This Catholic Journey
That's a great post Amber! You are a gifted apologist!
Thanks, Tim! :)
Amber, please visit my blog!!!!
God Bless YOU on this journey.
We are kind of neighbors.........I live in Sacramento!!!
Jeanne
Hi Amber, I enjoyed this article. I have seen Catholic apologists assert similar arguments before, but this was succinct and straightforward, making it very easy to understand. Thank you!
PS. Congratulations blessings on the additions to your family.
One of the first 7 Councils stated that, he who says that Mary was not ever-virgin ... let him be anathama. That's good enough for me
Indeed, William! Even Luther held this belief, if I recall correctly. It is only recently that people have believed otherwise!
Amber,
I just read your "works and faith" section and must say you did your research well.
Faith alone will not save you, however, the works that apostles are writing about are doing the works of Christ just like he did for everyone while walking this earth. Christ served his fellow man in love and kindness. There is no greater love than to lay your life down for another human being. Works can be also be regarded as spreading the Word of the Lord as did the disciples through a Christ like heart.
My wife was Catholic and left the church do to all the "extras" that were regularly preached. My family is saved through the blood of Jesus Christ, God's saving grace and the willingness to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ with the love Christ taught all of us through his Holy Words and actions.
Furthermore, treat people the way Christ treated you... Christ has an eternal gift that is free for all of those who believe, both Jew and Gentile (Jew first then Gentile).
There are many "man made" laws that many churches today adopt. These are not from God, rather man and they will not get an individual into heaven either. You must be born again to enter the Kingdom of God. Certainly, good works and following man made laws will not get you there.
Never the less, you have a very nice website and I only pray that the Lord Jesus Christ continues to bless you and may lost souls find your site and may it lead them to our Lord Jesus Christ and eternal peace.
"the works that apostles are writing about are doing the works of Christ just like he did for everyone while walking this earth."
Jeff, I completely agree with you here as this IS Catholic teaching. (In addition, there are things which Christ himself commanded of us that are necessary for salvation, such as baptism and keeping the commandments.) It is a common misconception that "works" as defined by the Church are a big list of rules that one must follow in order to be "good enough" to get to heaven. This is not the case, however, and not in line with Church teaching.
You are right that one must be born again to enter heaven... Every Christian is born again at their baptism, at which point the stain of original sin is washed away and one is made pure. However, through our sinful nature, as we grow, we must constantly renew our conversion toward God through repentance, lest we lose our salvation, as Scripture clearly warns us. ACTING like a Christian is never enough. We must BE one: heart, soul and action.
The Catholic Church has never taught, nor does she teach now that following man made laws or doing good works will get one to heaven. This is how the Pharisees were. They flaunted their works but their heart did not reveal a proper motive for their works. If a Catholic believes that they must "work" their way to heaven, they are completely missing the true teaching of the Church.
The Catholic Church does not promote the following of man-made laws, nor is it an organization made of up man-made laws. Rather, it is a 2000 year Church that has remained consistent in doctrine throughout it's entire history. Most of it's practices and disciplines today come directly from early church practices. It is modern faith traditions that have waivered in this area... bringing in "traditions" that do not reflect what the early Christians practiced. But, that doesn't mean these things are bad, either. In fact, many of these practices have worked to bring many people closer to God.
I believe it's important to take these practices and examine their effectiveness in bringing people closer to God before throwing the out the window just because one believes they may be "man-made". Man-made does not have to mean that something is "anti-God".
If you're going to label something as bad or "not of God" for being man-made, then you must apply this rule across the board... No driving cars, no taking medicines, etc.
Thank you for your comments, Jeff. It seems that you have some misunderstandings of the Catholic Church and I encourage you to take a closer look at what the Church truly teaches. You might be surprised at what you find!
God bless!
Amber,
I'm impressed with your thoroughness and direct approach to this teaching and why. You appear to have done your homework well ;) Having had a discussion yesterday at work on the perpetual virginity of Mary, your site made some points I hadn't considered before. Thank you & keep it up!! God Bless!!!
Thank you, Jade! :)
didn't the greeks have words for brother and sister and cousin (Elizabeth),the language in which the new testament was written? As far as Mary at the cross with John, you are quite right that it would have been very offensive for John to be given the mantle to care for Mary and not her sons.However it is really quite a beautiful story of redemption, and for second chances (great comebacks). It was quite proper for Jesus to say "Behold your mother ,behold your son(John)" for as Jesus taught spirit is thicker than blood-Mark 3:35 whoever does the will of my father is my brother ,mother...they were fellow believers. Jesus would not commit his mothers care to a non believer(John7:5 neither did his bretheren beleive in him) Boy, did they miss the boat.Can you imagine growing up as a brother of Jesus and you don't even believe he is the Messiah during his three years of ministry?Yet when gracious conviction came upon there hearts,after His death.and they saw the light, it must have been marvelous but painful at the same time. It is not easy to face your own faithlessness and to see others go in ahead of you and receive blessings(John being commisioned to care for Mary)James and Jude must have been grieved to the core a lot like Peter in facing his denial of Christ.And yet here is what brings me to tears ,just as Peter was strengthened by the power of the holy spirit and to move forward humbly, so were James and Jude.I am sure they understood and accepted what Jesus said to Mary and John at the cross and were just happy to be part of the spititual family, submitting one to another.God would then grace them to pen the books of James and Jude,to be forever remembered.There is my great comeback story.Much forgiven, much loved. The more God breaks you down the more He can use you.Alleluia !
Hello David,
Thank you for responding to this post. I believe the post itself, using Scripture, was sufficient in dispelling the idea that Jesus had literal brothers. The closest they may have been would have been first cousins. Brothers, or brethren, were also used to refer to kinsman. If we understand "brothers" literally, Christ would have had hundreds of brothers, as I showed in my post.
But, here are a few more thoughts. Throughout all of the New Testament, only Jesus is ever referred to as the "son of Mary". Additionally, in Luke 2:41-51 we hear the story of Jesus being found in the temple. Throughout this whole ordeal, there is never a mention of other children. Surely, they would have been mentioned here, at least indicating that they were with their parents as they journeyed to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover with the rest of the family!
Even early Christian writings tell us that Mary remained a virgin:
St. Peter Chrysologus - Where are they who think that the Virgin's conceptions and giving birth to her child are to be likened to those of other women? ... The Virgin conceives, the Virgin brings forth her child, and she remains a virgin. (SERMONS, No. 117, ML 52, 520 - FC XVII, 200)
St. Leo the Great - And by a new nativity [Christ] was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother's chastity.... The origin is different but the nature like: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare and a Virgin she remained. (SERMONS, No. 22:2, ML 54, 195 - NPNF XII, 130)
St. John of Damascus - But just as He who was conceived kept her who conceived still virgin, in like manner also He who was born preserved her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed...For it was not impossible for Him to have come by this gate, without injuring her seal in anyway. The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son, yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word "first-born" means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word "till" signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. (EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH, Bk. 4,Chap. 14, MG 94, 1161 - NPNF IX, 86).
St. Jerome and St. Augustine (as early as the 4th century) both refuted with great length what you're suggesting as well (including what you assert using John 7:5). I'd be happy to provide those texts for you (they are too lengthy to type here) if you'd like.
Let me know and I can email them to you!
The bottom line here is that it is only modern Christianity that has asserted, and wrongfully so, that Mary had other children. Historical Christian writing indicate differently for centuries! Even Protestant Reformers themselves believed in Mary's perpetual virginity! Click here to read their quotes and others Why is it so difficult to believe that our MOST HOLY GOD would not want to share the womb he grew in with any sinful man, let alone those who may not follow him (by your assumption)? If one could not even TOUCH the Ark of the Covenant without being struck dead, why should we assume that God incarnate would not preserve Mary with the utmost of grace, chastity and purity? This only seems logical to me. Plus, genealogy records were meticulously kept. Don't you think we'd have someone laying claim to be a direct descendant of Christ if he'd had brothers?
One could use the same logic to state the contary, that Jesus did have brothers and Mary did not remain virgin after His birth,that scripture is ambiguos or unclear,I mean the hebrew word for brother could mean brother,so Jesus having brothers and Mary not remaining virgin does not contradict scripture.As for Mary possibly taking a chastity vow,it is conjecture,not scriptural as you state.It is, as you say, in some non biblical books,books that were rejected by early church fathers and councils, not having any doctrinal value. We do know that child bearing was extremely important in jewish society.It was thought to be a curse of God to be barren and conversely a blessing "to have your quiver full" that is lots of children.Mary would have been stigmatized if she only had one child. She would not have felt very blessed among nazarite women,(and she would have to wait 30 years before Jesus began his ministry).No ,the more normal, the more human Mary was the more i can relate to her being graced by God .For what is grace but unmerited favor.If she were sinless,she would not have been "full of grace", she would have been deserving to bear the Christchild.All jewish girls were born sinners but their bible taught them that one of them would bring forth the Messiah .That is fantastic grace! .The only prerequisite was to be of the family of David and to be a virgin.Matthaw 1:25 says she was a virgin "UNTIL" she brought forth her firstbon son.Her womb was not holy but the fruit thereof was(again fantastic grace!)we tend to memorialize our mountain top experiences like peter at the transfiguration,putting it and God's plan, in a cage Her womb was not put in a holy cage.The bible states no notoriety to there marriage. Mary and Joseph were no different than any other jewish couple ,consumating their marriage,bearing sons and daughters, being blessed by God.Two of the sons would be graciously saved and pen two books of the bible ,JAMES and JUDE When I was a catholic Mary was an almost mythical figure ,pie in the sky.I could relate to her as a mother. She was easier to go to just like it is easier to go to your mother when you are weak or had done something wrong instead of your dad. Now I feel closer to Mary, a kindred spirit, a fellow sinner ,saved by grace ,called to do good works as predestined before time began.And I feel closer to Jesus especially when I am weak or have done something wrong.I don't have have a problem with his male figure because I am his bride to be.In fact Jesus is our all in all, our brother ,sister mother ,father savior, Lord, high priest our alpha omega.I could never go back to any lesser mediator.The bible is not ambiguos on this .It is very clear, "cast all your cares on Him" Alleluia !
