Posted on 07/29/2014 4:02:28 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
Jessa Duggar is currently courting Ben Seewald, a very strong Christian with very strong views on things. His views on the Catholic faith, however, recently caused a social media scandal and Seewald deleted the comments he had posted to his Facebook page.
"Where Catholics depart from Scripture, I will in no way support, but will call them out because I love them and desire that they be turned from their deadly errors," Seewald wrote. He also noted that he disagreed with the claim that Jesus' mother Mary was a "sinless being. I have nothing against individuals who are Catholic," he continued. "I know a lot of Catholics who are great people. What I DO have a problem with is the teaching that man can merit God's favor through his own works or the works of other fallen men."
Seewald was still not through expressing his disappointment with the Catholic tradition.
"I DO have a problem with the teaching that man can come to God through Mary or any other person besides Jesus … I DO have a problem with the deification of Mary as a sinless being. Mary herself admitted her need for a Savior. If she had no sin, she would need no Savior," he concluded.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
With all due respect to you, my friend, I know whom I adore as God and I know whom I do not. I give ultimate worship to God, and God alone.
If you say that isn't so, the only options seem to be that you either think I'm lying about my religious beliefs, -OR- you think I could accidentally worship somebody without knowing it.
If the former, you'd be saying I'm liar and that would end the conversation, since I don't converse with people who morally slander me .
If the latter, you'd be saying it's possible to for a person to inadvertently perform the most exalted conscious interior act a person can do, which doesn't make sense: you can't perform an act of the will, unwillfully.
Therefore it might help if you would specify how you think I could have carelessly worshipped somebody without knowing it--- if that's what you think I'm doing.
Thank you.
Conjectur? It's a legitimate question. We're talking about the exact meaning of words.
We talk freely about why St. Paul uses "eros" versus "agape" vs "phileo" vs "storge" --- which English translators almost always render as the same word, "love," but which really demands getting into Paul's mind to see why he is making these distinctions. We're obliged to deal with Paul's word choices and their distinct shades of meaning.
We don't at all mind discussing the difference between "Sarx" and "soma" in verses like "For though I be absent in the flesh (sarx)," "change this vile body (soma) into His "life is more than meat and the body(soma) more than the raiment" "sown a natural (psuchikos) body (soma) raised a spiritual (pneuma) body (soma)" "neither did His flesh (sarx) see corruption" "in the body (soma) of His flesh (sarx)" "all flesh (sarx) is not the same flesh (sarx)"
I'm sure you'd agree that the exact word choices are important becdause they make distinctions between one thing and another.
So to the question: why, reasonably, would Paul pass up words used elsewhere in the NT and common in the Greek "Pleres charitos" and coin an entirely new, unheard-of term (or, better, quote the Angel Gabriel saying something nobody ever said before), "Kecharitomene"?
You don't wonder about that? You don't think it's worth looking into?
I don't disagree with examining words in the NT. We all need to do better in learing the Greek behind our English bibles.
Bear in mind there are a lot of one or two use words in the NT. Some more interesting than others from a theological perspective. However, context will help us understand the intent behind the writings.
However, the term Luke has used here doesn't suggest Mary is sinless or remained sinless. I don't find that even hinted at in Strong's or Word-Helps.
That's why I said it was conjecture.
The rest of the passage explains what is about to happen to Mary and her response to the message from Gabriel.
Let context be the key to interpretation.
As I noted earlier, if Mary were sinless, it would contradict Romans 3:23 and the teaching that we are all sinners in needs of salavation. The Bible doesn't contradict itself.
Mary was the Ark of the Covenant chosen by God to carry His Son. How can anyone think she was less than perfect in all respects.
You are free to speak your religion but not desecrate another religion that is better in the first place.
I am sorry you are going through that. I hope you get better soon!
Better than what, naps?
According to whom?
If you say... The Church (while meaning the Roman Catholic church) then show me precisely from "infallible" Magesterium where they say that is the case.
Or admit (to yourself, at least) that it is an old wives tale sort of thing, all dressed up in religious clothing.
That image proves nothing.
Can't you see they were praying to the statue???
Paul disagrees with you.
