Current status of Mary [Re: Cardinal Ratzinger Does Not Foresee Approval of “Co-redemptrix”]

[Polycarp]

This is a decent summary from a non-Catholic source:

Current status of Mary:

Although the virgin Mary is rarely mentioned in the Bible, and although Protestant churches consider her to be a relatively minor biblical character, the Roman Catholic Church has long assigned her an elevated status. 

The Roman Catholic Church has historically taught two basic dogmas about Mary:

	1. Mary is the Mother of God.
	2. Perpetual Virginity: Mary was a virgin when Yeshua (Jesus) was conceived; this state continued throughout her life.

Two additional dogmas about Mary were infallibly proclaimed by two popes during the 19^th and 20^th centuries:

	3. Immaculate Conception: Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary on 1854-DEC-8. Many Roman Catholics believe that this refers to Jesus' conception circa 5 to 7 BCE. In fact, it means that Mary herself was conceived free of sin before her birth circa 20 BCE.
	4. Assumption of Mary: Pope Pius XII, in his Munificentissimus Deus (1950-NOV-1), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life was assumed body and soul into the glory of Heaven." That is, she was "taken up body and soul into heaven," at the time of her death. She is there "exalted as Queen of the Universe." 1

In addition, various popes and church councils have referred to Mary as co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate:

In ancient times:

	St. Antonius (circa 250 - 350): "All graces that have ever been bestowed on men, all came through Mary."
	St. Bernard (1090 - 1153): "[Mary is called] the gate of heaven, because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her."
	St. Bonaventure (1221 - 1274): "As the moon, which stands between the sun and the earth, transmits to this latter whatever it receives from the former, so does Mary pour out upon us who are in this world the heavenly graces that she receives from the divine sun of justice." 1

1750: Alphonsus Mary de Liguori, canonized as Saint Alphonsus in 1839, wrote a book "The Glories of Mary." It continues to be published today, under various church imprimaturs. Various chapters in the book are titled: "Mary our Help," "Mary our Mediatress," "Mary our Advocate," etc. ₁

1935: Pope Pius XI gave the title co-redemptrix to Mary during a radio broadcast. ₁

Circa 1965: The Chapter 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, passed by the Vatican Council II states, in part: 

"Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man’s salvation through faith and obedience. For as St. Irenaeus says, she being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching ...'death through Eve, life through Mary.' This union of the mother with the son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death" 2

"Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and Mediatrix." 3

1985: Pope John Paul II recognized Mary as co-redemptrix" during a speech in Guayaquil, Ecuador. He said, in part, "Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity...In fact Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son." ₄

1987-MAR-25: In his encyclical Redemptoris Mater, Pope John Paul II "referred to Mary as 'Mediatrix' three times, and as 'Advocate' twice." ₁

1997-APR-9: During an audience Pope John-Paul II referred to the role of Mary during the crucifixion of Jesus: "Mary … co-operated during the event itself and in the role of mother; thus her co-operation embraces the whole of Christ’s saving work. She alone was associated in this way with the redemptive sacrifice that merited the salvation of all mankind. In union with Christ and in submission to him, she collaborated in obtaining the grace of salvation for all humanity...In God’s plan, Mary is the ‘woman’ (cf. John 2:4; John 19:26), the New Eve, united to the New Adam in restoring humanity to its original dignity. Her cooperation with her Son continues for all time in the universal motherhood which she enjoys in the order of grace. Trusting in this maternal cooperation, let us turn to Mary, imploring her help in all our needs." ₁

Although Mary has been referred to on numerous occasions as co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate, none have the force of an infallible papal declaration.

Petition drive to promote an infallible statement:

Professor Mark Miravalle of Franciscan University in Steubenville, OH, initiated a formal petition drive in 1993 during a Marian conference at that university. It asks the Pope to make infallible statement that would officially elevate Mary, the mother of Jesus, to the status of co-redeemer. More than six million signatures from 148 countries have reached the Vatican as of the end of the year 2000, asking that Pope John Paul II infallibly declare a new dogma: "That the Virgin Mary is a co-redeemer with Jesus and co-operates fully with her son in the redemption of humanity." If this were done, "she would be a vastly more powerful figure, something close to the fourth member of the Holy Trinity and the primary female face through which Christians experience the divine." ₃ Miravalle's petition has received support from Mother Theresa, 550 bishops, Cardinal John O'Connor and 41 other cardinals (including at least 12 cardinals in Rome). If the dogma is declared infallibly, it would pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." It would require all Roman Catholics to believe that:

	Mary is co-redemptrix with Jesus. She participates in people's redemption.
	Mary is mediatrix and has the power to grant all graces.
	Mary is the advocate for the people of God and has the authority to influence God's judgments.