David,
While Scripture does not explicitly state that Jesus did or did not have brothers, by a close study of Scripture it becomes clear that the ones you attribute as "brothers" are not his brothers at all, for they are children of OTHER people. This has been refuted for centuries. Are you going to listen to, or ignore, Scripture?
The idea that Mary did not have other children is actually more Scriptural AND logical than her not remaining a virgin. It was also a cultural norm for young women to take a vow of life-long virginity and to be assigned a husband to protect her. In addition, I have centuries of Christian history that backs up this position. Something doesn't have to be inspired by God to be true, otherwise we couldn't trust any account of history at all! Early Christians wrote about such things for a reason... because people tried to assert ideas that weren't true or that were heretical. All of the common arguments you are bringing to the table have been refuted time and again by scholars, and were't even believed by the fathers of Protestantism. What makes your authority to decide greater than that of early Christians or Protestant Reformers?
I'm sorry to hear that you have left the beauty and truth found within the Catholic Church. Please know that you are always welcome to come back and you would be welcomed with open arms. It seems, before you left, you did not know the faith enough to defend her teachings so now you defend against that which you do not fully know or understand. I have found that being Catholic doesn't automatically mean you understand her teachings as one doesn't typically receive apologetic training in catechism or mass. I had to study my way into the church since I thought just like you at one time and was quite anti-Catholic, trying to save everyone from this "old, dried-up, man-made religion". In fact, I used the same arguments you are using! However, Mary's role, according to the Church's teaching, is NEVER on par with Christ's. If that was the message you got, then you misunderstood something or someONE was teaching you incorrectly. These doctrines on Mary do not make her divine or worthy of worship, but they do make her worthy of honor, for without her "yes", salvation history would look quite different.
I would love to continue refuting these arguments against Mary but there are others who might make much more sense than I ever could. It might be a good idea for you to read some books and articles by Catholics devoted to this subject if you'd really like to be able to understand why the Church teaches as it does... since it is not without reason.
I would suggest "Hail, Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn... or search articles on the subject at Catholic.com. You will find a wealth of information there.
Also, I will likely be sending you the text by St. Jerome regarding how people misinterpret the Scriptures regarding this. He details how th
Also, I will likely be sending you the text by St. Jerome regarding how people misinterpret the Scriptures regarding this. He details how these "brothers" are actually children of other people. (By the way, don't we call fellow Christians "brother" or "sister"? I'm certain they did so then as well since we can see several examples of this throughout Scripture. How do you know THIS is not what was meant?)
Peace be with you!
hello again. you are thankfully really making me dig in deeper and search some more as you say.As far as Acts having 120 people,I always thought that besides the apostles there were also disciples.The first part verse 13 and 14 is very specific, naming apostles ,plus women and Mary, the mother of Jesus and with his bretheren.Some time later Peter is in the midst of the disciples in verse 15 (numbering 120) and he calls them "men and bretheren".I have never heard anyone ever say that bretheren mean the same in verse 14 and 16 . 14 is Jesus relations (I say brothers, you say cousins) and 16 is like brothers in the Lord or fellow coutrymen.Please do not say by my rationale He would have to have 80 or so brothers because by your rationale he would have to have 80 or so cousins (either way abit too much). The point is aren't you supposed to determine the correct meaning of "brother" by it's context. Most of the time His brothers are with Mary , quite natural. Why would she always be with cousins? As far as getting lost in the temple you are quite right that there is no mention of his brothers (by your rationale no mention of any cousins either) so it proves nothing one way or the other.However, ask any mother today which parent would more likely to make such a mistake(leaving a child behind):a couple with an only child or a couple with six or seven kids (the movie "Home Alone" would have never seemed plausible if thy had only one child). I disagrewhen you say it is a modern thought that Jesus had briters..What is new is that some Catholic scholars may be changing ther mind(J.P.Meirs for example that Jerome made a few misakes in his reasoning possibly about Mary's sister).There has been cotroversy over this issue since around the time Constantine made Christianity a state religion.I can't see early christians even thinking about it when they were being persecuted.The issue had it's high noon in 383 when Helvidius met Jerome.Helvidius preached Mary with other children and Jerome the opposite.Jerome carried the day.I liken it to vhs tape winning out over beta . Beta was better but vhs had better marketing and won the day.(news casters use beta because of its better quality).Pope Nicholas in 858 made a decree that Mary was not a virgin after Jesus as well as Alexander 3 in 1159 and Pope Innocent 3 in .1243.No pope has ever used his infallibity power to say Mary had no brothers.I am not denying the strong tradition the Catholic church has in the ever virgin.It is also true that Luther may have written of her ever virgin state.He was faithfull enough though to start a mainsteam movement of getting back to our roots, of and by "solo esciptura"(our constitution) that is "scripture only" thus challenging tradition and practice.By the same token Jerome and Agustine would have probably condemned todays modern catholocism of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary which have less or no scripturla basis(for all have sinned and come s
The two times the pope has used his infallible powers I beleive is 1854 to declare the Immaculate Conception where Mary had no original sin and in 1950 the assumption where Mary did not die but ascended into heaven(a little like might makes right or brawn over brain ,certainly not "solo esciptura nor even tradition) Epiphanius in his book of 80 heresies Panarion said Mary as coredemptrix is heretical.So the debate has been going on for centuries. Some say it may have its roots in the false notion that celibacy is better than marriage (Paul corrected the Corinthianns on this).I wish the bible woud have been more explicit on this but I think ,in Gods' wisdom He put in just enough, as in a parable.You can judge an idea by its' fruit and a little leaven spoileth the whole lump.I think the fruit of a Mary as a graced sinner with children and of "solo escriptura"is a total relaiance on Jesus as our alpha and omega ,our all in all.The fruit of an ever virgin is mary the immaculate ,the ascended, our intercessor to our intercessor, co-redemptrix, the queen of our kingdom....Psalm 68:8 says "I am become a stranger unto my bretheren,an alien unto my mothers' children".May we work out our salvation in fear and trembling.Finally ,there aren't any baptists in heaven ,nor any lutherans or episcopals or pentecostals or catholics or I am of Peter or I am of Paul but, just those souls who have been washed in the blood of the Lamb.Alleluia!
"Helvidius preached Mary with other children and Jerome the opposite.Jerome carried the day."
Of course, Jerome won out! Helvidius was a heretic, speaking against what the Church knew to be true. Just because someone debated against Mary's perpetual virginity does not mean that she didn't remain a virgin. It is for this very reason that we find the early Church defending her virginity to begin with.
"Pope Nicholas in 858 made a decree that Mary was not a virgin after Jesus as well as Alexander 3 in 1159 and Pope Innocent 3 in 1243."
Umm... source? You can't just throw statements out there without backing them up with a source. What decrees are you referring to?
"He was faithfull enough though to start a mainsteam movement of getting back to our roots..."
Roots?! Do you see what he did to Christianity?! When the early Church had disputes, the Church spoke and the matter was settled. Period! No one ran off and started a whole new religion/denomination! Luther has succeeded in causing the biggest divisions in all of Christian history and now each man is his own pope with his own authority, running around telling people that they have the market on the correct interpretation of Scripture and saying that the church got it wrong for 1500 years only to be made right by Luther?! Clearly, then, Christ did not keep his promise to protect his Church from the gates of hell (Mt 16:18-19).
David, please tell me where in the Bible you can find the passage in which Scripture claims to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. And, tell me, by what authority is your interpretation of Scripture more valid than mine? Who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong?
Hello again. I will try to answer your question of why scripture is our sole rule of faith or why "solo escriptura", with another question.When did Jesus ever do anything that was not scriptural? When was the Fathers' will for Jesus ever not scriptural? Are we not to be imitators of Christ? John 1:1 tells us that Jesus is the Word. Luke 4:4 tells us that we are to live by every word of God, every "jot and tittle" (Matt 5:18). "All scripture is inspired,given of God, for doctrine,for reproof, for correction,for instruction in righteousness" (2nd Tim 3:16). "Faith cometh by hearing, hearing the word of God" (Rom 10:17). Is there anything higher ,better ,more authoratative than the word of God ,Holy Scriptures ,Jesus himself? Is tradition on par with the Word ? Are church leaders on par with the Word? Acts 10:17 tells us that it is commendable to search the scriptures to see if what you are being told by church leaders is correct, even if it is St.Paul! Jesus said,"Salvation is of the Jews...." (John4:22) They were carriers of God's Word ,of the Promise of the Messiah.Yet their leaders ,their traditions were subject to judgement by how true they were to the Word. In Matt5:27 Jesus begins to say many times, "You have heard it said(tradition)....but I tell you(real back to the basics scriptural meaning)". So again it is scripture ,Jesus ,the Word that judges men ,religious traditions and customs and their leaders. Those are a few scriptues of why I beleive in "solo escriptura".My catholic mother would say the same thing about me ,"why do you always to say things according to the bible?" Hey,that is how I got saved,thru His Word ,the gospel.Billy Graham's ministry can be summed up in three words, "the bible says...".As a catholic child I listened to this protestant and could find "no fault with him"or his message.Indeed we should have Jesus at the very center of our being and be his friend I thought. Wasn't that what we were trying to learn in the catholic Dominic Savio Club at our parochial school? The apostle Paul says somewhwere there is POWER in the Word, the gospel, to save ,set free,open eyes..... No, I did not become Protetsant then ,but when I did,it was not a particular church that saved me ,it was not going thru some ritual or a tradition that grabbed me,it was not a priest or church leader that i liked but an average rank and file believer that said "the bible says...". ( "..it pleased God that by the foolishnes of preaching to save them that believe." Cor 1;21 ) I would like to discuss your last question as to how to rightly interpet scripture next time please.
David,
I will have to comment on your last post later... In the meantime, I never got a response to the following:
"Pope Nicholas in 858 made a decree that Mary was not a virgin after Jesus as well as Alexander 3 in 1159 and Pope Innocent 3 in 1243."
