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.
Guys, have we come close to reaching a Matt 7:6 moment yet?
No we haven't. We do not know who is reading these threads but not commenting. We will never reach that point on a forum like this. Read on to verse 7-8.
Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
We do not know how many are reading these threads looking for the truth from scripture, seeking the answers to their questions, or who might realize the error in Catholic belief. It is they who we pray get their answers and receive.
Yes, there are lurkers out there. So far, I haven't got a Freep mail from any, but maybe that time is coming.
Amen squared
Eph 2:8-9...for by grace, you have been saved through faith and not that of yourselves, it is a gift of God, lest anyone should boast.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Faith in Christ is what saves us. Nothing we can do to earn it.
Some on here are not capable of answering Biblical questions. They believe in tradition over anything the Bible says. I am still waiting for answers to mine. God bless.
Thanks for posting this. I agree.
I don't know why you continue to ignore the proof provided to you countless times now (even on THIS thread) that:
1. There is no solid evidence the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha books were IN the Greek Septuagint in the first century A.D.
2. Even if they were part of the collection, they never had a Hebrew language origin so would not have had to be translated into Greek in the first place.
3. There is NO evidence ANYONE considered them as Divinely-inspired.
4. If inclusion in the Septuagint is proof to you that they ARE canonical, then why are there only seven of these extra books in the Catholic canon instead of the FIFTEEN that were with the Septuagint?
I have YET to see these questions answered directly. So, what's the deal? You can't give a valid defense? There IS no valid defense? Or, you don't believe the evidence stacked against you?
Well, i am not sure of your whole context but James is saying that if one claim to faith but has not coresponding works (works being the fruit of faith, because all we do is a result of what we really believe, even if it is only for a moment), then their faith is dead, salvifically speaking.
James also says Abraham was justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar, (James 2:21) and thus that "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24) but he cannot be speaking of the same justificationGn. 15:6 and Rm. 4, which clearly teaches that Abraham's faith was counted for righteousness without works.
Which was not simply teaching that a man is justified without the works of the law yet he is justified in the same sense by works of charity, but the way i see all this is that works of the Law are used because as said, if there was a system of salvation by works of merit, "a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21)
But instead what it sets forth as the only means of justification is that which is appropriated by faith:
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (Galatians 3:22)
Likewise Abraham, for Rm. 4 is not simply disallowing works of the law and offering justification by works done out of love fro God and man, but instead it presents Abraham as being dead, and only able to believe God's promise, which God blesses, and that all believers are justified the same way.
And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. (Romans 4:19-25)
Yet James can also say that "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," (James 2:24) because the justificatory sense is that of justification in its confirmatory sense, that while "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness," so that at that point the heart is purified by faith, which Peter said the Gentiles of Acts 10 were before baptism, (Acts 15:7-9) yet "with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:10-13)
While Rm. 4 and 10:10a states that "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness," yet "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" because that is what faith effects. The difference that of saying "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" which refers to the point at which one is justified before God, who sees the heart, and saying that those who have a faith that manifests that they believe shall be saved.
Thus even a mute invalid can be saved, but in the light of expression of faith, and which is continuous, it is manifest that such is justified/saved.
But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. (Hebrews 6:9-10)
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (Romans 2:13)
The latter is in the context of judgment, and the doers of the law shall be justified as this testifies of saving faith, while they are justified now as having true faith in the light of the evidence of their faith.
If confession with the mouth, or via baptism - both of which are works as they are volitional responses, whether moving your tongue or your legs - was essential for justification before God, then it would exclude the incapacitated from being saved, as well in the case of baptism the Gentiles of Acts 10 from being washed, sanctified and justified before baptism.
But under the context of salvation by grace, Peter states that
...Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)
For the only condition Peter had preached to these Gentiles was,
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)
And which they all did, and in the light of their confession, Peter declared, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:47)
This definition of how "through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they" (Acts 15:11) is interpretive of Acts 2:38 and other texts, which case promises the same washing and regeneration if they will be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for that would require faith in the heart.
And God can require souls to do things that require saving faith and not simply express what is already present. Thus baptism can be the occasion of conversion, while for those as Cornelius baptism expressed justifying faith already realized.
Baptism in Scripture is normatively concomitant with conversion, and should normatively be part of the call to conversion today, that of believing on the Lord Christ and confessing Him in baptism. The reason it is not is due to overreaction to the Catholic fantasy that the ritual of baptism itself effects regeneration, even sprinkling morally incognizant infants. Which effects overall make a mockery of Biblical regeneration, as where Catholicism abounds so does spiritual lethargy and or cultic devotion to a church, with none or the interdenominational fellowship that born again believers realized btwn those who have realized its profound effects.