If the dogma is infallibly declared, many feel that, in the words of Father Rene Laurentin, it would be the equivalent of launching "bombs" at Protestants. Father Laurentin is a French monk and the world's leading Mary scholar. He believes that: "Mary is the model of our faith but she is not divine. There is no mediation or co-redemption except in Christ. He alone is God." Raising the status of Mary would further acerbate the split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Ecumenical activity would be negatively affected. There is speculation that a schism might develop over the issue within the Roman Catholic church. There may be a renewed debate over the role of the pope's power in the church. _5,6

[PFKEY]

1. Mary is the Mother of God.WRONG

2. Perpetual Virginity: Mary was a virgin when Yeshua (Jesus) was conceived; this state continued throughout her life.WRONG

3. Immaculate Conception: Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary on 1854-DEC-8. Many Roman Catholics believe that this refers to Jesus' conception circa 5 to 7 BCE. In fact, it means that Mary herself was conceived free of sin before her birth circa 20 BCE.Immaculate Conception RIGHT all the rest WRONG

4. Assumption of Mary: Pope Pius.WRONG

And just who does the Bible say we should worship?

[JesseShurun]

You have no answers so you practice censorship. Better get offline and read the Word, time is running out.

[JesseShurun]

The keys to the Kingdom, quite simply, is discipleship. A disciple, as you know, must be equipped with knowledge and wisdom, and the only two ways that he can get it, is through prayer and in studying the Word of God. To be deficicient in either is to be unequipped for the task that was given to you.

You hold the keys, not Peter, not Paul, and certainly no one person or group on earth or in any church, whatever its claim to holiness is.

If any of you are unlearned in the Word in this day and age, you have no excuse and you will stand before the Lord on that great and terrible day and give an account of yourselves and of the shepherds that were supposed to teach you.

I have had my fun on this thread, but in truth, the things that I have said were to expose your lack of knowledge in the Word and that lack of understanding is appalling. God Himself said, "The people perish because of a lack of knowledge."

It is your duty, as ones who possess the keys to the Kingdom, to point others who seek, to Christ. To direct one who is perishing and will perish without refuge within the true ARK, to anyone else, no matter how holy you may think he or she is, is to commit soul murder and you will have to answer for that, as suredly as if you have killed an entire universe.

[TotusTuus]

Interesting that you view the following as ugliness and sarcasm?

I was referring to all posts. See post # 532.

We have the scripture because of the Holy Spirit

Shall I be sarcastic and ask if it fell from Heaven? Trick question: Who wrote the Gospel of St. Matthew? This far in the thread and you still want to pretend that the Catholic Church doesn't believe this when She was the first to proclaim it? C'mon!

Of course the Holy Spirit is the principle author of the entire Canon of Holy Scripture. Through Divine Inspiration, God made use of His creatures that He chose, men (and at least one woman known in one instance), respecting and using and "building on" their natural abilities and active compliance in freedom, to write the Scriptures. All this done in the context and for the people in a hierarchical community - first Israel, then bursting to all mankind i.e. Catholic = "according to the all" "universal" Church = "called from". The same Spirit guided the Church to recognize which Books were, and which were not, inspired by Him so that She could infallibly determine the Canon = "rule" "list". He also continues to guide Her in correctly interpreting those same Scriptures. The Church, indeed, venerates them, showing Her dependence on them.

...most Catholics have no opportunity to receive the gift of faith.

Really? Says who? I take it this is your personal opinion?

The brief readings and the ten minute sermons are not the "highlight" so they are only half heard..(ask any Priest how many can tell him on Tuesday what Sundays read was)

Personal opinions again? Or am I to understand that these are official teachings or positions of your Church?

Now scripture does not say Faith comes by preaching the word it says it comes by the word.