Umm... source? You can't just throw statements out there without backing them up with a source. What decrees are you referring to?
Hello again. Thank-you for letting me state last time that scriptures trumps all,it can be our foundation ,our "constitution" for discussion of any topic. Now you rightly ask whose interpetation is correct? It is a great and revealing question. It presupposes that indeed truth is absolute,with its roots going back to Genesis.It also presupposes that we can be wrong.God absolutely says it (His Word) and a voice then says, "did He really say that?" (so said the serpent to Eve). Cain and Abel both hear the same word and instruction from God,yet one still does wrong.Hebrews 11;4 suggests Abel heard the Word and believed and Cain did not (not good soil or heart). "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor 14:33),nor does He tempt us.It seems that after the fall being right did not come naturally . On one hand we can turn away from truth and turn to fables (Santa Claus or the Easter bunny or.... 2nd Tim 4:4) or we can be perfect in and by the Word (Matt5:48). So how do we become like Abel? The Spirit bears witness of three things: our sin, His righteousness, and judgement to come, hopefully leading us to fear God and open the door to all understanding. Bottom line is we don't have it by ourselves ,we are not born with it.The bible says to lean not on your own understanding but trust in the Lord. He must give us the right new heart, and faith in His word, and the ability to rightly divide it .It is His free gift.It is an individual thing between you and the Lord,yet it is the same narrow gate for all to enter in. Truth must be divinely revealed. When Peter confessed that Jesus was the Christ, Jesus said, "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but the Father which is in Heaven".(Matt 16:17) But you have an unction from the Holy One ,and know all things".(1 John 2:20) Does your authority come from yourself ,or what others tell you ,or from a church, or from signs and wonders? Or does it come from God himself, .whom will teach you and lead you in all things (the Holy Spirit ministering to you)? The early Church spread like wildfire amidst persecution and horrible death because of the latter. In the end God leaves it for you to decide and judge for yourself (individual conscience) wether you are in the right or wrong,wether you are leaning on your own "stuff" or trusting in Him and bearing witness of Him. Free will, the tares in with the wheat. So I guess God decides what is right and we must discern if we are with God on it..that is why I earlier said we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling(PHIL 2:12),corporately and humbly. It is His Spirit in us that discerns things.Indeed we must be be born again to rightly divide the Word. It is not of ouselves lest any man should boast,or lord it over us(there is only one Lord). I would like to address your spirited points about Luther and popes etc. next time please. Thanks. Allelulia
David,
Hmm... where to begin?
"When did Jesus ever do anything that was not scriptural? When was the Fathers' will for Jesus ever not scriptural?...
"Luke 4:4 tells us that we are to live by every word of God, every 'jot and tittle'".
I'm not exactly sure how this makes a case for sola scriptura... Jesus wasn't bound by the confines of Scripture, which at the time, would have only been the Old Testament anyway. Additionally, doesn't it seem strange that everything the Almighty God wants us to know is contained fully and completely in one volume of books, many of which are actually letters of correction to the early church? John 21:25 says, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." If we are to hold to EVERY jot and tittle of the word of God, that's going to have to include the numerous things Jesus said that were NOT written down! Using the Bible alone, that is impossible!
1 Cor 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
1 Cor 15:1-2
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
2 Thess 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.
2 Thess 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
2 Tim 2:2
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Every one of these verses tell us that the gospel was spread by word of mouth and through traditions. The early church was called to hold fast to the traditions, by WORD OF MOUTH and by letter! The early church relied on the spoken word in order to spread the gospel. And, since there were many things that were not written, it only follows that we must have some traditions outside of Scripture that tells us something about who God is... something that helps bring the written word to life in a fuller fashion! Not to mention, without tradition, there are many things we cannot know. For example, how would we know which books were the inspired word of God that should be included in the Bible to begin with? How do we know that Mark wrote Mark? Scripture itself doesn't say so!
"No, I did not become Protetsant then ,but when I did,it was not a particular church that saved me ,it was not going thru some ritual or a tradition that grabbed me,it was not a priest or church leader that i liked but an average rank and file believer that
"No, I did not become Protetsant then ,but when I did,it was not a particular church that saved me ,it was not going thru some ritual or a tradition that grabbed me,it was not a priest or church leader that i liked but an average rank and file believer that said "the bible says..."
David, it seems you missed something when you were a Catholic. Did you miss the readings of Scripture? Did you miss Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23), proclaiming in the very center of the Church what Christ did for you? Did you miss all the parts of Mass that come straight from Scripture itself?
Greeting
Priest: In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19)
People: Amen (1 Chr 16:36)
Priest: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor 13:13)
People: And also with you.
Penitential Rite
All: I confess to almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault. (Jas. 5:16) In my thoughts and in my words, (Rom. 12:16) In what I have done and what I have failed to do; (Jas 3:6) and I ask the Blessed Virgin Mary, all the angel and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God. (1 Thess 5:25)
Priest: May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life. (1 John 1:9)
People: Amen (1 Chr 16:36)
All: Lord have mercy. (Tb 8:4) Christ have mercy. (1 Tim 1:2) Lord have mercy.
Gloria
All: Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. (Luke 2:14)
Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, (Rev 19:6)
we worship you, (Rev. 22:9) we give you thanks, (Eph. 5:20)
we praise you for your glory. (Rev 7:12)
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, (2 John 3)
Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world:
have mercy on us; (John 1:29)
You are seated at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer. (Rom 8:34)
For you alone are the Holy One, (Luke 4:34)
You alone are Lord, You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ. (Luke 1:32)
with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. (John 14:26)
For the Scripture references to the FULL mass (not including the FOUR readings of Scripture included in the mass that brings us through almost the entire Bible in THREE years) see: Scripture in Mass
ALL THAT is in just the first few minutes of mass! Every bit of it straight from Scripture! There is no church that proclaims more "the bible says.... " than the Catholic Church in the mass! Sadly, you just missed it!
The Catholic Church teaches that justification is from Christ alone and is a free gift (CCC 1996). However, Christ uses his Church, which he himself established (Mt 16:1 8-19) as a means to draw people into his saving grace. The Church is the body of Christ (Col 1:1 8) and therefore necessary. With Christ as the HEAD, the body cannot b
With Christ as the HEAD, the body cannot be separated from the head (1 Cor 12:20-27). It is the CHURCH which is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)... not the Bible.
"The bible says to lean not on your own understanding but trust in the Lord...Truth must be divinely revealed... Does your authority come from yourself ,or what others tell you ,or from a church, or from signs and wonders? Or does it come from God himself, .whom will teach you and lead you in all things (the Holy Spirit ministering to you)?...Indeed we must be be born again to rightly divide the Word."
So, tell me, if we are not to lean on our OWN understanding, and being born again we have the Holy Spirit to lead us in all things and rightly divide the Word... How is it that there are so many denominations with so many different interpretations all claiming to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and all using the Bible as their sole rule of faith? How do we know which denomination has it right? Who has it wrong? By what authority is one pastor able to claim, "We teach the absolute truth!" when another pastor makes the same claim, yet opposes him on issues like divorce and remarriage, abortion, homosexuality, war and peace, baptism, the significance of holy communion, etc.??
Indeed the Bible, being the inspired and inerrant Word of God, is essential. But, by itself, without some outside authority to determine how it should be interpreted, all we have is a bunch of people pushing their fallible, non-authoritative interpretation on everyone else. So, who has the authority to bind and loose? (Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18). Which church is the pillar and foundation of the truth? When we are to take matters TO THE CHURCH, which church do we go to with the authority to decide? (Matthew 18:17)
hello again. just a quick comment. You did not mention one specific instance when Jesus did something contrary to scripture. What prophecy did he not fullfill? Which law did he really break? So how was He not bound to the confines of Scriture? HOW ?(obviously only the Old Testament- you make it sound like it's not that much). Then you bring up the New Testament which is irrelevant to the point-because as you suggest, was not written yet). It was misapplied scripture, supreme church leaders some bad customs and traditions .and God,s own united people and religion that Jesus had to continually correct and debate and eventually helped put Him on the cross. What remained unchanged and pure in all the above mess was the Word and His Spirit working in the hearts of men. Against this the gates of hell shall not prevail. Alleluia !
Well David, I never asserted that Jesus ever did anything contrary to Scripture, so I didn't even look for one since Jesus wouldn't contradict his own inspired Word anyway. I guess I don't see your point in trying to get me to find such an instance.
Matt 16:18-19 tells us that the gates of hell will not prevail against his CHURCH.
The problem with modern Christianity is that we have multiple denominations, all using the same Bible, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit... yet teaching opposing doctrines! By what authority are they held accountable? How are we to know which denomination has it right? The Bible doesn't tell us which denomination we are to follow. It simply says Christ established a church with authority. Where is THAT church, David?
Hello again. I do not think it strange that GOD put in One Book everything essential THAT HE WANTS US TO KNOW. Are there others on par with the Bible? Did Jesus have to read other books? He never once quotes the Talmud (commentaries by rabbis etc..their authority figures like todays' bishops or popes).If he did it was to correct them (remember the "you have heard it said(custom)...but I tell you(real meaning) of Matt.5 ? I sense we both reverance the scriptures and Mary but you reverance Mary more than I, and I reverance the scriptures more than you.Is that fair to say?
hello again I understand Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded in the bible.The inference by John is that they were similar in nature to what WAS recorded.They would not contradict or change the outcome or change one instruction or docrtrine.etc. If God used 4 gospel writers without contradiction He could have just as easily used 5 or 10 ,right? How does that open the door for speculation as to what or whom has authority?. So because we don't know everything He said , or he didn't make the Book bigger, we must now also rely on tradition or a leaders or the church to fill in the blanks, or assume equal authority? I do not get that from this scripture."Jot and title" refers to what Was written. So it is possible to have SCIPTURE as our authority,to judge our church ,traditions leaders. 2nd Tim 3;16 still stands, "All scripture is inspired by God ...for correction ,reproof, instruction...."Yes you need fellow believers -the Church, and leaders and teachers and deacons and you will have traditions but they must be built upon the Rock, the chief corner stone,the Word, Jesus himself. All else is hay and stubble.
