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 ...
” Response #1: Nonsense like this “bugs” me too! Let me begin by pointing out that Mary too was a bit confused by this greeting, wondering “what kind of greeting this might be” (Lk.1:29 NIV). The angel Gabriel himself responds with the explanation: “But the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor (charis-grace) with God’” (Lk.1:30). The word italicized here, favor or “grace”, is the root word of the verbal form in question. That is to say, kecharitomene is “grace”, charis, made into a verb (to be specific, a verbal participle). Thus we have from God’s messenger himself an answer to this question, if we are but ready to receive it, namely, Mary is called by this epithet because she had “garnered grace” in God’s eyes through her exemplary spiritual life (cf. the similar praise given to her cousins, Zechariah and Elizabeth earlier in the chapter: Lk.1:6). And that, after all, is the literal meaning of kecharitomene, namely, “having been graced”. Further, because Mary had “found” this favor/grace/charis at some point in the past, by definition she was not born with it. This favor came about from something she did, namely, believing in the Lord and walking in a way pleasing to Him through spiritual growth and service. This explanation from Gabriel proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that his appellation in question here does not imply sinlessness, but rather demonstrates Mary’s spiritual prominence, divine favor of the sort available to all believers but, sadly, appropriated by few.
It really irritates me when people who are used to dealing with others who don’t have degrees in Greek use their insufficient knowledge as a sort of sledge hammer to “settle” all arguments. Based on the above, a simple answer to give your respondent would be: “hogwash!”, but I suppose we should go into the details:
1) Transliterated the actual form of the word in question would be kecharitomene, but anyone dealing with Greek would describe it as what it is, a participle of the verb charitoo.
2) Of all Indo-European languages of which I am aware, Greek is the most root-focused. The import of that fact here is that this verb is based on a root meaning “favor” (cf. Greek charis); that is what is at the core of charitoo’s meaning, and that is the key to discovering what this particular form of the verb means or might mean in turn. To put the matter in terms of its essential accidence, charitoo is merely a factitive verb, that is, it’s what someone does when they want to take a noun and turn it into a transitive/causative verb. Therefore, by its structure and root the verb ought to mean “to give or bestow favor-grace to or on someone”. In the case of a perfect participle in passive voice (such as we have here), the form would then mean “someone who has had favor-grace given/bestowed to/on them (i.e., from some source)”.
3) To call this word a “hapax” in an attempt to bestow some sort of uniqueness on it is disingenuous. Not only does this verb occur throughout Greek literature - it also occurs elsewhere in the Bible at Ephesians 1:6:
Having foreordained us for adoption to Himself through Jesus Christ according to the good pleasure of His will, for the purpose of producing (at salvation) praise for the glory of His grace which He has graciously bestowed on us in the Beloved [One].
Ephesians 1:5-6
Another way to put the italicized phrase is “the favor-grace with which He has favored-graced us”; in the Greek its charin hes echaritosen. In other words, the verb in question from Luke 1:28 has as its first or internal object “favor/grace” and as its second or true direct object “us”. We get / have gotten favor/grace from God in Jesus Christ. We know that here because the verse says so explicitly, but that is not any kind of surprise for anyone who understands that grace is favor, and specifically and importantly in the Bible it is God’s favor, His beneficence, good will, grace, kindliness, etc. directed our way because of our relationship with His Son. We are all said to have this grace in Ephesians 1:6 expressed by exactly the same verb as is used in Luke 1:28. That doesn’t mean, of course, that we never sin!”
“5) The idea that one can read into this word meaning “object of grace/favor” any degree of sinlessness or perfection on the basis of a “perfect” verb form indicates a complete misunderstanding of what “perfect” means in grammatical terms. In verbs, it only means “completed action” – not sinlessness!”
http://www.ichthys.com/mail-Mary-full-of-grace.htm
On Mary, again we know so little of spiritual truths, only as much as the Lord has willed us to know at this time, but enough for His purposes. But even to say that Mary had Adam and Eve’s original sinlessness doesn’t lead to the conclusion that she remained without sin because, after all, when temptation came, they sinned.
