 'sin'. But until His death NOT one could be offered the 'grace' of salvation. There were specific requirements as to what and the condition thereof to make the acceptable sacrifice, and only Christ in the body of a flesh being, perfect, never sinned could be that acceptable sacrifice. Mary was merely the flesh vessel by which the process through which Emanuel, means, God with us, would pass though this flesh age.
Moses lost two sons because they polluted the altar, and the priest were given to wearing bells of sorts around their ankles so it would be know if they survived the process of offering a sacrifice. And at NO time was any other flesh child ever required to be offered as a blood sacrifice for any purpose. (Yes, I am familiar with the test of Abraham's faith in the case of his willingness to offer Isaac, but the sacrifice NEVER took place.
This is why we do not see eye to eye on veneration of the saints anymore. Because the Protestant, whose only offering to God is one of prayer, sees the Catholic praying to saints and honoring them, and thinks "Aha! They give to the saints what they should be giving only to God! That's idolatry!"
Not one of us has anything to do with who is or is not a 'saint'. Paul says in Ephesians 1:4 According as He hat chosen (election) us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself,
according to the good pleasure of His will,.....
Mary fits this predestination as much as any of the individuals we are told about throughout the Word. So the choosing and electing already has taken place as to who was and is the saints. BUT only one flesh being could conceive, and bring forth Emanuel, means, God with us. AND Mary was given NO power or authority to command anyone to do anything. The word predestination has as much weight as the word grace, and disregarding the meaning of predestination diminishes what grace literally means.
Revelation 19:5 - 10 describes a 'voice' out of the throne, which would mean this was a 'divine' voice, and John reacts by falling at his feet to worship him, and the fellowservant orders John to NOT worship him. So IF a voice from out of the throne, came from a fellowservant, upon what basis does Mary get elevated as having a direct connection for us to the Heavenly Father.
Most especially when we have already been told the Heavenly Father knows what we think and He needs no one to message our thoughts and prayers? This notion over venerating another fellowservant does not come from Christ or the Heavenly Father.
But he forgets that he only is looking at half the picture. To us, prayer is just a method of communication. I pray to Our Lady because she doesn't have a PO Box or a telephone number. I do know where she lives though. She's in God's house, and the Master of that house hears all of my prayers. So if I pray, I trust that God will hear my prayers, and forward them along to her. That's it. Do I kiss images of Mary? Of course. I'd also kiss a photo of my wife. And as for the bowing down stuff, well heck, I bow down to lots of people. I've bowed to a lady when I am feeling particularly chivalrous. These are gestures of respect and honor--not divinity.
Every aspect of the religion demonstrates far more time, prayers and study is devoted to Mary than the Creator.
Quite simply, reverence is not adoration. Adoration is offering sacrifice to God. And our sacrifice--the Eucharist--is never, ever, ever, offered to the saints. Check the text of the Mass if you like. The Mass is always, always, always, offered to God and God alone. It's never offered to Mary, or St. Joseph, or anyone else. Just God. So there is an immense gulf between how a Catholic worships God and honors Mary. Infinite, even..
Wonder how much of this 'study', adoration and veneration is going to be a part of what gets taught in the yet future appointed time Ezekiel describes is going to be done?
The RCC corrupts the very essence of who Christ is by denying His mother was a sinner like the rest of us.
Christ was God with us in a flesh physical body, nothing for Him to escape. Mary, while indeed predestined, blessed and yes filled with grace is NOT held more special than the rest. God says He is NOT a respecter of persons and each and every individual will be judged on their own good/bad/and ugly. Noah was obviously predestined, and wow, look at all the blessings and graced heaped upon Abraham. Again God is NOT a respecter of persons. He is quite able to give attention one on one of any one who 'will'.
This queen of heaven business reads very closely to religions of distant past.
The 'pure' part of Mary was she was a virgin, as was required and prophecy fulfilled. Christ preached the Words Moses penned, so why not venerate, honor and pray to Noah, as it is Written that Noah was Genesis 6:9 THESE are THE GENERATIONS OF NOAH: Noah was a 'just' man and 'perfect' in his generations, and Noah walked with God. OR Abraham, Genesis 22:11-18. Or how about all those predestined to pen the Holy Word. Christians no more worship, venerate or pray to these 'saints' than they should to Mary. These that came before certainly accepted salvation some time before Mary departed her flesh body and entered the pearly gates. Wonder who was stationed at the pearly gates before Peter and received all those that entered before he returned to our Maker?
Paul speaks to those of Israel and to the Gentiles who had no clue as to what salvation meant. And while he and Peter had momentary disagreement in how the 'law' was to be applied, Paul never contradicted the gospels. And more than just about any other predestined writer of any of the WORD Paul demonstrates literally what is offered to any who will.
I wonder why there is NO focus on just what is meant by the declaration "before the foundation of the world"? Wonder what was going on that would cause some to be predestined to perform specific duties all these many years later... Now IF this selecting happened before the foundation of the world, would not that indicated the soul/spirit was existing to have the foreknowledge as to who had demonstrated their love and faithfulness?
You are saying no way God would allow this to happen in heaven?
But this can happen to people from the Philadelphia Church like this:
Revelation 3:9 "I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you."
Jesus said people would bow down before the faithful members of the church of Philadelphia.
So Only the Philadelphia Church can be honored this way but not his Mother?
He can not honor his mother like he is suppose to as the spotless lamb who was under the law especially from The Ten Commadments? Which he has to do or he is not sinless. Honor your mother or your father.
Sounds like honor which means venerate to me. What about you?
"The whole world is filled with her glory."
Her glory is the same as his because she had him. He shares his glory to others. You know like the Apostles to bring the Gospel to the world. They shared the glory. When he left the planet. His ascension. This can not be?
I think we can have a different opinion of what God really means at times.
(Again) jla asks, "Any chance of you offering evidence of this?"
I am not interested in opinions or theories. You forcefully stated, "that was the plan". Now, if it was "the plan" one should be fairly confident in assuming that Dr. E can show us irrefutable evidence of this.
Unless of course "the plan" is merely "the opinion" of Dr. E.
Then you must mean Christ? Did not Christ, God the Son, pre-exist Mary, or was she "with God" (John 1) during creation?
Can't you see the failure of the semantics games Rome plays?
Hoss
In the words of Click and Clack: It’s our humility which makes us great.
That’s certainly true in my case.
Wait. Did you hear that? Was that thunder?
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
And it will likely remain so . . . until the AC has the 'ET' facilitated Mary personage appear 'magically' and exhort the world's populace to worship the AC as the 'true messiah.'
And those addicted to worshiping THE INSTITUTION and all else but Christ (Father, & Spirit), will bleet compliantly . . . to eternal damnation.
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.