"I sense we both reverance the scriptures and Mary but you reverance Mary more than I, and I reverance the scriptures more than you.Is that fair to say?"
As far as asserting that you reverence Scripture more than I, it's actually not fair, and it's not accurate. There is nothing the Catholic Church teaches that isn't backed either implicitly or explicitly in Scripture. Nothing. I've already proven to you that the Catholic Church is Bible-based in the mass and by using Scripture to back up the Church's viewpoints. I love and reverence the Scriptures more as a Catholic than I did in all my years as as a Protestant because I no longer have to explain away verses that contradict the man-made traditions of sola fide and sola scriptura.
You, however, have continued to ignore my questions, ignored the verses I've cited for the Catholic position, and insulted me by trying to claim that I don't reverence the Scriptures as much as you do.
So, I have to ask, what makes your interpretation of Scripture more valid than mine? What makes your church more Bible-centered than mine?
If God put everything essential that he wants us to know in the Bible, then please tell me where in the Bible (book, chapter, and verse) we have the list of inspired books that were to be included?
Also, you have still failed to quote the popes' decrees which claim that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. (Or is it really that you have no idea?)
"So it is possible to have SCIPTURE as our authority,to judge our church ,traditions leaders."
How can something written be a judge when it cannot "decide"? If Scripture is the final authority, why doesn't Scripture itself tell us to "take it to the Bible" instead of to the Church? Why does Scripture itself tell us that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth and not Scripture?
"All scripture is inspired by God ...for correction ,reproof, instruction...."
Catholics AGREE! But this verse doesn't say Scripture ALONE. Nor does it negate the idea that something else is not also profitable for correction, reproof and instruction...
"Yes you need fellow believers -the Church, and leaders and teachers and deacons and you will have traditions but they must be built upon the Rock, the chief corner stone,the Word, Jesus himself."
Catholic traditions ARE built on Jesus Christ and his Word in Scripture. They are traditions that have been taught and understood for 2000 years and they originated with Christ and the apostles!
did you know Jehovas Witness's look at all Christendom as false, and that they are the only true church as evidenced by their world wide unity of faith ,doctrine ,tradition and leadership heirarchy? Are those the right benchmarks for the true church? Is not bleeding, having a fever, coughing , and other apparent maladies part of a healthy human body ? When I was on a school board, we had two factions (one was tax- payer leaning the other administration)and of course the admin faction would push for "unity,that division looked "bad". Yet studies from Princeton University showed that divided boards were actually better and healthier for everyone involved in the log run.So what looked like division was actually cooperation from a different perspective.
Well, we're not talking about a school board here. We are talking about the Church established by Christ. To say that division is GOOD is anti-Biblical:
Romans 16:17
17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.
1 Cor 1:10
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought
Eph 4:3-6
Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Phil 2:2
then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.
And I can name SEVERAL more like these...
Additionally, I WANT to belong to a church that makes the claim to be the one true church because I want to belong to the ONE church that Christ established. I don't want to belong to any church that doesn't claim it to be the fullness of truth that Christ intended because I believe that Christ WANTS us to have the fullness of truth... Not half-truths, not negotiated truths, not relative truths... but THE truth and I believe that He gave us the means to know that truth - 100%. The evidence of what makes one a part of the ONE TRUE CHURCH is: Is it ONE? Is it HOLY? Is it catholic (universal)? And is it APOSTOLIC? If it isn't, then it simply cannot be the church that Christ established because these are the things he called his church to!
Catholics do NOT view all of Christendom as false. They acknowledge that all religions contain some truth, some closer to what is true than others, of course. So, to implicitly compare us with the JWs who don't even believe in the divinity of Christ is absurd.
How can scripture be a judge? Is it not a two- edged sword ,able to cut asunder seperating joint from marrow (paraphrase-hey it's late ) it judged my sinful nature. Why can it not judge my action or anyone elses? Yes, you can study scriptures, but I'd rather listen to a man who has let scriptures study him/her.IF YOU TAKE IT TO THE BIBLE, YOU ARE THE CHURCH.It is not one or the other. You can not seperate the two. Can you seperate Jesus and the Word ?
I don't believe it's Scripture which judges your sinful nature. Rather it points it out to you. But, ultimately, a being with intellect must be a judge. This is like saying the Constitution is the JUDGE of law... but, in reality, a person must decide how the Constitution is to be interpreted and judge accordingly. Scripture cannot be a judge! I can only be a guideline for judging!
Please tell me where in the Bible it says that if you take it to the Bible, you ARE the church?
Also, Jesus IS the Word. AND Jesus is the HEAD of the BODY, which is the Church. I never said we should separate the church, or Jesus, from Scripture. Scripture is essential to a life of abundant and growing faith.
In fact, the Catholic Church teaches, "The Church "forcefully and specially exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn 'the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ' (Phil 3:8) by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. . . . Let them remember, however, that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that a dialogue takes place between God and man. For 'we speak to him when we pray; we listen to him when we read the divine oracles." (CCC 2653)
Does this sound like a faith that places little importance on Scripture?
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life." Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."
132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
just read your division rebuttal. you misconstrued the princeton study. what you think division is may not be,and what you think unity is may not be to someone elses perspective. .there was division in the early church.Why else was there so much exhorting for unity. I know many churches that are ONE,HOLY UNIVERSAL,APOSOLIC.All around the world Assembly of God churches are united in truth .holines etc ,with themselves .Lutherans all around the world the same ,with themselves .Greek orthodox ,russian orthodox, episcopals all have unity holiness ,universal ,apostolic with themselves.Using you qualifications a seeking Hindu or Muslim lumps us (that's Roman Catholic too) all together as "Christian".Your logic fails the test of different perspectives....but I certainly think I understand your perspective,more and more as u share
"you misconstrued the princeton study. what you think division is may not be,and what you think unity is may not be to someone elses perspective."
This is relativism! Tell me, where in Christianity is division NOT really division? Give me an example of something that SEEMS divisive but that might actually be cooperation? Tell me how it's acceptable for one sect of Christianity to believe, for example, that baptism is merely a symbol, while others hold that baptism is regenerative? Is this not really division but just someone's incorrect perception that it's division? With all due respect, that seems a bit illogical... and, in my opinion, mocks the actual Word of God that calls us to be "like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose"!
"there was division in the early church.Why else was there so much exhorting for unity"
There were people who TRIED to divide the early church. The difference between then and now is that now, when one does not agree, they go off and start their own church and find people who agree with them. But the early church defended the truth with their authority and if one disagreed, more often than not, they submitted to the authority of the Church in the end. The division did not fall WITHIN the church, but outside, while the church maintained it's long-held doctrines and refused to waiver! A perfect example of this is the issue of contraception. Prior to 1930 ALL Christian denominations considered the use of it immoral and gravely sinful. Only the Catholic Church still stands firm in this today.
"I know many churches that are ONE,HOLY UNIVERSAL,APOSOLIC."
Assembly of God churches DO not have apostolic succession... They have absolutely NO tracing back to the time of the apostles. Their denomination started in 1914. Lutheran pastors cannot trace their roots to the apostles either. Their church started in 1517 and they have also divided among themselves into different synods. The Orthodox churches are the exception and are so recognized by the Catholic Church as having valid apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. But they split from the Catholic Church in 1054... and we've been working to reunite with them ever since.
The Catholic Church ALONE was started in 33 AD by Jesus Christ himself. It is a secular fact that cannot be denied. Our bishops can trace their succession to the apostles! Did the Almighty God start a church that managed to fail within the first few centuries? Did he not know what he was doing or who he entrusted his Church to? Did you know that this is EXACTLY what Mormons use as the basis for their religion? Without total apostasy of the early church, their entire religion falls apart at the seems.
Why do you trust the Catholic Church when it comes to their decision on what to include in the canon of Scripture, a task that would have required the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but cannot believe that the Holy Spirit would ALSO guide that same Church in other areas of faith and morals for the next 1600 years? If the Catholic Church were truly corrupt, it would have faded away centuries ago, just like all the heresies that sprang up around her which she tirelessly worked to refute and correct and which eventually faded into the background of history.
sorry about the "insult",but didn't I insult myself by saying you love Mary more? I have not ignored your questions,,just haven't answered yet because we keep adding more new dialogue ,and I think you've overlooked a couple of mine..it's o.k what traditions are specifically recorded in scriptue that the apostles told us to keep. I can not accept an implied premise that because we do them today,and we are apostolic ,they must have done them back 2000 years ago(even though they were not recorded?), and how could He let His Church go astray,how could we be prevailed against? did not the jewish church stray,was God unfaithful to them? Does not Paul warns us not to think we are better than they. Did not most of the 7 Revelation church's begin to stray and some did not repent even after the "letter",the church dissappeared there candlestick was taken away. Are you baptist with the "once saved always saved" except "once God's church always God's church" ? You can lose your candlestick,it could be given to another (think jews),and God's plan prevails thru another. So back to traditions and the apostles .We agree on baptism,communion,marriage ,meeting on the first day of the week.excomunicating.. I do not see celibacy in the clergy,prayer to saints, Mary ascending ,or being declared sinless or transubstantiation(monstrance), or calling leaders father ,much less pope or even of Peter being infallible top dog in arbritration,of his being the final word ,praying for the dead, purgatory, lighting candles and incense,indulgences,monasticism,bodily punishment as penance,confessing only to priests last rites,repetitiuos prayers ,church membership,inquisitions (Torquemada would have known what to do with those 1st century gnostics. That is one way to keep unity. I am sorry, that was nasty of me to bring up .It is not for you but for my spanish ancestors. I would have been burned at the stake. C. S. Lewis wrote, "The unhistorical,without knowing it,are usually enslaved to a fairly recent past" that is to say our image of the pope is shaped by our most recent popes. No church is perfect .I do not put my hope in a denomination (of which catholicism is just one, yes maybe the biggest, maybe the oldest),but they may fail(and have).Hell has prevailed against them from time to time. Again,as a saint approached the pearly gates,he looked up and saw St.Peter and asked ,"hey ,you have any Lutherans up there? Peter answeresd ,"No". "Do you have any catholics up there ?" Again St. Peter said,
the Church is perfect or will be. It is not subject to denominations or it's heirarchy. It is a spiritual institution or kingdom here on earth. Man is imperfect as demonsterated in divisions and denominations.If we exalt our denomination we are carnal(rememeber the early church boasting I am of peter or I am of paul ? We both have built on the foundations laid down by the early church (no denomination in this paradigm please). We both will be accountable to God for what we build on it .Is wood ,hay stuubble? (I am sure some of mine is )or is it gold and silver ?(I am sure some of Him in me is).
