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.
Its called sarcasm.
And where that led me was to the opinion that the ecclesiology of Protestantism was too weak to be true.
Yeah and I could give you testimonies from a variety of ex-priests, nuns, etc. who came to the opinion that the ecclesiology of Catholicism is too weak to be true. Furthermore, I could also provide testimonies of many people who preferred to follow the teachings of men rather than the Word of God and have departed the faith into many different and various cultic groups. It still gets back to who is your final authority which you pretty much answered 'isn't' God or His Word.
So all your statement proves is that unregenerate man is easily deceived and easily led astray when the Scriptures are discarded, or reduced to secondary status.
You say you have no magisterium but the very names of your denominations say (or imply) otherwise.
And that would be incorrect. The only magisterium any bible believing churches adhere to are the Scriptures. Once they are discarded, rendered secondary, any magisterium can take their place. So who exactly is the magisterium for the independent, or break away from Rome Catholic churches? Churches like Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church; Antiochian Catholic Church in America; Catholic Charismatic Church of Candada; Corpus Christi Communion; Evangelical Catholic Church; The Evangelical Old Catholic Communion; Free Church of Antioch; Independent Sacramental Movement; Liberal Catholic Church; Mariavite Church; or even The United Catholic Church in Cheshire CT (an outgrowth of The Old Catholic Church which broke away from Rome in 1870 over the declaration of the infallibility of the Pope); and so on.....too many to list. The Roman Catholic Church is UNITED? Better research that one again. You are no more united than any of the Protestant denominations are. I would maintain the Protestant denominations are actually more united as the Scriptures are the final authority for them rather than a group of fallible men.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
But, its pretty clear that the Scriptures are obviously not good enough so I'll try to point you towards what these guys had to say (and its only a small sampling btw):
“They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They [Gnostics] crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.” -Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.25.6
“But it is clear to every one that piety, which teaches to worship and honour, is the highest and oldest cause; and the law itself exhibits justice, and teaches wisdom, by abstinence from sensible images, and by inviting to the Maker and Father of the universe.” -Clement ofAlexandria, The Stromata 2.18
“…as Moses ages before enacted expressly, that neither a graven, nor molten, nor moulded, nor painted likeness should be made; so that we may not cleave to things of sense, but pass to intellectual objects: for familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonour it by sense.” "For how could he have known Moses and Elias, except (by being) in the Spirit? People could not have had their images, or statues, or likenesses; for that the law forbade.”" -Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.22
“So we would now make a remark about the arts of the theatre, about the things also whose authors in the names we execrate. We know that the names of the dead are nothing, as are their images; but we know well enough, too, who, when images are set up, under these names carry on their wicked work, and exult in the homage rendered to them, and pretend to be divine-none other than spirits accursed, than devils.” -Tertullian, The Shows 10
"Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort-opposed as they are to our religion-shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge.” -Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, The Letters of St. Jerome 51.9
Despite your futile attempt at cleverness, my post implied nothing but rather asked a very simple question. Asked of another, not you.
Act 15:18 — "Known to God from eternity are all His works.*
LOL!
Yeah. Baseball, now THAT’s mysterious!
You were being sarcastic when you asked why you would want to understand?
Given that I couldn’t
—throw
—catch
—bat/hit
—run
well much at all . . .
it was NOT my game.
I was being saracastic regarding your insinuation that I need YOU to explain anything to me. When I want to understand anything pertaining to the RCC I can go straight to the Vatican and all its catechisms and creeds. They explain everything quite well thanks. Better even than the average apologist who is contorting themselves trying to defend the Vatican - LOL. Unless you think you have higher authority than the Vatican does??? (That should be interesting).
Clearly the groups that broke away from Rome ALL reject the magisterium. That's true whether or not they have Catholic in their name. Most groups in the west either broke away from the Catholic Church or from groups which broke away from the Catholic Church. The sedevacantists are breaking away.
You say that there is great unity among the groups which profess Sola Scriptura. But Presbyterians, or some of them, call Arminianism a "damnable heresy." I respectfully suggest that when one group calls the beliefs of another a damnable heresy that is not a strong unity.
I did not mention my experience to change your mind about the truth of the doctrines you say you don't want to understand. You asked how much effort I had spent on the doctrines of the Protestants. I answered your question.
If you ask a question and it is answered and then you change the subject in order to chastise the answerer, the next question won't be answered.
Mind reading. I neither made nor intended any such thing.
Good answer.