In addition, God blesses obedience in His grace, so that while it is it is God who provides what is needed for salvation, (Jn. 3:16; Gal. 2:20) and convicts, draws, opens hearts, and grants repentant faith, so that the soul can believe, (Jn. 16:9; Jn. 6:44; 12:32; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9) doing what he otherwise would not and could not do, yet God not only judges believers as being believers based upon their works, but judges them a fit to be rewarded, (Mt. 25:31-40; Rv. 3:4) though apart from God doing the above, then every man's only reward would be the second death. (Rm. 6:23; Rv. 20:15)
Thus helpless Abraham believed God to do what he could not, and nor can man merit entering Heaven on his own holiness as per Rome, but in both cases it was counted unto him for righteousness," so likewise all souls who believe. Yet they shall be justified/saved if they are baptized and follow their Lord (cf. Jn. 10:27,28) as that testifies to what saving faith does (and repents when convicted of not doing so.
And so in this sense, in the context of protesting against the idea that an inert faith is salvific, James can say "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:24) as they are justified as being true believers in the light of the outworking of their faith, without which (given opportunity) their faith must be considered dead.
It’s actually really sad to watch how they disregard what scripture says in deference to what their “church” says. They are putting their faith and trust in man rather than in Christ alone.
Like, I daresay, most of us, I do not do original research in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. I have to rely on others more ancient or more learned.
To simplify the matter, I think you end up having to rely on one of these two authorities for the OT canon, either
My view? That to take the word of those who rejected Christ (the 1st-2nd century Pharisaical rabbis) over the Septuagint used by the Apostles (1st century) and the canon confirmed by the Damasian List (383 AD) and at Hippo and Carthage (393 and 397) by Christian synods, is not reasonable for a Christian.
Christ had stingingly condemned the Pharisees seven-fold (Matthew 23), the number"7" signifying in the Bible a complete and total condemnation. The post-Second Temple Pharisees took up the banner of those who had rejected Christ. I would hesitate to use the canon the post-Temple Pharisaic rabbis developed when they were right in the midst of the bitterest anti-Christian polemic.
Jerome, who spent many years in Palestine and who had engaged Rabbis to teach him the Hebrew language, at first rejected the Deuteros because they were not recognized as canonical by the Rabbis. He was finally converted to the view that he ought to accept them because they had been accepted and received by the Christian Churches. Augustine of Hippo also declared without qualification that one is to "prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive."
One reason rabbinical Judaism (from Jamnia or wherever they had study-centers) decided to cut the deuterocanon, seems to be that they did not possess an extant copy in Hebrew, which was one of their key criteria. They were struggling to assert Hebrew as the sole Jewish liturgical language, and to delegitimize the Christians, who, like the writers of the NT, overwhelmingly used the (Greek) Septuagint.
That Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint, would itself have been a count against it from the Judaizers' point of view. Incidentally, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, it was learned that the Deuterocanonical books were, in fact, in written form in Hebrew during the period from about 200 B.C. to 68 A.D.
(I thought that was an real eye-opener when I read that in Jaroslav Pelikan's Biblical research and realized the implications.)
Doctrine comes from the Apostles, and was given to the Church before a word of the NT was ever written. My argument is not that the decision about the Deuterocanonicals was made by one man (Pope Damasus, 383) or by one or two or three church synods or councils (Hippo, Carthage, Nicaea) --- though that sure helps. My argument is that those canons themselves were derived from what the local churches had received as Scripture and were using.
| Here's the key: It was not theory. It was practice. |
That has never been made clear to me, though I've searched high and low. Can you name the 16th / 17th century King, council, synod, or editorial board which had the authority to reject the criterion of "earliest Christian practice"?
And if you can give me that actual name or those names, I have this further question. For Scripture to be inerrant, the selection of the books, 1,000+ years later, would have had to be inerrant. Who made this particular 16th century man, or that particular editorial board, and them alone, inerrant? I'm here to learn.
Perhaps that because one can sense the NEXT question as a followup.
When we show lurkers just WHAT the Cat says in places; you guys never respond back.
Why not?
Been there done that.
Like Hebrews 11?
What took HIM so LONG???
Yes.
Would that be in the umbra or the penumbra?
That was about 4,321 replies ago...
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.