"sorry about the "insult",but didn't I insult myself by saying you love Mary more?"
You are free to say what you want about your own feelings about Mary, Scripture or anything else. I simply find it unacceptable for you to assume that I love Scripture LESS than you do. As for Mary, I honor her more than I did as a Protestant because I now see her role in salvation history with a broader perspective. God, after all, chose her above all others, to bring Him into the world. That says something! How you feel about her in comparison is not for me to judge.
"I have not ignored your questions,,just haven't answered yet because we keep adding more new dialogue ,and I think you've overlooked a couple of mine"
Well by all means, then, let's not add any more dialogue. Please answer my questions. I wasn't aware that I had missed any of your questions as I thought I'd responded to them as you gave them. Can you please let me know which ones I haven't answered? (With the exception of the new ones is your last comments, since we should answer the previous questions before moving forward. )
hello again some new dialogue. " I am the vine, you are the branches,he that abideth in me and I in him shall bear fruit" (john15). I see this for ANY individual, who is more than "apostolic", but goes back to Adam, Abel and Abraham(AAA), who by faith ,has a relationship with the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit. This is a call to abide in Him the Vine ,Not a church or denomination.The "church" is the vine and All the branches ,no two looking alike. His Word cleans us, purges and prunes us.Jesus is the husband men ,NOT any denomination.The gospel ,is a call to the vine ,not to a particular church. The apostles struggled with this also when they "saw one casting out devils in thy name,and he followed us not.and we forbad him because he followed US not." Jesus had to correct the apostles fom being "clicky". He also corrected Peter when he improperly inquired about Johns' future (what is that to you?).....So I believe there are many Roman Catholics who have been and are saved,but NOT because they are Roman Catholic .I believe there are some baptists ,lutherans etc. who are saved ,but not because they are baptists or lutheran etc. Salvation is a free gift to those who ask and call out to Him. There is no other name given(NOT protestant or roman catholic catholic) to be saved by .Alleluia! Right?
No comment on new dialogue until you answer my previous questions, David. You said yourself you're not answering due to new dialogue, but you're the one creating it. Can you not answer my questions?
Still trying to find where the 3 popes may have said Mary was not ever virgin. Saw it somewhere on the internet, can't find it again. Did find something interesting though. As stated ealier some of this debate goes back to thinking that celibacy is better than marriage. You said something like God kept Mary pure(virgin, as if sex in marriage would not have been as pure).I saw some quotes (on the internet) of St. Ambrose that marriage is a crime against..and Tertulian said it is an obscene,moral crime and St. Augustine said marriage is a sin. Granted they wanted to devote ALL there time to the God's work, that Christ could return soon.Still I am shocked to see those statements.Have you read that before ? I believe the website to be accurate. Anyways, Tim 4;1-5 "Now the Spirit speaks expressly in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils:speaking lies in hypocrisy,having there conscience seared with a hot iron,FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to OBSTAIN FROM MEATS, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving of them which BELIEVE and KNOW the TRUTH. I am NOT saying the above saints apostasized but I would strongly disagree with there statements on marriage. Marriage is as pure as celibacy.Billy Graham did great work for God being fully married ,kid's and all. Mother Theresa did great work for God being celibate.Early Catholic priests did great work for God being married ,as did celibate priests later, being celibate. Mary can be just as honored ,and pure (of heart), being virgin or married with children. We are free in Christ no longer Jew or gentile ,free or slave,all have the opportunity to please God by faith without respect to your station in life,including wether you are married or single .If all that you say about Mary is true, there is honor and purity there .If all that I say about Mary is true ,there is honor and purity there also.
hello again. I was just thinking about being 'Apostolic' .You may claim to have apostolic succesion because YOU say so, but it has been contested at every turn. That is part of secular history .But my point that I think is more important ,and I hope you would agree, is to BE apostolic.Their unity came by preaching the simple gospel message.They were not Roman Catholic,they were catholic only.Jerusalem church was not better than Antioch or Rome better than the Phillipians etc.,etc.They had no pope(Peter may have been their leader but he was never the final word ,nor did the church call the apostles Father.They did not have to be celibate (they had families),there is no mention of praying to saints or extra veneration of Mary. They were not monastic ,nor did they grant indulgences.They fought off any attempt to ritualize, or box God in how to build HIS Church,HIS kingdom(the Judaisers).There was UNITY in keeping the gospel as simple as possible.The Holy spirit was in charge ,the Head working thru Peter sometimes ,sometimes thru Paul or Steven . EVERY believer could go into the Holy of Holy's ,the middle wall of partition was torn in two ,all believers were priests ,after the order of Melchisidek.They did not have to call on special people to consecrate the bread and wine. Yes, let us both BE Apostolic, and Unified in the simplicity of the gospel ,of being born again ,regenerated ,saved into HIS Kingdom .Anything else is carnal,not of God.Anything else is sewing up the curtain again so, like the old testament, you needed a rabbi for most religiuos functions,with so many rule and regulations and dogmas and divisions ,losing sight of their simple mission,making them either twice the sinners with its burden or full of religious piety and hypocrisy ,so that the drunkard etc. would enter into the kingdom before the so called believer in the one true faith. Yes let us be, by God's grace ,unified and like the apostles and early believers.
"I saw some quotes (on the internet) of St. Ambrose that marriage is a crime against..and Tertulian said it is an obscene,moral crime and St. Augustine said marriage is a sin."
Sources, please... I want to be sure that what you're claiming hasn't been taken out of context, which is typically the case. If you got it from a website, then cite it!
I'm not addressing the marriage/celibacy issue or anything else you've brought up because you are, once again, bringing up further dialogue before you've answered my questions... Here is a general recap of my questions:
Tell me where in the Bible you can find the passage in which Scripture claims to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. By what authority is your interpretation of Scripture more valid than mine? Who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong?
If we are not to lean on our OWN understanding, and being born again we have the Holy Spirit to lead us in all things and rightly divide the Word... How is it that there are so many denominations with so many different interpretations all claiming to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and all using the Bible as their sole rule of faith? How do we know which denomination has it right? Who has it wrong? By what authority is one pastor able to claim, "We teach the truth!" when another pastor makes the same claim, yet opposes him on issues like divorce and remarriage, abortion, contraception, homosexuality, war and peace, baptism, the significance of holy communion, etc.??
Who has the authority today (given to the apostles) to bind and loose? (Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18). Which church is the pillar and foundation of the truth? When we are to take matters TO THE CHURCH, which church do we go to with the authority to decide? (Matthew 18:17). Where is THAT church?
Please tell me where in the Bible it says that if you take it to the Bible, you ARE the church?
Did the Almighty God start a church that managed to fail within the first few centuries? Did he not know what he was doing or who he entrusted his Church to? Did you know that this is EXACTLY what Mormons use as the basis for their religion? Without total apostasy of the early church, their entire religion falls apart at the seams.
Why do you trust the Catholic Church when it comes to their decision on what to include in the canon of Scripture, a task that would have required the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but cannot believe that the Holy Spirit would ALSO guide that same Church in other areas of faith and morals for the next 1600 years?
hello again I finally found the website that stated the three popes who decred that Mary was not perpetual virgin "abcog.org?mary1.htm". I could not find any collaboration and there was an error on another issue so i would withdraw those statements. I did find a reputable sight that quotes W. Webster in "The Church at Rome..." at "Mary worship by Mary Ann Collins" website in where 2 popes(Gelasius and Hormisdas declare the teaching of the assumption as heretical and Pope Gregory declaring all bishops to be equal, with not one in supreme authority (no pope).
hello again "humanist studies.org/enews/?id=251&article=30" and movingimages.ca/catalogue/history/history.htm have quotes on st. ambrose .I found more sights if you just google the saint and marriage ,crime ,evil. As far as context,I thought the original quote was fair , that celibacy is preferred,better,more spiritual than marriage in service to God .One can not deny the rise of asceticism in the third,fourth century followed by monasticism..I believe the quotes to be accurate ,and one can simply agree or disagree with them.
hello I am surprised by your questions still remaining. I thought I answered them.You are right ,I do believe that scripture is the SOLE rule or authority for us. I gave many instances where Jesus and the early church did also.You never found an instance where Jesus did otherwise.That BECAME tradition ,to "search the scriptures".Yes, I acknowledge your finding scriptures that talk of tradition,but it seems it has the same meaning as in other places where it says to hold on to the WORD, or gospel, "as it was first presented to you." Yes I acknowledge the scripture where the "the house of God,the church of the living God ,the pillar and the ground of truth'. The context is good, moral, Godly BEHAVIOR for deacons and bishops because it is where truth should be found,built upon the WORD ,Jesus, the chief cornerstone ,then the apostles and prophets,then US making up the holy temple.(Eph 2:21) I do not see that as a scripture where his church is the authority. As a matter of fact the danger of that is alluded to by Timothy 3 verses forward where doctrines (turning into traditions),not of God ,like "forbidding to marry "etc.etc.creep into that "church" If proper interpetation of that scripture were acted upon, we would not have a foundation for a lot of bad things that popes and bishops and priests have done(including protestant)thru the ages to the present (please don't ask me to document that,it would be too much to write about). What is that secular saying? nothing corrupts like absolute power? Is there any other denomination that claims such absolute supremacy and power as the Roman Catholic Church ? But with God all things are possible,if we abide in Him, He shall perfect us, the Church (no denomination)
"if you take it to the bible, you are the church' You are right, that is not a scripture. My inference was that there are scriptures, which were shared, that shows the early church "taking it to the bible", that is judging things against the word of God.You can use the bible and still get it wrong(e.g. cults).But for sure if you don't take it to the bible, your chances increase tremendously of getting it wrong.Again HIS BLOOD has broken that middle wall of partion down where we can now ,you and me ,go boldly into his Presence and ,we can HEAR His voice.We have been made the priests.Let us not go backwards.
