Posted on 01/11/2012 7:34:56 PM PST by RnMomof7
Mary: Mother of God?
This article is prompted by an ad in the Parade Magazine titled: "Mary Mother of God: What All Mankind Should Know." The offer was made for a free pamphlet entitled "Mary Mother of Jesus" with this explanation: "A clear, insightful pamphlet explains the importance of Mary and her role as Mother of God."
This is quite a claim, to say the least! Nowhere in the Bible is Mary said to be the mother of God. I touched on this subject in a series on "Mary Co-Redeemer with Christ" printed recently.
Question: If Mary is the Mother of God, Who, may I ask, is the Father of God? Does God have a Father, and if He does, Who is His Mother?
The phrase "Mother of God" originated in the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431 AD. It occurs in the Creed of Chalcedon, which was adopted by the council in 451 AD. This was the declaration given at that time: "Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the Manhood." The purpose of this statement originally was meant to emphasize the deity of Christ over against the teaching of the Nestorians whose teaching involved a dual-natured Jesus. Their teaching was that the person born of Mary was only a man who was then indwelt by God. The title "Mother of God" was used originally to counter this false doctrine. The doctrine now emphasizes the person of Mary rather than the deity of Jesus as God incarnate. Mary certainly did not give birth to God. In fact, Mary did not give birth to the divinity of Christ. Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human. He was divine God in a flesh body. This is what Mary gave birth to. Read Hebrews 10:5 and Phil 2:5-11.
Please refer to Hebrews 10:5 where we see. "...Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."
The body of Jesus was prepared by God. In Matthew 1:18, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
The divine nature of Jesus existed from before eternity, and this cannot be said of Mary Jesus never called her "mother". He called her "woman".
This doctrine deifies Mary and humanizes Jesus. Mary is presented as stronger that Christ, more mature and more powerful that Christ. Listen to this statement by Rome: "He came to us through Mary, and we must go to Him through her." The Bible plainly states that God is the Creator of all things. It is a blasphemous attack on the eternity of God to ever teach that He has a mother. Mary had other children who were normal, physical, sinful human beings. In the case of Jesus Christ, "His human nature had no father and His divine nature had no mother."
It is probably no coincidence that this false doctrine surrounding Mary was born in Ephesus. Please read Acts 19:11-41 and see that Ephesus had a problem with goddess worship. Her name was Diana, Gk. Artemis. You will not have to study very deep to find the similarities between the goddess Diana and the Roman Catholic goddess, Mary. It should be noted that the Mary of the 1st century and the Mary of the 20th century are not the same. Mary of the 1st century was the virgin who gave birth to the Messiah. Mary of the 20th century is a goddess created by the Roman Catholic Church. A simple comparison of what the Bible teaches about Mary and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about her will reveal two different Marys. Mary is not the "Mother of God." If she were she would be GOD! There is only one true, eternal God. He was not born of a woman. Any teaching on any subject should be backed up by the word of God. If it cannot be supported by Scriptures, it is false doctrine.
Show me one instance where the Holy Spirit was promised to an organization called the “church” as opposed to individual believers.
Thus while every word the apostles or Jesus spoke is not recorded what we do have is sufficient to thoroughly train the man of of God for every good work.
Someone might be proud of their schooling and have knowledge (gnosis) but it is not the epignosis that Paul spoke of. They are not equipped for every good work.
We aren’t given everything that happened because we don’t NEED to know everything that happened.
God saw to it that what was needed was transcribed into Scripture and gave it to us.
He said it was enough.
I believe Him.
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.
You don’t like it if Christ is in on the discussion?
Some other time perhaps, if it is a list of scripture speaking of the Word itself which you seek, it can be provided. But of what use would that be to yourself, if you are of the camp which elevates tradition to be not only on par with scripture, but above and beyond it when it comes to adding things and instituting practices which are not found in the Word, even in opposition and contradiction to it?
Perhaps some other time you might read what Berkouwer had to say at the link provided at the colored banner "Unshakable Authority". The discussion of identity is important, speaking much to the differences of approach towards scripture, and who we are, in relation to the Lord.
If one is able to digest that, it would help tone down the false argument that each child of the Reformation takes it upon their own selves to interpret scripture privately.
