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.
Bro. Hoss:
It’s interesting to me. What I’m picking up from this thread is the different ways of looking at the Incarnation that we have.
Do you know that our side’s main argument for images (I always call ‘em idols because I like watching Little Old Ladies flinch — I am going to be in purgatory a LONG time!) is that the Incarnation sort of leaked out into all creation making it possible for creatures to be pointers to the Creator?
Certainly God the Son predates Mary. Jesus, not so much, I think.
Not in the pink. I may not be back for a while.
Are you saying then, that it’s part of God’s plan that Jesus be born of a sinless woman?
We’re not interested in your opinions or theories. Show us irrefutable evidence of this.
AMEN, amen,and amen!
I would also add the RCC habit of continually sacrificing Christ is probably not being received well in Heaven. I mean think about it: You die for someone and that person keeps trying to re-kill you over and over again? What would your reaction be??
Its slapping Christ in the face and telling Him His work was not sufficient. That HIS sacrifice was only the beginning and needs to be added to!?!?
I honestly don't understand how anyone doing this practice could not see that this robs God (and Christ) of His majesty, His glory, His power, His authority, His sufficiency, etc. etc. etc. Its the ultimate attack and rebellion against God!
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Jesus Himself, in His own words, puts all believers on par with His mother. He, Himself, declares us equal to her.
They are His words, after all. Better than the rest of Scripture, according to some.
See 305. You have a seriously defective view of the Mass. But that may be just the way you were raised and you haven’t had the opportunity to do more than repeat what you’ve heard.
Their side doesn’t understand time.
That is clear. May I ask if you want to understand?
Mary Mother of the incarnation of God - works for me.
I shall report to the burning stakes with the other heretics now...
No, more like what the Vatican has already published about it. If my view is defective because of what I've read then the Vatican is defective. Example:
In checking out the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), The Catholic Encyclopedia, and The Council of Trent, I find the following regarding the Mass:
1.As a sacrifice - A."the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist," (CCC, 1055) and "the Eucharist is also a sacrifice," (CCC, 1365).
2.As a divine sacrifice - A."For it is in the liturgy, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, that "the work of our redemption is accomplished," (CCC, 1068).
3.As a representation of the sacrifice of Christ - A."The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross," (CCC, 1366).
4.Is 'one single sacrifice' with Christ's sacrifice A."The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice," (CCC, 1367).
5.It is the same sacrifice of Christ - A."And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner," (CCC, 1367).
6.It is propitiatory (removes the wrath of God) - A."...this sacrifice is truly propitiatory," (CCC, 1367).
7.To all who deny its propitiatory nature Trent pronounces anathema - A."If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema." (Trent: On the Sacrifice of the Mass: Canon 3);
8.It is called the sacrifice of Christ which is offered via the priest's hands - A."The sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered through the priests' hands," (CCC, 1369).
9.It is capable of making reparation of sins - A."As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead," (CCC, 1414).
10.It is to be considered a true and proper sacrifice A."The Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a 'true and proper sacrifice'", (The Catholic Encyclopedia, topic: "Sacrifice of the Mass").
So how exactly is it possible for the Mass to not be a re-sacrifice of Christ when the Mass is called a divine sacrifice (CCC, 1068) that is done over and over again?
Yeah yeah yeah, I know the RCC'er will come back and try to deny the above and will try to say that "the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice"; (CCC, 1367); that it is an unbloody offering that is proptiatory, (CCC, 1367); that it can make reparation of sins, (CCC, 1414); and is to be considered a true and proper sacrifice (The Catholic Encyclopedia, topic: "Sacrifice of the Mass").
BUT, and here's the rub: IF the Mass is said to be a sacrifice of Christ and is REPEATED, then it logically follows that it IS a continuing sacrifice, a re-sacrifice of Christ since the Catholic Church says that this very sacrifice is propitiatory (removes the wrath of God) and it is ONLY the ACTUAL sacrifice of Jesus that can accomplish propitiation!
Try again. You're going to have to do better. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck it must be a duck. What does the Bible say about these 'catechisms'?