Scripture says a whole lot of things about Faith with many, many "quotes" to choose from - actually, we're forced to choose them all. Catholics tend to read and interpret the Bible as a whole, not as 20 or so different "quotes" or misquotes, as the case may be. Perhaps a fuller context of what St. Paul says will help. This from the RSV starting at Romans 10:12-21:

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. 13 For, "every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." 14 But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 15 And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ. 18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for "Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." 19 Again I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, "I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry." 20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me." 21 But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

This version does have "preaching" in it and mentions Christ and not "word". I don't know what version of translation of the Bible you are using, but the RSV, which is used by Catholics and Protestants (it's a revision of the Authorized "King James" Version) alike and considered to be one of the better English translations, is above. I think it pretty much states what I thought it stated in my original post. There's a "chain" reaction, if you will, of where Faith "comes" from. Look at the translation you provided. Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing... Well, which is it? Hearing or the "word". I guess it's all so much useless quibbling. Faith comes ultimately from God through preachers who are sent to preach Christ to those who will hear. Fair enough?

But concentrate on that word "word" for a moment. Isn't St. Paul trying to get across that Christ needs to be preached throughout this Epistle and his others? Are you strictly interpreting it to mean "the Bible"? The belief of the Catholic Church centers on Faith in Christ Jesus, preaching and hearing Him in the Word of God, found in Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture. (Obligatory quote from St. Paul's 2nd Epistle to Thessalonika (RSV) Chapter 2 Verse 15)

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Faith is necessary to believe..

Agreed

..but the Grace to be saved is in the preaching of the word

Well there is more to Grace than that. It is sort of following your path used in the whole Faith issue. I don't disagree with this though, except in it's limiting consideration of the totality of Grace. Read through all the passages in Scripture concerning Grace.

So the reading of scripture and a clear presentation of it in preaching is Gods plan...not mine...not Calvinists or Arminians ..Gods plan

Well, Okay, I guess, as a general statement. Generally, the Catholic Church refers to God's plan as the totality of Salvation History, with Christ on the Cross at it's center. It is obviously recorded in Holy Scripture and the Church has always read and preached it from the Scriptures. Needless to say, if your statement indicates that one can merely go off by oneself and read the Bible alone divorced from the Church, we disagree. Those "sent" to "preach" with the authority of Christ, do so in the context of His Church which He founded - as recorded in the Scriptures, as per God's Plan. God's Plan is much wider than you state. What about the many people throughout history who could not read Scripture because they were illiterate or didn't have access to Scripture? Printing and mass production of reading materials was invented only what, 500?, 600 years ago? Many of these people had access to it and had Christ preached to them by His Church!

The Catholic Church has placed the means of Faith and of grace on the bottom of the list of spiritual importance.

BALONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Does not even deserve a response)

The fact that there are Catholics saved every day proves the sovereignity of God .

The fact that anybody can be saved is by the Goodness and Grace of God. Do you have some "inner tract" to God that the rest of us do not that allows you to know who is saved and who isn't?

...cause most are not getting it in the church...

Yea, whatever........

Well, wait a minute, I'll take you seriously for a bit. In today's society, particularly the "first-world" nations, there is a lot of ignorance (and indifference) of Christ - among Catholics and Protestants alike. This includes ignorance of the Holy Scriptures. It is much worse in Europe than America, but all Christians should be concerned. Church attendance is way down, and worse among the "main-line" Protestants than others. This is due to the rejection of the Gospel and love for sin, rather than the teachings of the Catholic, or other, Churches. The fact that followers of Christ are not united per the command of Christ does not help. Satan, our common enemy, appears to be winning many battles. Hopefully, in God's Wisdom, this will lead us to unity again.

[Aquinasfan]

You hold the keys

Oh yeah, the part that says "Aquinasfan, you are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20

[Aquinasfan]

Do you believe this because of something from scripture or because of oral tradition?

Both Scripture and Tradition tell us that Mary was "full of grace" or "perfected by grace," or sinless. Typology (Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, Jesus) also tells us that Mary must have been conceived without sin. Since Christ's death on the Cross redeems everyone including those who lived before the time of Christ, it is only logical to conclude that Jesus' redeeming obedience to His Father, his death on the Cross, saved Mary from the effects of original sin.

Put another way, there is no logical reason not to believe that Jesus couldn't have saved Mary from the effects of original sin "before the fact."