Interestingly enough, just the other day we had a sermon or teaching of sorts brought by a Catholic here to FR, from a Catholic source, which was all but indiscernible from preachings and teachings commonly found among other-than-Roman Catholic pastors. It seemed good teaching to myself, though admittedly I did not delve into it too deeply, for the concepts being discussed were familiar to me.
I thought to comment upon the completeness of the similarities but did not, as another made the point. The point being, that each teacher arrived a the same conclusions. Wondering upon that, I did look enough to see that the focus was upon an individual's more direct ongoing relationship with the Lord, and how to better that, rather than that relationship being entirely subsumed and taken custody of by submission to church hierarchy.
22 The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief corner stone.
A: Jesus
Who is the stone in Matthew 21:44?
42 Jesus *said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures,
‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone;
THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD,
AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’?
43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a [m]people, producing the fruit of it. 44 And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”
A: Jesus
Who did Peter(by the Holy Spirit) say the stone is?
8 Then Peter, [c]filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “[d]Rulers and elders of the people, 9 if we are [e]on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, [f]as to how this man has been made well, 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that [g]by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—[h]by [i]this name this man stands here before you in good health. 11 [j]He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”
A: Jesus
Who is the stone in Romans 9:33?
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is [t]by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it [u]by faith, but as though it were [v]by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 just as it is written,
“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE [w]DISAPPOINTED.”
A: Jesus
Now for the best part. Here is an opportunity for Catholics who believe in the Alter-Christ to twist some scripture.
1Peter 2:4-8
4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is [i]choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, [j]are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in [k]Scripture:
“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN [l]HIM WILL NOT BE [m]DISAPPOINTED.”
7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve,
“THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,”
8 and,
“A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”;
for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.
Now, who is the stone in verse 4 and who are the stones in verse 5? Its quite clear Peter is referring to believers. Peter is calling me, Tramonto, a living stone. In verses 7 and 8, the stone is again referring to Jesus. Jesus named Peter a stone and Peter named all believers as living stones but it is Jesus who is the corner stone upon which the church is built.
Ephesians 2:19-22
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the [p]saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy [q]temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
Here Paul calls Jesus the corner stone and then he goes on to call the apostles and the prophets as being the foundation upon which all other believers are built. The prophets wrote the old testament and the Apostles along with their companions wrote the new testament.
The true church is built on Jesus and the prophets (old testament) and the apostles (new testament). There is a kernel of truth to the false Catholic teaching that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built because he is one of the apostles that is part of the foundation. True Christians believe Peter when he says that Jesus is the chief corner stone.
Who should Christians believe? Jesus, King David, Isaiah, Peter and Paul or the man who claims he is the Alter-Christ?
Matthew 16:21-23
21 From that time [r]Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. 22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “[s]God forbid it, Lord! This shall never [t]happen to You.” 23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on [u]God’s interests, but man’s.”
Matthew writes about this episode right after the one where Peter confesses that Jesus is the Son of God. Now it is clear from other scripture that the corner stone of the church is Christ but it seems that Peter, as a "living stone" and an apostle, is a piece of the foundation built upon Christ and upon which all other believers are built. In verse 23 Jesus calls Peter "satan" and a "stumbling block" because he was setting his mind on man's interests rather than God's. Peter is not infallible and neither is the Alter-Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is built on the rock that is Peter but its not from Matthew 16:18 but rather Matthew 16:23. The rock being the stumbling block and Peter as someone who is pursuing man's interests rather than God's.
In review, the corner stone is Jesus. The prophets and the apostles, which I interpret to be the Bible, are the foundation and all believers are living stones in a spiritual temple that is the true church. The hierarchical organization that is run by the Alter-Christ is not spiritual, not built on Christ, the prophets or the apostles but rather on the traditions of man.
Well said.
Jesus Christ said the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles to all truth.
James said, “... not by faith only”.
Anyone who thinks James is wrong, that James lied or that James was misquoted, is saying that the Holy Spirit did not lead James or did not oversee and ensure the Truth of the Scriptures.
Anyone who says the Holy Spirit did not guide the Apostles to all truth is calling Jesus Christ a liar.
Anyone who calls Jesus Christ a liar is denying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God from God, incapable of telling a lie.