"For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself," (Heb. 7:26-27).
"So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him," (Heb. 9:28).
"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God," (Heb. 10:10-12).
I can see that the Bible tells me Christ offered himself once for all time, and that there is no need for repetition of His sacrifice. The failure of the RCC has been to distort the biblical doctrine of the Lord's Supper into a constant and repetitious sacrifice of Christ. It should be plain to the readers of this thread that the RCC position is not only unbiblical but actually its anti-biblical.
Why would I want to understand false teaching from an heretical magisterium that contradicts Scripture??? I could ask you the same question. Do you really want to understand the truth of God's Word even if the magisterium is proven false? What's your final authority? The magisterium or the Word of God?
VERY WELL PUT..THX.
. . . don’t understand time?
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . .
I wasn’t aware that y’all’s side did either! LOL.
First, your exclamation that you don’t understand is unremarkable if you don’t want to understand. And since you neither understand nor want to understand, your arguments are bound to miss. This explains the misconstruction of the array of quotes from various “official” sources about the Eucharist. The key is before you, but you don’t want to use it.
Why would you want to understand? So that you could argue effectively, why else?
As to me and my understanding: I was trained in a Calvinist leaning Episcopal seminary back in the ‘70’s before the Episcopal Church went right off the rails. I won’t claim understanding, but I will claim to have made every effort to understand the view I no longer hold.
And where that led me was to the opinion that the ecclesiology of Protestantism was too weak to be true. While your side claims to adhere to scripture alone, it does not, in my view, have an adequate account for the disagreements among those who make that claim.
In other words, as I read Paul, not all of us are called to be teachers. But your side seems to say that all are. You say you have no magisterium but the very names of your denominations say (or imply) otherwise.
Well done and thank you. You have pointed out the criteria Christ used to define his mother and brothers in the highest and most important sense,i.e., their spiritual family.
No name, no claims to age and legitimacy, nothing else defined Christ’s brothers, mother as these words from him.
The Jewish nation had all of these yet that nation was left to destruction because it was not doing God’s will.
What kind of sacrifices do Christians make? Heb. 13:15,16 makes clear it is our praise and the sharing of good things, especially spiritual good things, that are sacrifices that please God well.
Well, Augie of Hippo is pretty straightforward about HIS not understanding time, that’s true.
But we generally say,”Time is the measure of change (or motion).” Even our perception of time implies a change in ourselves.
The more demanding aspect of this is dealing with the relationship between time and eternity. But since God does not change (as Scripture saith) then his eternity must somehow include or “comprehend” all time which he “beholds” at once in his eternal “Now”.
Because we are time bound we must speak of God as changing. But that is a trick of our perception and of our condition. What we see and describe as change (for example, God “repenting of the evil) is more like the revelation of the timeless in time.
Now, want me to explain the infield fly rule? That’s REALLY hard.
Romans 12:1-2
1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Hebrews 13:15-16
Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. 16Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
****************************************************************************
The Catholic church has the whole sacrifice thing wrong.
LOL.
I’ll spare us both.
Good job, BTW.
Wow! Catholics venerate not worship but you do not want to believe that so you go to scripture verses that you think show your point of the argument. Yet you then show that Catholics will venerate Protestants. I am amazed. Yet you do not call that worship only in the Catholic sense.
What is a graven image? God had Moses put Angelic statues on The Ark of the Covenant. The temple in Jerusalem had images all over the place. I guess it must be in a certain context.
Posture in Prayer, Veneration and Worship
Deut. 5:9 - God's command, "you shall not bow down to them" means "do not worship them." But not all bowing is worship. Here God's command is connected to false worship.
Rev. 3:9 - Jesus said people would bow down before the faithful members of the church of Philadelphia. This bowing before the faithful is not worship, just as kissing a picture of a family member is not worship.
Gen. 19:1 - Lot bowed down to the ground in veneration before two angels in Sodom.
Gen. 24:52 - Abraham's servant bowed himself to the earth before the Lord.
Gen. 42:6 - Joseph's brothers bow before Joseph with the face to the ground.