If we are not to lean on our OWN understanding, and being born again we have the Holy Spirit to lead us in all things and rightly divide the Word... How is it that there are so many denominations with so many different interpretations all claiming to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and all using the Bible as their sole rule of faith? How do we know which denomination has it right? Who has it wrong? By what authority is one pastor able to claim, "We teach the truth!" when another pastor makes the same claim, yet opposes him on issues like divorce and remarriage, abortion, contraception, homosexuality, war and peace, baptism, the significance of holy communion, etc.??
Wouldn't God want us to be able to know what the truth is instead of floating around guessing and questioning?
The very early church couldn't have taken it to the Bible because there was no Bible until the late 4th century. How did Christianity spread prior to the Bible, especially when so many of the followers were likely illiterate?
By the way, the Catholic Church makes no claim that popes are not also sinners. They are not infallible at all time regarding all matters. Their sins and their personal opinions (when not speaking for the church) do not take away from what the Church teaches and has always taught. I will take a look at your links regarding St. Ambrose and others and comment shortly.
HELLO AGAIN THE CHURCH, AS QUOTED EARLIER, IS ALSO BUILT UPON THE PROPHETS, AS IN OLD TESTAMENT.THE GOSPEL MESSAGE IS THAT JESUS IS THE MESSIAH.THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF PROPECIES ON THAT MATTER IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.Again the old testament came about thru the centuries as God so led. Never did the Jews use as an excuse that it was not completed until 400 b.c. and therefore they could develop tradition and doctrine on their own,that contradicted what WAS written.Jesus never criticized the method and timeliness of formulating the old testament.I am sure the Lord employed (and his believers) the same method in keeping in faith with new testament books ,as they were written.The Corinthians could not say "Paul, we are not sure if you are inspired ,even though you say you are, because Revelations has not been written yet. We must wait for all inspired books to be written. Then we will have a council to decide what is inspired and whether we will listen and obey your admonissions". Come on, there is nothing new here. Again "my sheep know my voice." If your congregation got an inspired letter from Paul,the spirit would bear witness to you,to whomever had an ear .Again you could weigh it against all other inspired writings ,Old and whatever New had been written. Peter did not decide or tell Paul that his letters were inspired and that he was thinking about making a New Testament Bible,anymore than some high priest rabbi decided that he would make Proverbs part of old testament canon. Any ways ,you make me stray. The bible simply states that first century christians,congregations ,communities,did regard scripture as authoratative. How did cristianity spread? Again just as it always has ,from Adam to you and me. "Faith cometh by hearing ,and hearing by the Word of God". The Word ,wether it be from the person of the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit,wether it be verbal,by sign,by writing or fom another person or from a jack ass will not contradict itself ,regenerating the fallen spirit of the person.(Adam had no bible nor did Abraham ,but they had His Word ,His promise ,His prophecy). It is really simple.Yes He used a peculiar people ,a holy nation in the Old Testament as He uses His holy church in the New testament. Only the "church" is not what some think it is ,just as jews ,(not all), misunderstood their holy nation.A discerning heart is a discerning heart wether literate or not. He can still have the Word as his authority. He does not abdicate that discernment to the one who can read. He,the Lord, will hold all accountable to what we did with His Word .We can't play the blame game ,like at the garden of Eden. It is faulty to rely on other "authorities " when God desires direct relationship to his Word . None of this " He said ,she said" ,regardless of whether what they say is right or wrong. I am not guessing or floating around by His grace ?I don't think you are
just a quick note - the gospel has remained constant, never changing from 33 a.d to the present,forming His church .Roman catholicism has Not taught the same thing thru the ages and I believe you know that.(Again, some Roman Catholics are part of that "church "in my first sentence,as are some baptists and lutherans etc.).
hello In jesus day things were similar in that there were many factions with different traditions beliefs ,propbably not as mush as today but the dynamics were probabbly the same.On the whole though there was "Judaism " as today there is "Christianity". In short,there are so many differences,partly because we all have different "soils", levels of faith , of love ,and many souls just are not born again but what is worse is they think they are. Why is there such a diverse opinions within the church ,even the catholic church?Why was the head of our local Planned Parenthood a catholic ,with 12 years of schooling under the church or a school board member who did not want armed forces recruiters on schools because their policy (military policy of dont ask dont tell) on gays from my church. So I would say people are leaning on their understanding ,not totally being led or inspired by the spirit. So you are right that just because a person "says so" is a weak foundation. I would further say that just because a denomination says so ,is also a weak foundation.I know people want to put their faith in their church ,their leaders but the foundation goes deeper. The fact is you will seek and find "your church" based on where you are at spiritually already. So I would rather focus on personal spiritual facts than the church denomination it takes you too. This personal ,divine revelation is the rock,the foundation which nothing can seperate us from,the gates of hell can not prevail.The Lord allows the wheat and the tares to remain side by side. He is bothered by some of the divisions but I think we are sometimes bothered by it more than He would like. Every time I bump into a division or a difference,it forces me back to my rock and He corrects me or strenghtens me or I learn something. No, He is not the author of confusion, yet He is working with lumps of clay ,working all things for good .Could you stand it if Christ liked a couple of denominations and not just your own? Or that he blesses some protestants as much or even more than some catholics? Should I not say that much of the seed and foundation of my faith came from God using things from my Catholic background ? Should I not say that it was protestant teaching that finally birthed me? Should I boast then in catholocism and protestantism ? No, but I should boast of how God worked thru clumps of clay(catholic and protestant) to to be obedient in proclaiming His Word to me...monumental Words that revealed to me my sin ,lack of faith,and judgement to come (which I was not ready for), but also His love and forgiveness and righteousness. Thanks be to God for my catholic mother and that third grade nun and that protestant youth pastor. I am sorry I can not share your enthusiasm for your particular denomination above this divine revelation. "I am the truth,the way ,the life....the door that leads to the Father" Salvation is of the jews (not pharisees or saducees or zionist ), and today His C
and today His church carries the gospel(not a denomination).Jesus said He would bring division, brother against sister ....division over his Word over Himself.It began in the garden of Eden ,""Hath God really said...well what he really meant was". Someone always trying to trump divine revelation (what God told Adam and Eve DIRECTLY).Then there was Cain and Abel ,the Jewish divisions,the early church had divisions,and today 'christians and even catholics have divisions.God allows liberty of conscience ,free will with regard to His Word.Is it not true that as the bible was printed in spoken languages,and bibles began to flood europe that the reformation began.The WORD was the catalyst not Luther.It is better to allow personal conscience and free will with its unfortunate dividions than to have unity by heirarchal force (both protatant or catholic by popes or kings). Again the bigger issue than getting it right (which denomination)is getting it right from Him, DIRECTLY. "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you ,but the Father which is in heaven".
Imagine this...
You're driving home from work next Monday after a long day. You tune in your radio. You hear a blurb about a little village in India where some villagers have died suddenly, strangely, of a flu that has never been seen before. It's not influenza, but three or four people are dead, and it's kind of interesting, and they are sending some doctors over there to investigate it. You don't think much about it, but coming home from church on Sunday you hear another radio spot. Only they say it's, not three villagers, it's 30,000 villagers in the back hills of this particular area of India, and it's on TV that night. CNN runs a little blurb: people are heading there from the disease center in Atlanta because this disease strain has never been seen before.
By Monday morning when you get up, it's the lead story. It's not just India; it's Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and before you know it, you're hearing this story everywhere, and they have now coined it as "the mystery flu." The President has made some comment that he and his family are praying and hoping that all will go well over there. But everyone is wondering, "How are we going to contain it?"
That's when the President of France makes an announcement that shocks Europe. He is closing their borders. No flights from India, Pakistan, or any of the countries where this thing has been seen. And that's why that night you are watching a little bit of CNN before going to bed. Your jaw hits your chest when a weeping woman is translated in English from a French news program. There's a man lying in a hospital in Paris, dying of the mystery flu. It has come to Europe.
Panic strikes. As best they can tell, after contracting the disease, you have it for a week before you even know it. Then you have four days of unbelievable symptoms. And then you die. Britain closes its borders, but it's too late. South Hampton, Liverpool, North Hampton, and it's Tuesday morning when the President of the United States makes the following announcement: "Due to a national-security risk, all flights to and from Europe and Asia have been canceled. If your loved ones are overseas, I'm sorry. They cannot come back until we find a cure for this thing."
Within four days, our nation has been plunged into an unbelievable fear. People are wondering, "What if it comes to this country?" And preachers on Tuesday are saying it's the scourge of God. It's Wednesday night, and you are at a church prayer meeting when somebody runs in from the parking lot and yells, "Turn on a radio, turn on a radio!" And while everyone in church listens to a little transistor radio with a microphone stuck up to it, the announcement is made. Two women are lying, in a Long Island hospital, dying from the mystery flu. Within hours it seems, the disease envelopes the country.