It's about those who deny the deity of Christ. Being Catholic comes in when a Catholic reads how we're to deal with those who openly and repeatedly deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Even prior to recognizing that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ Himself and the One True Church, I didn't want anything to do with the sort of numb skulls who claimed to be Christian but denied the deity of Christ. Not the Watchtower crew, the Mormon crowd, and especially not pontificating posters pretending they are infallible interpreters of His Word while at the same time denying His Word and The Word which is Christ Himself at the same time.
Blather, babble, bumpkin interpretations, and everything else those who deny the deity of Christ post to excuse or hide their denial of Christ are all meaningless. Anathema applies because they have openly and repeatedly denied the deity and the Truth of His Word right along with their repeated denials of the deity of Christ.
So, such folks can wallow in whatever muddy little fantasy they like, especially any of them who also like to pretend they were once Catholic, they still cannot hide from the fact that they deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the thing to do is leave them to their reprobate mind and pray for them. They've made their bed and either they'll be totally given over to a reprobate mind and continue to move ever further away from Christ, or the Holy Spirit will deal with them by other means.
The Holy Spirit will lead ALL believers into all truth.
Any believer has the same Holy Spirit the apostles had.
Same Holy Spirit = same truth.
What He did for them, He can do for you and me.
I suspect the latter but then again, I can't follow the many twists and turns of insanity those who post here believe as the result of having been given over to a reprobate mind. Maybe those with a reprobate mind are just so blind they can't follow simple logic like water is wet or the sky is blue.
Then why do you deny the deity of Jesus Christ? Is your personal version of the Holy Spirit telling you that James was a liar and therefore Christ is not the Son of God or does your version of the Holy Spirit say, “nah, you don’t have to believe that garbage to believe Christ is God”?
I suspect the latter but then again, I can’t follow the many twists and turns of insanity those who post here believe as the result of having been given over to a reprobate mind. Maybe those with a reprobate mind are just so blind they can’t follow simple logic like water is wet or the sky is blue.
Show me where I said that.
Blah Blah Blah, take it up with your Prot brothers and sister that say you are wrong. these are peoople that actually studied the Greek and have a piece of paper that says they are smart.
Though it may be impossible for some to show respect and appreciate your honest AND scholarly input, let me declare that if I had to choose between what they call their “pearls” and yours, I will take what you represent. You speak for the Pearl of Great Price, Jesus Christ the righteous and the truth of the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith - THE Gospel. Thank you.
I’ll keep my thank you short. What boatbums said! God Bless!
He's not wrong. Catholics and Catholicism are.
these are peoople that actually studied the Greek and have a piece of paper that says they are smart.
Right. People with a BS, MS, and a Piled higher and Deeper.
Unexpected and charitable, and which reminds me of one my fav verses:
“I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which thou hast shewed unto thy servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am become two bands. “ (Genesis 32:10)
Jesus Christ said the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles to all truth.
(everyone who does not deny that Jesus Christ is God will be guided to the Truth, not everyone who spins their own web of personal interpretation or accepts what that who worship The Most High Self tells them)
James said, “... not by faith only”.
Anyone who thinks James is wrong, that James lied or that James was misquoted, is saying that the Holy Spirit did not lead James or did not oversee and ensure the Truth of the Scriptures.
Anyone who says the Holy Spirit did not guide the Apostles and insure that the Scriptures are not in error is calling Jesus Christ a liar.
Anyone who calls Jesus Christ a liar is denying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God from God, incapable of telling a lie. Obviously, when someone insists that a particular thing that Christ promised is a lie, they are calling Christ a liar whether they realize that or not.
When someone goes even further and blatantly calls Christ Himself a liar by denying that He is present in the bread and wine when we remember Him, they are deliberately denying the deity of Christ by directly calling Christ a liar.
"Show Me" replies are always a joke coming from those who routinely post the very doctrines that within their very definition deny the deity of Christ. Some such folks are sincere and only interested in the Truth. Such folks can discuss these things without beginning and ending with attacks on the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, some cannot. Those who cannot and those who refuse to reconsider their acceptence of doctrines that by definition call Christ a liar, let them be anathema.
Those who continue to deny the deity of Christ can fool themselves however they like, but they should get used to the idea of hearing, "I never knew you" from the very Jesus Christ they deny is God.