[Aquinasfan]

Again, God was revealing more and more about His nature and how much He loves us with each item used in the worship services.  The law meant that we had to be obedient to God.  Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it.  The manna reminded the people that we are to depend on God daily for our life.  It was a constant reminder that God provides for us.  The rod that budded showed that God chooses who He desires to serve Him.  Aaron was chosen to be a priest before God.  God loves each of us and shows favor to some to become priests.  The rod was a symbol of authority and all authority rests with God. 

Overall, this is very weak.

The Decalogue or God's "ten words" was the type of Jesus, "the Word made flesh." No disagreement there.

But you don't even offer the manna as a type except as that "The manna reminded the people that we are to depend on God daily for our life." But the manna was bread from Heaven. Bread from Heaven is inferior as a type to "reminding people that we are to depend on God." Jesus says "I am the living bread that came down from heaven." Therefore the manna is a type for Jesus. Jesus is clearly a superior bread from Heaven as stated explicitly in Scripture: "This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

You suggest that Aaron's staff "was a symbol of authority and all authority rests with God." True enough, but who's authority does it symbolize? Aaron's staff foreshadowed Jesus' authority as the eternal High Priest, but in the order of Melchizedek: "If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come–one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? (Hebrews 7:11)." He (Jesus) has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 6:20)"

What did Melchizedek do? "Then Melchizedek king of Salem [ literally "Peace" ] brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High." So Jesus must then be sacrificing "bread and wine" eternally to God Most High just as Melchizedek did since "He (Jesus) has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

In fact Jesus offers up bread and wine transformed into his Body and Blood at the last supper:

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body. (Matthew 26:26)" "In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. ( Luke 22:20)"

The Apostles continue this sacrament (Christ offers up His Body and Blood through the Apostles):

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep [died]. (1 Corinthians 11)

Wasn't Jesus' death on the Cross sufficient to accomplish the redemption of mankind? Certainly. At the Eucharist Jesus (acting through the priest) offers up His Body and Blood (under the appearance of bread and wine). It is a re-presentation of Calvary, that is, the Eucharist makes Calvary present. It is not another Calvary, but the same event, just as the Passover meal was and is understood by Jews as a means of re-presenting or making present the Exodus event.

[Aquinasfan]

But I will add that in a casual reading of this you would have to say there is a wide gulf between "granting grace" and "Channeling grace". Therefore I think it odd that the writers of the petition did not word it "channel"

Yes, it's very easy to misinterpret. That's why it hasn't been acted on. Usually Mary is referred to as co-Mediatrix and co-Redemptrix (in the sense of "cooperate" rather than "co-chairman") because her cooperation with the Holy Spirit brought the Mediator and the Redeemer into the world. But again, the term itself is very easily confused.

Also the phrase "authority to influence" is very ambiguous. My intreprator yesterday could not even define that one, he was puzzled by the statement.

It is. It could give the impression that some authority ultimately rests in her when all authority ultimately rests in God.

[Catholicguy]

Actually, we have three teaching pastors and 11 elders. No king but Jesus!

<> If there is disagreement between you and the others, who has ultimate authority? You can't say the Bible cause you all apppeal to the Bible.

What would have to happen - and does all the time - is that one will be forced out and left to start another church.<>

[Catholicguy]

"He was reasoning by analogy. He in no way intended to trick or fool others." It was not a good analogy because the Scripture was taken way out of context. He got the reaction from the audience he wanted. I still think he knew what he was doing.

<> Look, you really have no arguement here. It was an excellent analogy. And as you view yourself as free to read the Bible and decide for yourself what it intends, you jettisoned any basis for calling Hahn's use of analogy wrong or out of context. Yuor position is a subjective one and you, therefore, have no objective criteria for an appeal that another is in error. He is, like you would advance, similarly guided by the Holy Spirit while reading Scripture..

Hanh appears to be a lightning rod. I think his arguements tend to prick the consciences of some while they illumine the intellect of others.<>

I can only speak for myself and the Church I attend. When I attended the Catholic Church I didn't know anyone who read the Bible and don't remember ever being encouraged to.

<> Presumably it was read at Mass and the Mass itself is the Bible put into action. Too bad you never learned that.<>

In my current Church I know many people who read the Bible regularly, and it is encouraged during the teaching most weeks. It is this that I based my comment on. I have no idea what percentage of people truely study the Bible. I'm sure there were Catholic's who did and I just didn't know it.