People are working around the clock, trying to find an antidote. Nothing is working. California, Oregon, Arizona, Florida, Massachuse
hello again As you can see I am trying to answer more of you questions. I will acknowledge your rational of why would God use a church for the formation of cannon and not continue with her. How do know that God isn't guiding that church ,but thru the likes of someone like Luther,or other protestants,or even by us blogging here? I know my mother was jealous maybe even indignant that I could find something more, even spiritual birth ,outside the catholic church. Maybe it's like Paul said ,that this is the time of the gentiles ,in part to provoke the Jews to jealousy. Did not God guide Israel for 1600 years? Is He guiding her today as then? Yet God keeps his promises. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. Are not Jews being saved today and believe that Jesus is the Messiah? Are not many catholics saved today but being birthed in other denominations (40% of my "protstant" church were raised catholic).Did not Paul warn us not be haughty ,thinking we are better than the Jews,that we could be cut off the vine too? Does not Revelations say that a church could lose its candlestick (annointing or guidance as you say)? Protestants should not be haughty either, thinking they are beter than catholics. As I stated earlier, I am grateful to the seeds catholics placed in my life. We are all grateful that the early church was faithful in the New Testament formation. Another discussion would be was that church Roman Catholic ,as it is today?
hello again Most historians seem to believe that New Testament cannon was determined way before the council of carthage 397 .The council ratified what was alredy in existance. Athanius (300 a.d.) and Origen had named 27 books for example.Constantine ordered bibles to be put together by Eusubius and he had the 27 books.No council or church heiarchy was needed. There was a consensus amongst the churches of different cities as to what was cannon. Many paid with there lives for being found with N.T. scripture(cannon was serious business ,purified by fire). Many books were accepted almost immediately of being written as worthy to be added to the old testament. Three writers ,independently said they were inspired and were to be read in the churches..The church was indeed universal and catholic ,not Roman. The only division was geographic. They were city churches unified by one message divinely revealed by the Spirit to its members .The leaders were servants ,they had no need to be forceful,of one city church ruling over another. To make a long story short ,I do not believe it was the Roman Catholic church as we know it today that gave us cannon.As a denomination they did ratify or agree with existing cannon.I am also grateful they did much to preserve and make copies of scripture. I feel there were no denominations back then and the church today that boasts the least or relies the least of and on its' "denomination" is most like the early church. I feel a direct kinship to the early believers. It seems sacriligious to attach any denominational claim to them. Next time I would like to discuss why catholics accept some books today that were rejected back then.
Hello again If the Catholic Church was inspired to ratify the New Testament why did they later build doctrines and traditions based on books that did not make the New Testament cut? Not only did they not make the cut they were condemned as forgeries and heretical by Rome itself. One forgery is the gospel of Peter, which states that Joseph had children from a previous marriage. Early popes found this book HERRETICAL(Gelasian). The Passing of Mary is another condemned book which deals with the assumption of Mary. Again these books were condemned as forgeries and heretical. The Pope had to issue a decree against them because they were creeping into the church >apparently a little leaven did spoil the whole lump. The decree was not heeded,the Mariologists were persistent .I liken it to abortion proponents. It did not begin with Roe vs. wade 1974 but decades earlier.There was a movement for legal abortion,they kept pushing and pushing for it ,influencing educators, the media ,the entertainment world . With Mary it took 2000 years to culminate with the papal decree of her assumption in 1950. And why do I feel it ain't over yet.She is a slow but ever rising star. Anyways, I digress from my main point. The early church rejected spurious books and ratified the inspired books .The early church was persecuted ,was not political(not a state religion) , not denominational, not ruled by Rome and had a loose heirarchy. The Spirit seemed to be guiding her church,and as you say to the point of ratifying our cannon. So what happened that allowed these heretical books to get a foothold and grow? Was it less reliance on the Spirit and more on the state? Was it heirarchy,carnal competing with other city church's(the five patriarchal churches -Rome Jerusalem Antioch,Alexandria,Constatinople) The loss of persecution, which helped purify the church? Well, we agree on one thing .The Holy Spirit guided the formation of our beloved scriptures. Allelulia ! Oh, a good site was "christiantruth.com/assumption"
Hello again As far as the Mormons,you are right that they rely heavily on church apostasy. "farms.byu.edu/publications/books"was a very revealing sight .From your point of view of what the "church" is, you must defend Roman Catholicism". But if the "church" is spiritual,made up of believers,not dependent on heirarchy or denomination but on the Spirit,no defense id needed. Mormons admit that there is "no reason to conclude that there would be no saints or righteous followers of Christ during the period of apostasy .....but the institution would be lost". The statement to me is contradictory and shows a fundamental difference on just what is the "church". Mormons actually take your view that the church is foremost institutional ,it's a heirarchy . That is why they must first illegitmize the current church institution to legitimize their own church. To me, if you have righteous believers ,you have a CHURCH. As Paul states there is a Jew( in name only) and then there is a Jew (by faith). There was always a remnant that remained faithful to carry the Word, the Promise,the true Israel. So it is with His church,yesterday and today ,no denomination to defend. There website confirms that there were divisions fom the beginning of the church,but the Lord is faithful ,His truth marches on,down thru the centuries, the wheat with the tares, until His return. Alleluia!P.S. thank you. I learned a litle more about the Mormons,and us.
I just have one comment for David regarding the authority of the Bible. Could you site in Scripture where it tells us which books belong in the Bible? Could you tell us which books belong in the Bible versus ones that don't (i.e. Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, the Gnostic Gospel of Judas?). How did the Bible come to be? Certainly not out of thin air. How you determine what is inspired by God?
hello david you are quite right ,there is no verse that tells us " these are the books of the bible..." . Wouldn't that have been nice ,or would it have ? There is an answer to your question, else why would it have been written, "all scripture is profitable..." if we didn't have the means to determine what scripture is. The planned "dilemma" is as old as the Garden with "hath God really said..." Just as Satan knew what God really did say ,you know what books constitute the bible,the ones that are in there .Some of my above comments address how they came to be (certainly before any big council). Other books have been rejected as coming from the same questioner at the Garden,and rightly denounced by early leaders, even popes. With God all things are possible, My sheep know my voice, broad is the path that leads to error , narrow is the gate that leads to truth. Look ,if you want to believe in other books,you may (free will),but that is just the beginning of different "gospels" one could choose. And that is just how the Lord will have it ,until His return. Alleluia
dave just a footnote,which may aid some in receiving faith in "The Bible". Jesus quoted the old testament often as authoritative, and not once did He find fault with ,The Bible. Yet there were more books ,more authors, more time span between writings in the old testament.I don't think he ever spent time quoting other books.He never corrected scripture but illustrated it's perfectness.
This is my rebuttal to your footnote:
1. "Jesus quoted the old testament often as authoritative, and not once did He find fault with ,The Bible [the Talmud]?"
I beg to differ. Take, for example, the following passage from Matthew 5:38-39:
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
You may be familiar with the meaning behind "An eye for an eye" which basically is reciprocated justice or compensation. Logically, this seems fair and is reflected within our legal system, right? For example, I harm you, then your natural inclination is to seek retribution.
However, Jesus tells instructs us to turn the other cheek, or, in essence, forgive our wrong doers. Now, would you be so kind as to demonstrate how Jesus' teaching does not conflict with the Talmud. Clearly, we can see that Jesus does not agree with an idea from the Talmud.
David,
You did not answer by what criterion were the books selected. You used 2 Tim. 3:16 as your defense, but I ask you these questions:
1. If all scripture is profitable or exclusive (thus authority), then aren't the Deuterocanonicals books such as the book of Enoch (which fills gaps within Genesis), the book of Sirach and the book of Wisdom considered the Word of God? The very same books that the Protestant Reformation rejected? You see, the problem here is that it says "All Scripture" and not "All Scripture within the collection of books you are using is profitable." Otherwise, I can assemble my own Bible and include the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Epistle of Barnabas and so on and so forth. And if we leave these books out, then are we saying that not "all Scripture" is exclusive? The question is, by what authority and the Bible itself does not claim that it is the authority.
2. In the verse prior, we read the following:
And that from a child [Timothy] thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
The problem that this presents is that Paul is referring to the OT when he mentions the holy scriptures. The NT hadn't been compiled during that time. If we take if from biblical context, we can deduce that only the OT is holy scripture and faith in Jesus provides salvation. Am I right? Paul didn't say the holy scriptures and those to come.
Furthermore,this proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament. I don't think you would agree, right?
3. Let's explore the meaning of "profitable" in 2 Tim. 3:16. Most of the NT was in Greek, so when we look it up we find that the word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive.
4. Let's look at Acts 15:1-14 to disprove Sola Scriptura. To summarize, Peter resolves a doctrinal dilemma regarding circumcision for gentiles in order for salvation (according to the law of Moses and the covenant given to Abraham from God). Peter does not cite scripture at all and declares that through Jesus we are saved.
4. As we see in the following passages: John 20:30; 21:25 that many of the miracles or works that Jesus performed were not record. So, what should we make of them? Should they be considered somehow even thought they aren't mentioned in the Bible. If we do observe them, would that not go against Sola Scriptura?
5. If the theory of Sola Scriptura were sound, then why have so many denominational churches claiming they have the truth? If Scripture were truly infallible, wouldn't it have one interpretation instead of having people saying "I don't like that passage, therefore I shall interpret it differently to suit my needs."
hello david- you said a lot-good. It deserves some time but I only have a little right know . Just wondering, have you read all our long discussion (between Amber and myself? )on this topic? You actualy state my point that with "you have heard it said" where the church ,the jews ,the religious leaders got it wrong(with the eye for the eye ).The institution and the people got it wrong and focused on "justice". Jesus never denied that an eye for an eye WAS justice,just as the stoning of the woman caught in adultery would have been JUST. This is the law. You realy bring up a phariseeical view that He came to do away with the law which as you know He did not.(Torah ,not Talmud,which is a collection of rabbi discussions).As you know ,He was needfully illustrating another old testament truth that God delights in mercy even grace.So indeed eye for eye is o.k. ,mercy is even better. be ye perfect as the Father is perfect .This is what I meant in my last blog that Jesus showed scripture ,Old Testament to be perfect. Did not Jacob turn the other cheek when he dug well after well peacefully even as they were taken away,one after another .Did he not turn the other cheek and work another 7 years ,on top of the first seven to mary Rachel? So I respectfully submit He agreed with the Torah .He disagreed with the established focus on the law and justice without mercy and grace.That IS THE GOOD NEWS.I will get back to you your other section (but Amber and I did discuss bible formation in some detail)
Dear Amber,
It is sad how people take verse OUT of context to try and prove something. Either you believe the WHOLE Bible as God's Holy Word and accept it in it's entirety or...you don't. Mary was NOT a "Perpetual Virgin"...that is an oxymoron in of itself!
Yes, I am a Christian, and no, I do not believe the 'Catholic teaching'.