Jos. 5:14 - Joshua fell to the ground prostrate in veneration before an angel.
1 Sam. 28:14 - Saul bows down before Samuel with his face to the ground in honor and veneration.
1 Kings 1:23 - the prophet Nathan bows down before King David.
2 Kings 2:15 - the sons of the prophets bow down to Elisha at Jericho.
1 Chron. 21:21 - Ornan the Jebusite did obeisance to king David with his face to the ground.
1 Chron. 29:20 - Israelites bowed down to worship God and give honor to the king.
2 Chron. 29:29-30 - King Hezekiah and the assembly venerate the altar by bowing down in worship before the sin offerings.
Tobit 12:16 - Tobiah and Tobit fell down to the ground in veneration before the angel Raphael.
Judith 14:7 - Achior the Ammonite kneels before Judith venerating her and praising God.
Psalm 138:2 - David bows down before God's Holy Temple.
Dan. 2:46 - the king fell down on his face paying homage to Daniel and commands that an offering be made to him.
Dan. 8:17 - Daniel fell down prostrate in veneration before the angel Gabriel.
1 Macc. 4:40,55 - Judas and the faithful fell face down to the ground to praise heaven and worship God.
2 Macc. 10:4,26; 13:12 - Maccabeus and his followers fall down prostrate praying to God.
. Images and Statues
Deut. 4:15 - from this verse, Protestants say that since we saw "no form" of the Lord, we should not make graven images of Him.
Deut. 4:16 - of course, in early history Israel was forbidden to make images of God because God didn't yet reveal himself visibly "in the form of any figure."
Deut. 4:17-19 - hence, had the Israelites depicted God not yet revealed, they might be tempted to worship Him in the form of a beast, bird, reptile or fish, which was a common error of the times.
Exodus 3:2-3; Dan 7:9; Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32; Acts 2:3- later on, however, we see that God did reveal himself in visible form (as a dove, fire, etc).
Deut. 5:8 - God's commandment "thou shall not make a graven image" is entirely connected to the worship of false gods. God does not prohibit images to be used in worship, but He prohibits the images themselves to be worshiped.
Exodus 25:18-22; 26:1,31 - for example, God commands the making of the image of a golden cherubim. This heavenly image, of course, is not worshiped by the Israelites. Instead, the image disposes their minds to the supernatural and draws them to God.
Num. 21:8-9 - God also commands the making of the bronze serpent. The image of the bronze serpent is not an idol to be worshiped, but an article that lifts the mind to the supernatural.
I Kings 6:23-36; 7:27-39; 8:6-67 - Solomon's temple contains statues of cherubim and images of cherubim, oxen and lions. God did not condemn these images that were used in worship.
2 Kings 18:4 - it was only when the people began to worship the statue did they incur God's wrath, and the king destroyed it. The command prohibiting the use of graven images deals exclusively with the false worship of those images.
1 Chron. 28:18-19 - David gives Solomon the plan for the altar made of refined gold with a golden cherubim images. These images were used in the Jews' most solemn place of worship.
2 Chron. 3:7-14 - the house was lined with gold with elaborate cherubim carved in wood and overlaid with gold.
This is the Vision That Ezekiel has from God!
THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE HAS CARVINGS AND IMAGES. Meaning in Heaven:
EZEKIEL 41: 17 In the space above the outside of the entrance to the inner sanctuary and on the walls at regular intervals all around the inner and outer sanctuary 18 were carved cherubim and palm trees. Palm trees alternated with cherubim. Each cherub had two faces: 19 the face of a human being toward the palm tree on one side and the face of a lion toward the palm tree on the other. They were carved all around the whole temple. 20 From the floor to the area above the entrance, cherubim and palm trees were carved on the wall of the main hall.
Ezek. 41:15 - Ezekiel describes graven images in the temple consisting of carved likenesses of cherubim. These are similar to the images of the angels and saints in many Catholic churches.
Col. 1:15 - the only image of God that Catholics worship is Jesus Christ, who is the "image" (Greek "eikon") of the invisible God.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/sacramentals.html
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.