The rejection of certain beliefs about Mary by evangelicals comes primarily from how Catholicism gives her so many attributes of God, including having her worshipped while denying that it does so. I know you and other Catholics reject those conclusions, but evangelicals reach them not only through the logic of Scripture, but then also through experience. When I pray or meditate it’s communion with the Lord, and constantly through the day He’s on my mind and I’m talking to Him. God is a jealous God, and I’m jealous for that communion with Him because it’s so enjoyable and satisfying. I would truly never want to give up any time to talk to anyone else in the spiritual world, and Cont’d
the thought of it only alarms me. I cannot pray to (address) two beings at the same time, so why if the Lord has filled every space of my prayers would I ever switch from Him to a creature for some of them? I believe it would be wrong, and considering the sweetness of communing with the Lord, I have no desire to seriously consider doing so in the first place.
Then I consider all that I’ve heard and seen Catholics say about and do towards Mary that’s troubling, which is added to all the time. Talking the other day about living the Christian life, a Catholic radio host said it’s “for Jesus, through Mary.” Two others recently said that Mary of course would have given Jesus His Jewish spiritual education and Joseph “would have understood.” So she was the spiritual head of the house, exactly contrary to what Scripture says? And then Catholic prayers say to stand before Mary “sinful and sorrowful” and that she’s always aided those who flee to her for protection. If I’ve always done those things with Cont’d
the Lord, why would I stop doing so, even if only part of the time, and instead “go to Mary”? Again it’s unthinkable to me. There’s such a sense of wrongness to it, and I also don’t want to. I love all who love the Lord and are my brothers and sisters in Christ, including Mary. I love all that Scripture says she did, but since I’m in this world while she no longer is, but is with the cloud of witnesses that the Bible speaks of, I don’t feel a spiritual need to talk to her at any time in place of talking to the Lord. And I only lift up the Lord, as I believe Mary herself wants because of her own relationship with the Lord. I think she would agree with John the Baptist: “He must increase while I must decrease” because of the joy of communing with the Lord for who He is. Yet in recent times (and it’s had support for over a thousand years) the idea of Mary as CoRedemptrix has been lobbied for by such people as Mother Teresa, a former NY archbishop, and many other high Catholic officials, and even future Cont’d
Pope Benedict’s words on it in rejecting it were ambiguous. He certainly seemed to find it reasonable, which, with Catholicism’s beliefs on Mary, likely most Catholics would. The Wikipedia article on it is quite helpful and revealing in quoting from the debate about it. There’s a lot of acceptance for the idea, it seems, but for the thought that it would be imprudent to formally adopt it, and despite the Catholic Church officially not believing it, it seems many high officials do, without any disciplining them for it. Yet if you take all that the Lord has revealed to us, it has to be considered utter blasphemy. The heresy’s supporters say that of course, as redeemers, Mary isn’t equal to Jesus, but that’s a lie of the serpent, to deceive. In being a redeemer who’s a creature, they couldn’t claim her as such in the first place, but they do as much as they possibly can to bring her to equality by calling her “CoRedemptrix.”
We do know He was true God and true and perfect Man, that God is His true Father, source of His incomprehensible Divinity, and Mary is His true mother, source of His glorious pure humanity.
And that's all we know. Beyond that there is a veil of mystery.
Nonetheless we bear its consequences because Adam and Eve somehow damaged their very human nature by their sin. And we are their inheritors for good or for ill. If they had remained sinless and undamaged, we would have acquired an undamaged human nature. Since they blew their very ability to give us a good inheritance, we have gotten from them many ills, both bodily and spiritual.
What about people who die before they have ever committed an actual, personal sin, e.g. babies? We don't know for certain, but we do know God is Good. In the Catholic funeral Mass for unbaptized babes, we trustingly commit them to the Mercy of God.
My dear friend, of course you can! Jesus said "Wherever two or three are gathered in My Name, there I am in the midst of them." In every remark I make to YOU, I am also addressing God. In every remark I make to a saint (here on this earth or in heaven) I am also addressing God.
Even on the natural level, I can pick up a phone and do a conference call!
You can get on the internet and address millions!
That may be a basic misconception here: that one who addresses some other dear and holy soul has turned their attention away from God. This idea never would have occurred to me in a million years.
I like your communication, which seems to me sincere and well-intended. I hope to get back to this tomorrow. It's late now, and I have to get up early.
A pleasant night to you, and God's blessings always!!
We do not know, though, that Mary was the source of his humanity. That is only speculation, a possibility among a number of them, and the whole question is only one of a great many about matters like Jesus’ conception and nature, the effects of sin and God’s curse on creation, and this world and the spiritual world.