You are correct that I "abandoned the Ark of Salvation", about eight years ago when I stopped attending Church and even became bitterly vocal against God. But due to what I consider a unique and wonderfull set of circumstances my current Church found me.

I consider my authority Jesus and the Bible the inspired Word of God. It is to this authority that I put everything to the test to determine what is true. I don't just take anyone's word on issues of doctrine. Good tradition is good. Good teaching is good. What makes it good is when it complements the Bible. What makes it bad is when it contradicts the Bible.

<> Yes, and the Catholic Church that Jesus established and which the Bible says is the Pillar and Ground of truth must yield to your personal views. I didn't know you had been given that power and authority. Where does one find such authority in the Bible?<>

I'm sure we have much in common, but also some things we would disagree on. Truth will prevail. I've a fairly open mind that can be changed, given the evidence. That's why I read these threads. I'll keep reading, and keep on sucking up all this good info:-)

<> Maybe you'll be a revert:) <>

Lord, I pray for wisdom and correct discernment for myself and all those who read these posts. This, so that we can glorify you in the mannor you intended when you created us. Thank you Jesus for taking our sins and dying that horrible death, the death we deserve, so that we may have eternal life. You are my Lord and Savior, and in Your name I pray to the Father. Amen.

May God bless<> Amen<>

[Catholicguy]

Why do you think Protestants take a Bible to church? They take it so they can follow word for word what is being read and taught...it is much harder to teach false doctrine if the folks are reading along

<> Protestants have the belief and then they search scripture to support it and ignore countervailing scripture. Protestants are unaware they are adherents of the oral traditions of the 16th century revolters.<>

[Catholicguy]

<> Mormons have more children than do protestants. So do Muslims. Time to make a switch to one of those Faiths?<>

[Catholicguy]

<> LMAO I get all tingly and whatnot when I am called a "reprobate." To REALLY please me, tell me I will spend eternity in Hell. :) Oh, that's right. Reprobate means I AM predetermined for Hell. That being the case, why waste your time on one like me?<> You need to rethink your Catholic doctrine that you have been fed and get out of your Maryology and Popeology and Catholicology. <> What, trade all them cool things for Calvinology?<>

Calvinism is the doctrine of the Bible; it is the doctrine that the Lord Himself taught.

<> Not even close. Calvin came 16 Centuries too late. He made stuff up as he went along and he contradicted 16 Centuries of consistent teaching.<>

In this way, Jesus is a Calvinist. And you despise His teaching.<. <> LOL Yes, PERFECT. St. Augustine is a Calvinist, so, why not Jesus also. LMAO.<>

This does not look good for you. Reprobation is a real thing and the Lord's wrath will reside upon all of them. You need to repent of all your idolatries from the Catholic church.

<> Can't I wait until after the foothball season?<>

Proverbs 16:4 The Lord has made all things for Himself, yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.

<> Yes, absolutely. I mean why even make Hell if God didn't intend to predetermine He would create folks just to populate it. Makes snese to me. Serves them bastards right.<>

It is perfectly reasonable to expect that if a man will not glorify his Creator and bring forth those fruits (John 15:8) then such a man has use to God only in his destruction. God will gain His glory over him and he will fulfill the use to which he was created even passively by being burned in the furnace of His judgment. Our Maker will not be thwarted in His purpose for man. God endures with much longsuffering these vessels of wrath by allowing them to enjoy the things He has given him dominion over. He permits him to enjoy the warm sun and the beauty of the moon and stars and the rain and all that the earth yields. Yet, he does not glorify His Maker. So, God in His longsuffering will not forever strive with him, but will eventually gather them all together to gain the purpose for which they were created in their destruction. Why should they be permitted to enjoy the goodness of God forever when they will not bring forth any fruit? Like the Parable of the fig tree, God has given the worthless all the benefits of life on this earth and yet, he bears no fruit. Why should all creation groan under the burden of such men?

He does tell us that "He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Yet, it is perfectly just and righteous that God should not endure with longsuffering forever their uselessness and let them frustrate Him. So, what fault will you attribute to the Vinedresser for bundling them up and gaining use of them in their destruction? As Jonathan Edwards does point out, it would be well to consider exactly how JUST it is that all men share in the same end as the wicked. So, I am moved to praise God for even offering grace to a single man.