How curious that the Catholics must use Holy Scripture to insist the Church was established upon St. Peter, the giving of the power to bind and loose, to forgive or retain sins and any other such things that they deem came from Christ, but then assert that their "traditions" have authority over Holy Scripture. Do they not see a circular reasoning here? From http://www.the-highway.com/tradition_Webster.html:
In the history of Roman Catholic dogma, one can trace an evolution in the theory of tradition. There were two fundamental patristic principles which governed the early Church’s approach to dogma. The first was sola Scriptura in which the fathers viewed Scripture as both materially and formally sufficient. It was materially sufficient in that it was the only source of doctrine and truth and the ultimate authority in all doctrinal controversies. It was necessary that every teaching of the Church as it related to doctrine be proven from Scripture. Thomas Aquinas articulated this patristic view when he stated that canonical Scripture alone is the rule of faith (sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei).1 Additionally, they taught that the essential truths of Scripture were perspicuous, that is, that they were clearly revealed in Scripture, so that, by the enablement of the Holy Spirit alone an individual could come to an understanding of the fundamental truths of salvation.
The second is a principle enunciated by the Roman Catholic Councils of Trent (1546-1562) and Vatican I (1870) embodied in the phrase ‘the unanimous consent of the fathers.’ This is a principle that purportedly looks to the past for validation of its present teachings particularly as they relate to the interpretation of Scripture. Trent initially promulgated this principle as a means of countering the Reformation teachings to make it appear that the Reformers’ doctrines were novel and heretical while those of Rome were rooted in historical continuity. It is significant to note that Trent merely affirmed the existence of the principle without providing documentary proof for its validity. Vatican I merely reaffirmed the principle as decreed by Trent. Its historical roots hearken back to Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century who was the first to give it formal definition when he stated that apostolic and catholic doctrine could be identified by a three fold criteria: It was a teaching that had been believed everywhere, always and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est).2 In other words, the principle of unanimous agreement encompassing universality (believed everywhere), antiquity (believed always) and consent (believed by all). Vincent readily agreed with the principle of sola Scriptura, that is, that Scripture was sufficient as the source of truth. But he was concerned about how one determined what was truly apostolic and catholic doctrine. This was the official position of the Church immediately subsequent to Vincent throughout the Middle Ages and for centuries immediately following Trent. But this principle, while fully embraced by Trent and Vatican I, has all been but abandoned by Rome today in a practical and formal sense. This is due to the fact that so much of Rome’s teachings, upon historical examination, fail the test of unanimous consent. Some Roman Catholic historians are refreshingly honest in this assessment. Patrologist Boniface Ramsey, for example, candidly admits that the current Roman Catholic teachings on Mary and the papacy were not taught in the early Church:
Sometimes, then, the Fathers speak and write in a way that would eventually be seen as unorthodox. But this is not the only difficulty with respect to the criterion of orthodoxy. The other great one is that we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.3
At first, this clear lack of patristic consensus led Rome to embrace a new theory in the late nineteenth century to explain its teachings — the theory initiated by John Henry Newman known as the development of doctrine. In light of the historical reality, Newman had come to the conclusion that the Vincentian principle of unanimous consent was unworkable, because, for all practical purposes, it was nonexistent. To quote Newman:
It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem.4
The obvious problem with Newman’s analysis and conclusion is that it flies in the face of the decrees of Trent and Vatican I, both of which decreed that the unanimous consent of the fathers does exist. But to circumvent the lack of patristic witness for the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas, Newman set forth his theory of development, which was embraced by the Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, this is a theory which, like unanimous consent, has its roots in the teaching of Vincent of Lerins, who also promulgated a concept of development. While rejecting Vincent’s rule of universality, antiquity and consent, Rome, through Newman, once again turned to Vincent for validation of its new theory of tradition and history. But while Rome and Vincent both use the term development, they are miles apart in their understanding of the meaning of the principle because Rome’s definition of development and Vincent’s are diametrically opposed to one another. In his teaching, Vincent delineates the following parameters for true development of doctrine:
But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.5
First of all, Vincent is saying that doctrinal development must be rooted in the principle of unanimous consent. That is, it must be related to doctrines that have been clearly taught throughout the ages of the Church. In other words, true development must demonstrate historical roots. Any teaching which could not demonstrate its authority from Scripture and the universal teaching of the Church was to be repudiated as novel and therefore not truly catholic. It was to be considered heretical. This is the whole point of Vincent’s criticism of such heretics as Coelestius and Pelagius. He says, ‘Who ever before his (Pelagius) monstrous disciple Coelestius ever denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin?’6 Their teaching, which was a denial of original sin, was novel. It could not demonstrate historical continuity and therefore it was heretical.
