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 ...
I agree with him, as well.
I agree with you about that. I don’t find the posts anti-catholic. He was just expressing his theological point of view in contrast to the Catholic faith.
As much as I would love for Free Republic to be the forum that bridges the ecumenical divide and unites Christendom, I’m not holding my breath. One critique, or suggestion, for my non-catholic FRiends here would be to take some time and read up on these Catholic doctrines. If there is one thing this Church does is writes things down. There are two thousand years of councils and synods where the successors of the apostles have, with the aid of the Holy Spirit as was promised by Christ Himself, sought to carry the Good News through the ages. It’s not a secretive cult.
“Mary’s sinful nature, as being fully human, is not an insurmountable condition for God the Father.”
A sinful nature is not insurmountable for God. Providing grace to someone to not have one is also not insurmountable for God. Also, a “sinful nature” is not “being fully human” for our earliest ancestors, Adam and Eve were created with no sin whatsoever but were certainly fully human. What they had is free will. What we have is free will and concupiscence thanks to their choice.
because HE was the father, not Joseph
and Mary would not call Jesus her Saviour if she was sinless
if she was sinless, she would not need a Saviour
Read your Bible, people, read your Bible...
Those are not “anti-Catholic” statements. They are simply Protestant. I don’t agree with him, which is one reason I am Catholic, and in fact he gets some of what Catholics believe wrong, but it’s not fair to say his statements are anti-Catholic. This is like when McCain tried to slime Bush for appearing at Bob Jones university, claiming that Jones was anti-Catholic when in fact he was Protestant.
The article starts from a typical leftist view that if you disagree with someone you are “anti” them.
As for me I love meeting committed/believing Protestants and discussing/debating these issues. If I meet someone who thinks it’s all the same thing, I’ll just walk away.
“If there is one thing this Church does is writes things down. There are two thousand years of councils and synods where the successors of the apostles have, with the aid of the Holy Spirit as was promised by Christ Himself, sought to carry the Good News through the ages. It’s not a secretive cult.”
We have the Scriptures (from God, and in spite of the machinations of men). I have a seat at the table where I can listen to Paul, Peter, John, James, etc. I’ve benefited from men who have talked ABOUT them, no doubt. But the master class available to us through Scripture is superior (thanks to the Spirit)!
There is none good, no not one. If Mary was sinless, why not nail her to the cross and save God’s Son? There is NO scripture to say she was sinless. She was a person just as many were in scripture that found favor with God. Noah found such favor and righteousness was imputed to him, but later he got drunk and naked. David was a man after God’s own heart, but I’m sure we can agree he wasn’t perfect. The Bible is specific that we shouldn’t seek any other advocate than Jesus.
Mary was a sinner and needed her Son to die to save her.
Oh I live in Bob Jones' backyard... the headline of the college newspaper or newsletter or whatever it is when PaulVI died was "Pope Paul VI, archpriest of Satan, a deceiver and an anti-Christ, has, like Judas, gone to his own place"
THAT is anti-Catholicism.
I do understand your point of view, and I hope you do not believe that Catholics don’t avail themselves individually of the divine revelation of Scripture. I’ve sometimes found that some of my non-Catholic Christian friends imagine Catholics to be a bizarre cult of God eaters. I’ve just never understood the animosity.
St. Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 2 to make intercessions for our fellow Christians. That intercession doesn’t stop at the veil of death. The Body of Christ is contiguous beyond it.
Saints (Rev. 5:8) in heaven offer to God the prayers of those still on earth: “And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four [and] twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.” (Rev. 5:8) and “And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand.” (Rev. 8:3-4).
If there is no asking of saints in heaven to pray for us on earth, where do they get our prayers that they offer before the altar of God? Those prayers offered in heaven must be those of the saints on earth since the saints in heaven no longer need prayers.
“To us also Thy sinful servants, who put our trust in the multitude of Thy mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship with Thy holy Apostles and Martyrs: with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and all Thy Saints. Into their company we beseech Thee admit us, not considering our merits, but freely pardoning our offenses. Through Christ our Lord.”
That prayer did not come from Scripture. Sounds unbelieving to me. God shows no partiality, anyway. He is a much more God! If you belong to Christ you HAVE FELLOWSHIP with Him and His! Now. Today. And you WILL be in their company later!
If that's not anti-Catholicism I don't know what is, that's not mere theological disagreement.
Thank you! The problem with these threads is they just foment disagreement and change no minds. I don't believe in much of the Catholic dogma, so ergo, I'm not a Catholic. I would love to have a brisk in depth discussion on these beliefs and verses, but I believe Jesus is who He said He was and can do what He says He can do just as most Catholics I've ever spoken to. For us to argue with no chance to change hearts, for me is a waste. The problems come when Catholics take offence to what someone says and friction starts. This guy should have the freedom to say what he believes no matter what it is and Catholics can kick dirt and spit all they want. Bit that's not the way it is today. The fantastic part is our founders knew this 250 years ago.
I'm sure that means something to you, but it doesn't mean anything to me, can you be more clear on why that would be an issue?
Sounds unbelieving to me.
Based on WHAT?! Here we have the official prayer of the Catholic Church confirming that we do not merit Heaven and nevertheless there's still fault found with it.
Means "full of grace." The opposite of "full on sin."
To put it in the strongest way, the angel precedes it with "Chaire," which grammatically is always followed with either a name or a title, which in English would be capitalized.
So, "Hail, O Lady Full-of-Grace!"
Unique in Scriptures.
Only one other human person, Stephen, is described as "full of grace," but-- different words -- as an adjective phrase, not as his NAME or TILE. (Name and title are highly significant in Scripturees: when God addresses you by a new name, that's how God sees your identity.)
No, Mary's not a goddess. Jesus her Son is God and is her Savior.
She needed a Savior because He saved her from sin-- before she even fell into it. Its He who filled her with grace.
Hence we learn of this through the beautiful and unparalleled greeting of the Angel.
Tagline.
Hail Mary, full of GRACE...
"For as in Adam all die," yet Enoch did not die but was taken up by God.
"In Christ all will be made alive." Does this mean universal salvation?
The Psalms say that there are no rightious men, none who seek God, none who do good. Yet Saint Joseph was a "just man" and Zechariah was "rightious."
All men have sinned -- yet Christ was fully man as He was fully God. Did He sin, or do you deny His full humanity?
Mary was saved by grace alone, as are all who are saved. The difference is, God filled Mary with grace at the singular moment of conception to render Her a fitting vessel to bear Christ.
Mary had the same kind of human nature that Adam and Eve did, before they disobeyed God’s law. Fully human, and also sinless.
your misuse of scripture shows you just use verses to defend your doctrine, instead of letting your doctrine be defined by the Scripture
Sinless people do not need a Saviour
Lk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
Lk 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
It says to Catholics that she was sinless. Is the interpretation of Luther et al better than 2000 years of Tradition?
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.