Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
Too bad.
It's too bad that YOUR (churches') definition of GRACE is not consistant.
The church of Rome teaches that...
LOL, worth repeating huh? Now, here's hoping for some new blood.
Then it would be required that proof be given that the teachings of the Catholic Church today are exactly what the apostles were teaching. That's not happening. That makes your statement above untrue.
I've noticed you have no answer to that question yet.
I read through that, and have before, but it works against proof that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary. In fact it indicates that it was NOT taught by the apostles but that the belief grew over time. Basically it’s an admission that it’s something the apostles did NOT teach. Therefore those that teach it are to be considered accursed according to Paul.
So your saying that we are saved by grace just like the Protestants do.
That's why they save all them bones!!!
-— So your saying that we are saved by grace just like the Protestants -—
Yes. In fact, the Catholic doctrine predates Luther.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/GRACALON.HTM
FYI, the best source for Catholic doctrine is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is available on-line.
Been there done that.
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
We are seeing that belief play out with the current pope. Catholics and Muslims serve the same god per your catechism. That tells me enough right there to stay away from that cult.
That is what you believe, or don't. I believe in what is written in the Holy Scripture, and it is written that faith without works is dead and does not justify.
Would it be too "cute" and "coy" to ask what is it in there that I ignored? And following:
The APOSTLES wrote that in 1950???
The Holy Spirit revealed that to the Apostolic See in 1950.
definition of GRACE is not consistant
How?
faith alone is INsufficient for salvation
Correct. Alone, it is dead.
What is says in the opening 1-20 stanzas is that the belief in the Assumption is detected in the early liturgical practices and is consistent with the foundational Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus and eventually all the saints in the body. Further, the Fathers "did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ's faithful." It is therefore an ancient belief. The petitions to recognize that formally increased through modern history, so the Apostolic See, acting with the same authority as that of the Holy Apostles, recognized that as a dogma of faith.
If a protestant is saved, he is saved by grace alone, just like an authentic Christian would be, correct. The trouble with Protestantism is not that a Protestant cannot be saved, but that he erroneously believes that if he is, that is due to his faith alone. That error can impede his salvation. It, for example, might prevent him from properly venerating the Catholic saints and learning ways to salvation from them.
Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!
What part of "we preached" do you not understand? If you can't prove the apostles taught it then we are to understand that those who teach it are accursed by God.
I know exactly what it says and I know exactly what it means. I do not agree with your interpretation not even a tiny little bit. Just live with that. By the way, when I was a catholic, they were not foolish enough to tell us not to read the Bible. If they had done that, I was rebellious enough, that the first thing I would have done, is go read the Bible. What they told us, was to let a priest interpret it for us. Was that what they taught you also, and if so, what are you doing interpreting it for yourself without a priest? If you want to continue with your works based ideas, that's fine , but I do not agree with your interpretation. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Now, if a person can only have faith and works after after having been saved by grace how is a Protestant wrong when they say "saved by grace alone"?
>>It, for example, might prevent him from properly venerating the Catholic saints and learning ways to salvation from them.<<
Ways to salvation? You just stated that salvation is by grace alone! What more is there to know? You just admitted it's by God's grace alone and that will then produce faith and works.
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.