Mary did have more than one child, but Jesus was the only one that she concieved as a 'Virgin' through the Holy Spirit. The rest of her children were concieved through a sinful man, just as she was a sinful woman. Just exactly where in the Bible does it say that Mary was a Blessed Virgin AFTER she gave birth?
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."
In Christ's Love,
Jane
Jane,
Thank you for your comment. Perhaps you didn't read through the other comments where I thoroughly answered your question.
Indeed, one must believe the WHOLE Bible in context. We can sit here forever pointing fingers about how you don't or I don't do so... but it's not productive. If you'd like to provide Biblical or historical references for your point, go for it, but to come here and TELL me that I'm wrong is mere mudslinging and unconvincing.
As for Mary's perpetual virginity... all the fathers of protestantism held this belief. It is only within the last two hundred years or so that Christian denominations have denied this fact believed by centuries of Christianity all the way back to the time of Christ. Based on what I've already stated in earlier comments, I make it clear that the Bible can and does support this as well. God Almighty can do whatever He wants, including protecting Mary from the stain of original sin! Why do you try to put limits on that?
I DO believe on the Lord Jesus Christ! Amen!
May the peace of Christ be with you on your faith journey... wherever God leads you, may your yes be yes!
dave i have been reading the apocraphy books. never have before. very interesting .hopefully i can get to your questions about biblical books later. and JANE, hi. Ask Amber for scripture evidence for Mary not stained with original sin. Amber does supply her scriptural interpetation for her virginity, "bible support" as she states,but I have not seen her biblically support Mary's Imaculate Conception (this Luther ,nor most early catholics (Augustine,Abmrose) or popes did NOT support). Ask indeed if God can do whatever He wants.I personally do not think so,yet He is omnipotent.Anyways ,blessings to all
David,
You are again basing your claims on sola scriptura. I ask you again, where exactly does the Bible state that it is the sole rule of faith. It doesn't.
2 Tim 3:16 says All Scripture is profitable, but it doesn't say All Scripture is sufficient alone.
Furthermore, if we look at 1 Tim 3:15, we see that the Church is the pillar and the ground of the truth. The Church established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Now, I found some quotations from the early Church fathers that are in support of Mary being full of grace and, thus, sinless.
Ambrose of Milan
Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).
Augustine
We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).
Now, I ask you, why should we trust Luther? He wasn't an early Church father.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that he removed several books from his version of the Bible (in German) including Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation because they did not fit into his theology.
He removed the book of James because it conflicted with his idea of Sola Fide (faith alone). He called it an "Epistle of Straw", I believe.
In addition, he added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 so that it conformed with his Sola Fide doctrine (a tradition of man might I say).
So, Luther was adding and removing from the Word of God. This is really interesting since he preached Sola Scriptura, but his authority (through the Holy Spirit) determined which books were and weren't inspired. So, was Luther subject to Sola Scriptura after he changed the Word of God?
Sources:
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/ch...s-of-the-bible/
http://www.staycatholic.com/
ecf_..._conception.htm
hello dave,I was about to talk about cannon formation. I still have much to say yet much was already said on that above (with Amber ),but first I'd like to hear how you believe cannon was formed (old or new) and remember ,i'd guess that all christian denominations believe 95% the same thing (books-content).Secondly,it seems a mute point because no matter what books are or are not included,they are only partially authoratative to you anyways ,right? Thirdly ,if we disagree on the meaning of some scriptures on the 95% books we agree on, wouldn't we disagree on points of interpetation on the other 5% of books also? So how do you think it was formed ? thanks
Hello David.. your first question of what is cannon....I did NOT use 2 Tim 3;16 as a defense rather it was quoted to show that your question is a good and valid one. What constitutes scripture or what is holy scripture, inspired by God (for surely not everything that is written and religious is NOT "scripture")??? 3:16 and 2nd Peter 1;20,21 would not have been written if a believer and a church community could not determine what scripture is fom God. All denominations leave certain books out. They simply believe they are not holy scripture or canonical.To be discerning on what is scripture I believe is scriptural,pleasing to God.He does allow the wheat and the tares to exist side by side. His voice(rhema and logos word) will guide us, and our hearts will be revealed by what we desire and what we call wheat and what we call tares. This is why both old and new testament canons were generally accepted without any big councils. Some scripture does say it is "scripture" (some of pauls letters and peter, and some old testament books) (I have commented on this on 4-27). Again, all faith communities (denominations) at best have sincerely tried to determine what books to include. I did not find the book of Enoch in my catholic or protestant bible, and Catholics did not accept all the books that were in the Septuagint,the protestants even less. One could be cynical and say that there were political, denominational bending of the truth for these conclusions. Perhaps,but I think it is bigger than your catholic versus protestant paradigm (I am of PETER ,I AM OF PAUL CARNALITY).It also shows relaince on external versus internal "authority" or an imbalance thereof. Can you not receive a rhema word ,can you not have a new heart, be led by the spirit personally etc. etc..In the end ,you either believe something is inspired scripture ,or not. I see it as very cynical to blanket all protstants as saying, "Well, we know these books are inspired and cannonical but because they agree with Romanism we wont accept them." There are valid non political reasons for all the variances.Yes the Septuagint contains the apocraphyl books.I just dont believe they all had equal value back then ,based on authorship, content accuracy,inspiration,and overall quality,. Many don,t believe it was part of Hebrew canon as evidenced by fisrt century historian Josephus,and Philo. Jesus and the apostles have 300 old testament quotations and none are from the apocraphyl books. Even Jerome did not believe them to be cannon but reluctantly placed them in the vulgate latin bible(and of course no other bible could be written under penalty of death,from pope or king, for a thousnd years). So one can belive in the Hebrew foundation or the greek manuscript foundation .God knows what He is doing. Word for word, both bibles are 98%(?) the same, proclaiming the perfect Word of God, and His GOOD NEWS.
hello again david -I would like to discuss your second question. It dealt with early christians obviously only having the old testament,and that "in context", they were saved that way ,and you say it weaken "solo escriptura" .Of course ,if we keep things in context, "solo escriptura" (scripture alone) is an expression coined by Luther around 1500. The context was that you had a closed cannon,the bible was complete now for 1400 years. You also had a centralized,Roman church rich in traditions and decrees. Authority rested equally on all three. None of these things were present when Paul wrote to Timothy. To be fair you did have a religion,a sort of church ,being Jewish,with there cannon(closed, although they did not know it at the time).They had traditions a leadership heirarchy. Christianity was and still is a jewish thing. Yet what is it that Paul stresses ? You quoted it yourself, "you have known holy scriptures ,to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ". Did he say your traditions will bring you to salvation? Did he say listen to your church leaders or the sanhedrin? Did he say listen to the jewish church which gave you the old testament? No. The jewish church ,which our foundation was apart of and came out of, failed miserably in recognizing truth ,of straying, of misinterpeting scripture. What Paul was saying is you need the word of God ,both logos (written word) and rhema word(spirit illuminated,personally). I would say it was a kind of "solo escriptura". I suppose Luther felt he saw church error,putting faith in scriptures to shed light on the topics of his day(just like in Paul's day the big topic was "jesus is messiah " and indeed scripture, yes O.T., shed light on the truth). Again, "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God". Yet Timothy could read the old testament day and night and he would not come to faith. Today one could read old and new testament a hundred times and not come to faith. We have one word for "word". But logos and rhema are the two greek words used for "word". Some believe logos is the written word and rhema is the spoken word or even divinely revealed word. Regardless,it is the Spirit that quickens the word in our heart, that teaches us ,individualy and collectively. So in this regard "solo escritura' is not enough. It is inspired when it is written, and it must personally be inspired or divinely revealed when read or heard,(as Jesus told Peter ,"the father in heaven has revealed this to you "(that Jesus is Messiah). So reading is not enough. Spiritual life must be gifted from God. Lord willing next time I can discuss question 3,of what is "profitable'.thank you
hello david -on to your 3rd statement dated 6-13,that scripture is profitable or "useful" but not mandatory or exclusive. On a personal level, I am grieved that in order to elevete other sources of authority you must lower the value of the Bible. I am sure you'd disagree but that is how I feel. Anyways,I agree that the verse does not specifically say it is mandatory or exclusive for correction and righteousness etc. but it also doesn,t say it is not. It does not say the church or it's tradition or one of it's leaders can be "useful" for correction and righteousness etc. Paul only says scripture has all those "useful" applications. I would agree with you there are other scriptures that "use" the church ,traditions ,leaders, for truth and correction, we just have just have different paradigms for their operations.I believe the church its leaders and traditions should be in harmony with scripture. If something else is more useful or more correct ,then scripture is not useful,making Paul's verse incorrect. I view it like this .One could say a tape measure is useful for all kinds of measuments, but I can also use a dollar bill which is about 6 inches . I could also count the ceiling tiles in a room to get the lenght of the wall (if i know the tiles are 2' by4') or count the floor tiles, most being one square foot etc. But they are all dependent on some sort of premeasurement or standard ,coming right back to our original tape meaure. Nothing trumps the tape, even though it is not "mandatory or exclusive" to use. A foot ruler and a yardstick can measure the same object harmoniously. If not, one of them is a "liar", in error. . The church and all else must be in harmony with The Word, that is Jesus , that is the Holy Spirit. Worship Him in spirit,give alms in His spirit ,fast in His spirit, according to His Word. Is not the trinity unified ? The usefullness of a church, it's leaders and traditions can be measured by the unity they have to the Spirit ,the Word. To put it simply ,if we have a difference in dogma ,tradition etc., and I tell you I am right because my tradition or pastor or past leader says so ,even though it isn't in the bible or is not biblically sound then I make this verse of Paul a lie because the bible was NOT USEFUL in formulating my view or dogma etc. Does not His spirit or Word discern ALL things ? Again when did Jesus ever do or say anything that was unscriptural. The Bible Is God's Word. Nothing trumps it. Most Jews strayed from Him and His Word, as churches do from time to time ,to some extent ,as we do also. By His grace and Spirit may He continue to draw us back. Lord willing may we look at your point 4 next time. thanks
Commenting by HaloScan