Exactly. If they are breaking away they're not united are they? There's no agreement with the Magisterium - that's the issue being ignored.
You say that there is great unity among the groups which profess Sola Scriptura.
1. Any division within Protestantism is not due to an adherence to sola Scriptura. Rather, it is due to a lack of adherence to it. In most cases it is an adherence to traditions or creeds that cause the divisions, or merely a matter of not liking what the Scriptures actually say so another creed is invented.
2. All conservative Christian denominations that consider each other within the ‘pale of orthodoxy’ agree at the most basic points (i.e. sola fide, the Deity of Christ, inerrancy of Scripture, the Trinity, morals, etc.), and none of these groups would ever consider each other non-Christians. Those things that divide these particular conservative Christian groups are non-essentials to salvation. This is true spiritual unity. On the other hand, the RCC has within its fold traditionalists, conservatives, moderates, and liberals. Some of these liberals are at the very height of power (i.e. Cardinals, Papal Biblical Commissions, etc.), and the traditionalists and conservatives are forced to accept these men and their authority because the RCC not only refuses to excommunicate these men but promotes them to higher power. This is a forced outward unity with no true spiritual union. This is the 'real unity' of the Roman Church.
3. The RCC apologists say that because he has an infallible authority (the magisterium), he can have unity and clarity on doctrinal issues. When examined this claim falls flat. Why? Example: The nature of tradition. There are those who believe that Divine Revelation is contained partly in Scripture and partly in ‘Sacred Tradition’. This view is commonly called ‘partim/partim’. On the other side is the view that all Divine Revelation is contained in Scripture and that ‘Sacred Tradition’ is an interpreter of Scripture. This view is called “material sufficiency”. During the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent, the majority held to the ‘partim/partim’ view, and the minority held to the material sufficiency view. The wording of the council was specifically made obscure so that it would please both sides. For many centuries afterward, most Roman Catholics interpreted the wording of the council to mean the ‘partim/partim’ view, but now, most Roman Catholics interpret it to mean material sufficiency. To this day, there has never been any clarification on an issue as important as the nature of the rule of faith. So which is it? Partim or material sufficiency?
Another example: Historically, the RCC has said that there is no salvation outside of official membership in the RCC (“extra ecclesiam nulla sallus”). This statement was very clear and had the context that “every human creature” must “be subject to the Roman pontiff” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctum, circa 1302). However, as of Vatican II, the RCC has made statements that state that not only can Protestants be saved but also Jews and Muslims (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 819, 838, 840, and 841). Liberals and moderates will say the RCC teaches that Judaism and Islam are different paths to God and Heaven. Conservatives say that these passages teach that only those who are ignorant of the details of the Gospel in those religions can be saved and that Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are true Christians. Traditionalists continue to hold to ‘extra ecclesiam nulla sallus’ except for the case of extreme ignorance. Statements and actions by John Paul II lend support to the liberal or moderate view. However, church leaders in Central and South America have given support to the conservative and some to the traditionalist. The RCC still refuses to clarify the issue because it wants to please all sides. Which is correct?
Yet another example: What is the official belief of the Roman Catholic Church on the issue of predestination (Augustinianism, Molinism, etc.)? No one knows. Go here to see the many views. So which is correct?
The real facts are that there are numerous “churches” that claim infallible authority and Rome is just ONE of them. The Eastern Orthodox, the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and every cult on the planet also claim infallibility. All of these groups are willing to bring about unity through their respective ‘infallible’ authorities.
See the problem? Whenever Scripture is DEVIATED from in favor of 'infallible' authorities or 'creeds' or 'traditions' is when disunity arrives. Your argument falls flat IMO.
If you ask a question and it is answered and then you change the subject in order to chastise the answerer, the next question won't be answered.
DITTO.
“Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. “ (Romans 9:5)
By the same logic that Mary is called the mother of God, so can Israel itself be said to be the father or mother of God, and the problem of Mary being exalted as the mother of God is not simply whether this is can be allowed in the right sense, but what it can easily convey, that of an ontological oneness and an undue exaltation of a human.
As regards the latter, Mary as the mother of God is part of an undue exaltation of Mary to a Goddess status, ascribing powers and privileges which extrapolate much out of her state. Yet using the same hermeneutic, much more could be ascribed to those thru whom the pure word of God came, and who were instruments of salvation. And indeed, making saints heavenly objects of petitions of men is part of such.