When the saints go forth and look upon the corpses of the men who have transgressed against [God] shall we not be moved to a greater sense of awareness of just how wonderful the unmerited grace of God really is? Shall the saints not rejoice to know that we are not the objects of God fierce wrath? Shall the saints not fall down and give God glory through praise and worship? Shall we not feel awe and wonder to simply know that the only difference between the saints and the reprobate is the free grace of God that He has in His sovereignty bestowed? Will the saints not tell the angels of the wonders of God's grace and will the angels not look with wonder at the redeemed for the shedding of their Maker's blood which He poured out for the saints?

<> It seems to be the Calvinist position that everything is predetermined. Even that I am predetermined to go to Hell. That dark doctrine makes of Jesus a Liar. You are welcome to it. I wnat no part of that Evil.

IF all had been predetermined, then one would have to conclude that Jesus established His Church, sent the Holy Spirit upon it to Teach it all truth, promised to be with His Church until the end of time but He was intentionallly Lying. He REALLY did not intend that.

No, according to the logic of Calvinism, He established His Catholic Church to spread errors and falsehoods, lies, and false Doctrine for 16 Centuries before finally raising up the great champion Calvin to set everything right.

In the meantime 100's of millions of Christians lived and died and were sent to Hell for everlasting punishment for believing the false doctrine spread by the Catholic Church that Jesus established because that was the predetermined plan of God. Serves them bastards right

Yep, it all makes perfect sense to me when I look at it that way.:)<>

[Catholicguy]

<> Good job on the formatting of my post. I am gonna print it out, frame it and put it above my desk. I suggest any sane Christioan do the same. <>

[drstevej]

***If there is disagreement between you and the others, who has ultimate authority?***

The elder board has authority over the congregation I serve. Actually, it works far better than you imagine.

A second church starting is not always bad.

As with any church, if the leaders are spiritually mature, godly men the result is blessing. If they are not mature and godly men and ignore plain teaching of the Bible (ex. biblical sexual morality), you have a disaster whether there is one or two churches. Right, Polycarp?

[theAmbassador]

<> Can't I wait until after the foothball season?<>

What would a few more months of scoffing at the doctrines the Lord taught and calling them a "bastard child" going to hurt. Eventually, you will learn that you actually hate the Lord. I'm a patient man.

[Catholicguy]

<> All protestant doctrine, save what they retained when they walked the plank of self-will off the Ark of Salvation, is based upon the oral traditions of the original revolters of the 16th Century.

Folks read into the Bible the oral traditions of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melancthon etc and they ignore the painful truth these 16th Century revolters disagreed with one another despite the fact that each was a Bible-believing Christian guided by the Holy Spirit in his Bible study.

I guess we just have to acknowledge the fact the Holy Spirit was feelin impish and led each of these reveolters to conclude different things, based upon their Bible Studies, and that is perfectly fine because there is some larger, numinous "Unity" that superceeds such Doctrinal disunity, I guess

The one constatnt touchstone of Unity is their opposition to the consistent Teaching of ALL 16 Centuries that preceeded these men. I guess the Holy Spiirt was lying to all those Bible-belivers prior to the 16 Century, either that or there were no real Bible believers prior to Luther, I guess

BTW, why no women? I mean, I see no reason why Rnmom doesn't have the same authority to start a church as does the_doc, or Calvin, or Luther, or Zwingli.

Is there any objection to Rnmom starting her own church? <>

[Catholicguy]

A second church starting is not always bad. It does make sense. I mean, if there is disagreement over Doctrine, why not just start another Church? There can't be any objection to that.<>

[Polycarp]

if the leaders are spiritually mature, godly men the result is blessing. If they are not mature and godly men and ignore plain teaching of the Bible (ex. biblical sexual morality), you have a disaster whether there is one or two churches. Right, Polycarp?

I don't know. Depends on ones definition of "spiritually mature, godly men" I guess.

You would probably consider Calvin and other reformers to be spiritually mature, godly men. I would consider them to be ungodly men (at best.)

[drstevej]

<> Protestants have the belief and then they search scripture to support it and ignore countervailing scripture. Protestants are unaware they are adherents of the oral traditions of the 16th century revolters.<>

Better order another bale of hay. This straw man needs some more stuffing.