I also believe that Catholic teaching doesn’t support the idea that all of Jesus’ human nature came from Mary. If so, why did a Catholic radio host say he believed that God definitely gave Jesus the DNA of Joseph? (which has seemed most likely to me, but not a certainty). To be actually human, Jesus would have 23 chromosomes from each parent, with 1 of the 23 sex-related. But whether it’s a heart cell or a skin cell, all 46 chromosomes are present in each one. We also have strong reason to believe that sin and God’s curse affected our genes. I’ve heard that lifespan is contained in them, as each time cells divide there is something that gets a little shorter, which causes aging and Cont’d
eventually death. So the question about that would be that if before His resurrection, Jesus’ DNA was like ours in all ways, or not, because He is God.
I fail to understand why Catholics continue to be offended that Protestantism is a different religion than Catholicism with different teachings from Catholicism. But I suppose it's easier to go after "fundies" than to go after politically correct leftists and homosexuals.
On original sin, is that actually the position of Catholicism, and if so for how long? Even with unbaptized infants, the Catholic position, until very recently, if I understand correctly, was that “limbo” was the best that could be hoped for, and some like Augustine believed they went to Hell. Evangelical churches have believed that children who haven’t reach the point of being able to truly be held accountable for their sins are saved.
The evangelical view of our sin really doesn’t focus much on it as original sin. That seems much more emphasized in Catholicism. To us, knowing about Adam and Eve’s sin is part of our spiritual history, so we can understand the Lord and our relationship to Him better. For us personally, though, the sin that chiefly concerns us is our own, which shows us there’s something wrong with us and in our relationship with God. We’ve all lied, stolen, lusted, misused God’s name, coveted, etc., and we’ve known these things are wrong. And we know everyone else does these Cont’d
things, too, and that the punishment for sin is eternal separation from God in Hell. When God has given a person the grace to recognize their sin for what it is (including that it offends God and separates us from Him, as it happened with Adam and Eve), and that person believes in Jesus as His Savior as the Bible explains about Him (not a made-up Jesus) then that person is forgiven of his sins and born again, and is no longer under Go’s wrath and condemnation, having passed from death to life, as Jesus said.
Many of the ancients pictured heaven --- perhaps not literally, but at least conceptually --- as a multi-level place (hence the phrase "seventh heaven") and hell also as a multi-level place, for instance St. John Chrysostom's famous quote, "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops" ---implying that there's a lowest-of-the-lowest place (under the floor!) as well as higher and lower levels of torment for those who are to different degrees depraved.
"Limbo" means nothing more than the border or boundary between heaven and hell. Limbus (L)=threshold. It would be a place, conceptually a state, without the torments of hell, but also without the supernatural gifts --- the vision of God --- of which natural man, with a natural mind, is not capable. So this was proposed as a way to describe the state of unbaptized innocents: in a place of perfect natural happiness, without torment but also without the full supernatural theophany.
In recent decades, there has been a de-emphasis on the complicated concept of "limbo" and a preference to just keep it as "We don't know," since so often people don't "get" the distinction between a reasonable speculation and a Dogma of the Faith.
So at the Funeral Mass for an unbapized innocent, we simply commit their souls trustingly to the Mercy of God.
Yes , I’m aware of all you wrote about limbo. But if unbaptized infants are ready for Heaven due to being infants, why would baptized infants then go there? And as far as I know, hasn’t it been Catholic belief that those older who are never baptized go to Hell?
My only interest is the truth. I believe Paul writes that the underlying reason why people will be condemned is that they didn’t receive a love of the truth. So, because as humans we get fixed in our beliefs, I pray that if there’s anything that I’m wrong about, the Lord would do whatever takes to correct me if He deems it necessary. Certainly He couldn’t correct people of everything they’re wrong about somehow in this lifetime. But since the Lord is truth, it wouldn’t make sense, because it would be wrong and also harmful to my life and happiness, to not be totally open to His teaching and correction.
So here is another point on Mary. I’ve never held it to be a settled question whether she remained a virgin or not, and would not see it Cont’d
as a major concern for Christians in this world. I haven’t also felt, though, that the Catholic arguments which interpret different passages from Scripture (about Jesus’ brothers) as definitely proving Mary remained a virgin aren’t very good. They only seriously consider evidence in a way that fits Catholic dogma. Recently, though, I heard an argument that I found could possibly be so conclusive, which is that if Mary had planned to have sexual relations with Joseph in the future, she need not have asked the angel how she might conceive her promised Son. But two things about that is that I would not just accept the argument without exhaustively looking into it, and even if I came to believe it was likely true from Scripture that she remained a virgin, it would not change my views on Catholicism making her an idol.