But if we seek to go by the scriptures as the supreme objective authority, we should not think of men above what is written, and which results in strife’s and divisions, (1Cor. 4:6) and while the Scriptures clearly exalt Christ, any exaltation of men is quite tempered.
“{6} But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: “ (Galatians 2:6)
“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. “ (Galatians 2:11)
The “plan” is to acknowledge that “all men are fallen” and “none is righteous.”
The “plan” is that Christ will gather to Himself a peculiar people and die to acquit them of their sins and be resurrected to prove it true.
The “plan” is that, as Isaiah 53 tells us, "He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground."
"Dry ground." Not "immaculate, sinless mother."
When Jesus was asked to point to his mother and brothers, He corrected the one who asked and instead waved broadly to all His followers...
And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." -- Mark 3:33-35 "Who is my mother, or my brethren?
From Jesus' own lips comes the truth that you and I and all believers are the equal of His own mother and brothers and sisters. Mary has nothing on us.
But the Roman Catholic church obstinately contradicts Jesus Christ and instead tells men to venerate, pray to, glorify and look to redemption from a mere, young Jewish woman who was blessed to carry the Christ child to term.
And nothing more.
Once again, Rome denies the words of God.
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" -- Isaiah 46:9-10"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
THAT'S the "plan."
Where are we told in Scripture that Mary was sinless?
Something that contradicts the word of God so profoundly would surely have been made clear to anyone reading the text.
We do see in Scripture that when someone significant is significantly different than it is noted, from men with every six fingers and six toes (2Sam. 21:20) to men who were overall blameless, (Lk. 1:6) to Christ, of whom the Holy Spirit clearly tells us was sinless. (2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:22; cf. Jn. 8:46; Heb. 7:26)
However, the latter is not said of Mary, and while one could contend that that Scripture nowhere says she sinned, it does not say that of men like Daniel either. But the sinlessness of Christ is set forth as one of His distinctions, and like as the Lord alone is set forth as the immediate heavenly object of prayer, to make another such is reading into Scripture that which is neither manifest or necessary, and contrary to its manner of revelation.
You do have some Calvinists who question the salvation of Arminians, and vice versa (less the latter of the former), but this degree is more of an extreme one, while the issue of predestination is an exceeding difficult one (and much unresolved in Rome as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis), separating very good men like Whitefield and Wesley, though they both preached salvation by grace and sometimes exchanged pulpits.
Other substantial divisive issues among those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture and its basic historical exegesis are the perpetuity of all Pentecostal gifts, and eternal security.
Yet within the largest Prot denom there are large groups of both, and overall committed evangelicals manifest a remarkable and often spontaneous unity, which is not based upon denomination or particular church, but upon a basic common transformative conversion by faith in the Scripture-based gospel and it resultant relationship with the living Christ, working in their heart and lives as they look to Him thru the Scriptures and prayer. And evangelicals overall evidence greater unity in fidelity to certain core truths and moral values than their RC counterparts, while the greater authority the latter ascribe to the Bible then the greater their fidelity to core truths and key moral values. http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html
Complete, comprehensive doctrinal unity has ever been a goal not yet realized, and though it must be a goal, while is most essential is the unity of the Spirit resulting from becoming manifestly born again. After becoming so while yet going to the RCC, i found the closet to this was among some Charismatics (http://arlingtonrenewal.org/duquesne-weekend) in the 80’s, before it seemed to get reeled in from becoming too Protestant.
A key issue in the “unity war” btwn “sola ecclesia” and “sola Scripture” is that of the kind of unity each school produces. As you know while RC’s may dissent from non-infallible teachings somewhat (and do), assent of faith is required for those which are held to be infallibly defined (provided one knows which one they are, all of which is not certain). While this can produce a greater degree of unity in conformity, it is the same type of unity that is produced by cults, and more effectually so, as while some may claim to hold the Scripture as supreme, they effectively hold to a mortal or an office as being the supreme unchallengeable authority.
In contrast, the type of unity resulting from the holding the Scriptures as supreme - which requires not simply the method of the noble Berean’s, but also that kind of heart - is greater in quality if not quantity than that of implicit assent of faith that a magisterium is infallible. Especially when a declaration is de facto infallible when it conform to the infallibly defined (scope and content-based) criteria of the IM.
Having nailed that to the wall, i also want to say to the others that i have found Mad Dawg (how you got that name?!) to be the most reasonable of all the other RCA’s i have dealt with here. Even though your tag line, for one, still grieves me!
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.