But, with Newman, Rome redefined the theory of development and promoted a new concept of tradition. One that was truly novel. Truly novel in the sense that it was completely foreign to the perspective of Vincent and the theologians of Trent and Vatican I who speak of the unanimous consent of the fathers. These two Councils claim that there is a clear continuity between their teaching and the history of the ancient Church which preceded them (whether this is actually true is another thing altogether). A continuity which can they claimed could be documented by the explicit teaching of the Church fathers in their interpretation of Scripture and in their practice. Vatican I, for example, teaches that the papacy was full blown from the very beginning and was, therefore, not subject to development over time.
In this new theory Rome moved beyond the historical principle of development as articulated by Vincent and, for all practical purposes, eliminated any need for historical validation. She now claimed that it was not necessary that a particular doctrine be taught explicitly by the early Church. In fact, Roman Catholic historians readily admit that doctrines such as the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility were completely unknown in the teaching of the early Church. If Rome now teaches the doctrine we are told that the early Church actually believed and taught it implicitly and only later, after many centuries, did it become explicit.
From this principle it was only a small step in the evolution of Rome’s teaching on Tradition to her present position. Rome today has replaced the concept of tradition as development to what is known as ‘living tradition.’ This is a concept that promotes the Church as an infallible authority, which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who protects her from error. Therefore, whatever Rome’s magisterium teaches at any point in time must be true even if it lacks historical or biblical support. The following statement by Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating regarding the teaching of the Assumption of Mary is an illustration of this very point. He says it does not matter that there is no teaching on the Assumption in Scripture, the mere fact that the Roman Church teaches it is proof that it is true. Thus, teachings do not need to be documented from Scripture:
Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.7
This assertion is a complete repudiation of the patristic principle of proving every doctrine by the criterion of Scripture. Tradition means handing down from the past. Rome has changed the meaning of tradition from demonstrating by patristic consent that a doctrine is truly part of tradition, to the concept of living tradition — whatever I say today is truth, irrespective of the witness of history. This goes back to the claims of Gnosticism to having received the tradition by living voice, viva voce. Only now Rome has reinterpreted viva voce, the living voice as receiving from the past by way of oral tradition, to be a creative and therefore entirely novel aspect of tradition. It creates tradition in its present teaching without appeal to the past. To paraphrase the Gnostic line, it is viva voce — whatever we say. Another illustration of this reality relates to the teaching of the Assumption of Mary from the French Roman Catholic historian, Joussard:
In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought — as some theologians still do today under one form or another — to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission.8
So, in effect, the new teaching of tradition in Rome is no longer that of continuity with the past but living tradition, or viva voce — whatever we say. Instead of sola Scriptura, the unanimous principle of authority enunciated by both Scripture and the Church fathers, we now have sola Ecclesia, blind submission to an institution which is unaccountable to either Scripture or history. That blind submission is not too strong an allegation is seen from the official Roman teaching on saving faith. What Rome requires is what is technically referred to a dogmatic faith. This is faith which submits completely to whatever the Church of Rome officially defines as dogma and to refuse such submission results in anathema and the loss of salvation, for unless a Roman Catholic has dogmatic faith, he or she does not have saving faith. Rome’s view is based on the presupposition that the Church is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and is therefore infallible. She cannot err. But the presupposition is faulty. Historically, the Roman Church has clearly proven that she can and has erred and is therefore quite fallible. Her gospel is a repudiation of the biblical gospel.
This is where we ultimately arrive when the patristic and Reformation principle of sola Scriptura is repudiated for the concept of living tradition and an infallible magisterium — the embracing of teachings which are not only not found in Scripture or the teaching of the early Church, but which are actually contradictory to Scripture and in many cases to the teaching of the Church fathers.
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.