So while I’ve been considering this question while looking to the Lord, something that came to my mind is the question of why the angel tells Mary that she will “conceive in her womb.” Cont’d
I’ve not reached an answer on that, but I have to question if Mary understood what was said to mean that she would not conceive naturally.
In the course of reading about that, I came across a web page at salvemariaregina.info, which is called “The Life of Mary in the Gospels,” which was written I believe in the 1800’s or so. And the Catholic writer quotes from the writings of a St. Epiphanius of possibly the second century to suggest that it was a “new heresy” at the time to say that Mary hadn’t remained a virgin. That’s also a claim to look into. But St. Epiphanius also says there was an opposite heresy that adored Mary. He says specifically sacrifice was made to her, but also says focus should be on Creator, not creature. And looking up more about him, I learned he forced a curtain in a worship place to be taken down and then worked to replace it with a plain one because there was either an image of Jesus or a saint on it. What would he think of what Catholic churches became?
" But if unbaptized infants are ready for Heaven due to being infants, why would baptized infants then go there? "
???
I can't make out what this sentence means. Could you possibly reword it?
Catholic belief is that baptism is necessary for salvation. We believe that a person can be Sacramentally baptized with water, and we also believe in "Baptism by B" (this means martyrdom: if an unbapized person dies for the Faith) and "Baptism by Desire" (if an unbaptized person desired to be baptized, but dies before it could be done.) Since only God knows the heart, what a person actually desires, the Catholic Church never flatly says, "Such-and-such a person is in hell." Because God could have given them, at the last minute, the desire to do His will (which implicitly includes "being baptized") --- like the repentant thief on the cross, who as not baptized but who did want to do the Lord's will. He was surely saved.
On Mary: we believe she was a lifelong virgin for historical and theological reasons: first historical, this was believed by the Church from its earliest years. You can see inscriptions on the walls of the catacombs, invoking "Sancta Maria Semper Virgine" --- Blessed Mary Ever Virgin. There would have been no motivation to "make this up" since perpetual virginity was not necessarily revered in Judaism of late antiquity. So we have evidence that people knew, from Apostolic times, that Mary was always a virgin.
Second, theological reasons: It hardly befits God that impregnate His chosen beloved woman, and then hand her off to somebody else and say, "Here, I got what I wanted, now you can have her." She was in such close contact with the Lord God, carrying Him in her womb for nine months, she was the human image/fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant, which foreshodowed her role, and which one could not even touch without risk of death. After all, the Ark just carried manna; Mary carried the Bread of Life. The Ark just carried the tablets of the Ten Commandments; Mary carried the Eternal Law-Giver. The Ark just carried Aaron's rod, which symbolized the saving of the Hebrews from Egypt; Mary carried the Savior of the world.
So if the respect for the holiness of the Ark required it should be treated with awe, the same is true of Mary: I can't imagine a good man like Joseph thinking he could have intercourse with God's chosen woman, the mother of God's son.
Moreover, the verses often cited to say Mary had other children, use words which don't necessarily mean children she gave birth to. You've probably seen this explained elsewhere --- the words can mean half-brothers, step-brothers, even cousins as well as other close kin, as well as simply one's associates. For instance, when Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” --- he wasn't just talking about Andrew!!
OK, I'm away from the computer for now, but I'll be back at some point today. It was nice to hear from you.
I wasn’t able to reply today but I will soon, Mrs. Don-o.
I left out a word in that sentence about infants. It should read “But if unbaptized infants aren’t ready...”
Evangelical Christians believe that baptism itself doesn’t save, but if someone has truly repented and believed on Jesus then he will want to be baptized, as the Ethiopian eunuch did. And evangelicals also don’t baptize infants, but only those who accept Jesus as their savior. Instead, children can be dedicated to the Lord.
Now, all that said, I was raised a Lutheran, receiving the church’s infant baptism and later being confirmed, but I haven’t as of yet been baptized by immersion. There are a number of reasons for that, but a main one is not having found a church that is close enough to what I believe, in that I stay away from worldly entertainment. I haven’t yet gone to a Church of Christ church, but there is one thing in particular about what they believe that makes me want to look into it: they believe in baptism as soon as a person accepts Jesus as their Savior, baptizing them right (Cont’d)
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.