Rmns 3:23
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
You say the Bible doesn't contradict itself: OK, but it does present paradoxes for interpretation. Every one who reads the Bible has seen this:
PS 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. Who is Josephs father?? MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one. ISA 14:21 Prepare to slaughter the children for the iniquity of their fathers EX. 33:11"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." GEN 32:30"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." GEN 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." |
Relevant to our present discussion is that everyone sins and thus everyone has to die; but Elijah goes up to heaven in a fiery chariot without dying.
2KI 2:11"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."
-vs-
JOH 3:13"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man."
Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing in the manner of a smart-aleck atheist who reads Scripture without real study, and in a superficial way; nor in the manner of a ex-fundamentalist Scripture scholar like Bart Ehrman, who in a surfeit of scholarship, was driven right out of the faith by textual variants and scribal errors.
So, back to our topic. Every verse that says "For there is not a just (or righteous) man upon earth," can be matched by a verse that explicitly says such-and-such is just (or righteous) ---for instance Noah, Joseph, etc.
The text that says "All sin" can be matched by a verse that says Mary is full of grace (FULL of grace excludes sin.) . She was an exception. Predestined to impart a perfect human nature to Jesus (otherwise He would have received a damaged nature like everybody else, since He is a descasndant of Adam and Eve.) That's why the unique, exceptional sinlessness of Mary is expressed by the unique, exceptional word "Kecharitomene."
You need the whole Bible as context. Enjoy (LINK)
Who took Elijah up to Heaven?
How do we get to Heaven?
No contradiction here.
Who took Elijah up to Heaven?.. How do we get to Heaven?...
No contradiction here.
It doesn't say "No man except Elijah."
Mind you, that doesn't rattle me. Elijah evidently went bodily up to heaven instead of rotting in the grave here below-- and without dying, though as a sinner he would have had to die, right? Elijah was a sinner, et he did not die; he went bodily to heaven even though Christ had not yet come to pay he substitutionary price to open the gates of heaven, either. One would think Elijah would have had to go to the shadowy place of waiting, the netherworld, sheol, the bosom of Abraham, right? But no, God evidently makes an exception for him.
The rest of us, the saved, are going to go to heaven bodily, after the resurrection of our bodies --- even though out bodies have rotten in the gracve, or been eaten by sharks, or whatever --- because Jesus will bring this about by His own power.
I also believe in the Assumption of Mary. No contradiction!
And Adam sinned, right?
Mary is a descendant of Adam, right?
So, Mary is a sinner
you need to start believing the Bible
{{And Adam sinned, right?
Jesus is a descendant of Adam, right?
So, Jesus is a sinner
you need to start believing the Bible}}
No. It doesn't follow logically.
your Biblical Ignorance is showing
Jesus did not have a human father
Mary did
Do you now convince Jesus of sin?
Read your Bible.
I know Mary did.
But if she had sinned, why would the angel lie and say she was completely full of grace?
BTW Jesus was also a descendant of Adam and Eve (on His mother’s side.)
Again....keep John 3 in context and there's no problem with these two verses.
The Assumption of Mary is again speculation at best. Could God do this? Yes.
Does the Bible say He did? Not with Mary.
We have to be very, very careful in announcing these dogmas as the RCC has done with Mary.
If not, it opens the door to future claims by the RCC, or others for that matter, in this arena and other areas that do not have Biblical support.
Mormonism is a good example of this.
So it's always rather a waste of time to tell educated Catholics that their beliefs are un-Biblical simply because they are universally acknowledged to be both Biblical and extra-Biblical. The Bible and Sacred Tradition make up one single deposit of truth, which is the Faith handed down to us by the Apostles.
Some non-Catholics (I'm not saying this is you) seem to think Christ founded a Church for no articular purpose, with no particular authority, and with no visible existence or structure or process of succession and with no visible continuity through most of 20 centuries.
Fine. But that's not the Church in reality.
The Church in reality is so much bigger than that. It's big, huge. It has immense depth and breadth. It spans history, it spans the globe. You're part of it, whether you know it or not. It is a great communion of love, and it is all Christ's, to use a thousand images, His kingdom, His flock, His dragnet, His family, His body, His bride.
But our ideas of what the Church is, are so different.
(Though I was talking with a dearly loved and respected Baptist man just today, and we and we seemed to have very nearly he same ideas, strangely enough, so there's no tellin' ...)
But to the extent that we do not understand "Church" alike, to that extent we remain, it seems, largely incomprehensible to each other.
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.