Jesus Repudiates the Mariolatry Volume III

Excellent points, Eliyahu!

 

Knock it off. That's not necessary!

 

It's not my theology teacher. I would suggest you address your concerns to the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (Evangelical), and ask them if this if the theotokos is taught in their theology classes as being a valid Christian doctrine, or if Kimberly Hahn is a falsely saying it is.

I would add that just because one professes to have read the Bible and have interpreted it under divine interpretation does not make one unquestionable in their doctrine either.

I would also add that I've never noticed that correct theology necessarily has a direct correlation to an abundance of grace overflowing in one's life, or vice-versa.

 

Unfortunately, some seem to think it is. I wonder why that is?

 

Yes, the wiki can be a little copy/paste, that's for sure.

I would have to contend though that the rejection of sola fide does not necessarily equate to a "works based salvation". At least, not the way I suspect you would interpret that.

 

The identity of two people you are referring to is clear since they came here for help. We are conversing with one at the moment. They clearly "do not realize it yet" which does not give you the right to call them stupid or heretic. You are breaking BB rules.

mr.tumnis-I don't know why they do this. It's sad because they have so much biblical knowledge and they undermine their own character by being mean. Thus they are not taken seriously.
Ignore him

 

One of my most wonderful Christian friends is Southern Baptist. Her favorite saying -- "the ground is level at the foot of the cross". And this I truly believe.

God bless you Joe, it seems that your faith is indeed rooted in grace. I will perhaps drop back in after the Christmas rush. In the meantime, I hope you have a very blessed Christmas.

 

I don't have to ask a theology teacher if theotokos is a valid Christian doctrine. The Word of God already tells me it is not. The Word of God declares it to be 'another gospel' that that which we have received. Since it is another gospel other than that which the Apostles received of the Lord Jesus Christ, those who teach theotokos are anathema according to the Word of God.

 

God bless you too mrtumnus. Hope you have a Merry Christmas!

 

What in those verses does not indicate that the Bible is not the sole authority for our doctrine? You haven't posted anything that says otherwise.
In fact the verses that you do quote give additional support to sola scriptura. In your first passage (2Cor.10:8-11), Paul refers to his authority as an Apostle. He refers to his letters. It was his letters that became Scripture, the inspired word of God. He wrote 13 epistles that were inspired of God, and are in our canon of Scripture. They were "forceful and weighty," but he was "not ashamed of it." Why? Because he wrote what God had told him to write.

The passage also refers to his appearance.
Paul had a thorn in the flesh. Many believe that it was an eye affliction that added to his appearance, an appearance that was not very "handsome." Paul didn't stress being "handsome" or vanity, he stressed being Godly. If you had been stoned and left for dead you wouldn't look very good either--not to mention being shipwrecked, beaten, thrown in jail, scourged, and had suffered various other persecutions at the hands of wicked men. No, his appearance was not the nicest appearance that a man could hope for.

You Hebrews passage is a red herring. Obey them that have the rule over you. This is speaking of submission to authority, whether spiritual (pastors) or secular (government).
We are speaking of the Bible being our only authority in matters of doctrine and faith. A policeman doesn't determine my faith. Submitting to my pastor or to my parents (another authority) does not determine my beliefs. They are authority figures whose authority needs to be respected.

The Apostles were given authority. It was confirmed with signs, wonders, and spiritual gifts. That is true. That was in the Apostolic Age. But the Apostles couldn't be everywhere at all times. And they would eventually die. The spiritual gifts would come to an end by the end of the first century. So where does it say that believers are given authority to interpret Scripture, you ask?
First, I have already given you some Scripture on this topic.
Second, there are many Scriptures such as 2Tim.2:15 which command us to "Study to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, but rightly dividing the word of truth."

That verse in itself speaks of sola scriptura. You on your own are to take the Bible and study it, just as a carpenter would take a piece of wood and study it before he decides what he wants to make out of it, and how he is going to divide or cut it, and then put the pieces together in logical order. He must do it properly if he is going to do a good job. He doesn't want to be ashamed of his work, nor does he want others to be ashamed of him and his work. He needs to learn to "rightly divide." That is where this term comes from. When one reads the Scripture (on their own) they need to learn to rightly divide the Scriptures, that is, to harmonize them so they all fit together without any contradiction. If you have verses out of place contradicting each other, others will see this and will easily see the flaws in your theology just as they will see the flaws in a carpenter's work.

What does the Bible say again:
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
--The true believer has the Holy Spirit dwelling in him, and therefore is able to understand the Word of God. He "knows the things that are freely given" to him by God. That is he can understand the Bible by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not give one inspiration, but it does illuminate the heart of a believer and gives him understanding. That is the teaching of this verse. It is in opposition to verse 14:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
--The natural man (unsaved man) does not understand the Bible (receives not the things of the Spirit of God)> Why? He doesn't have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Holy Spirit cannot illuminate his heart. Therefore "these things are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them."

This is why sola scriptura works. It works through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It works through careful study of the Word of God, comparing Scripture with Scripture.

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

 

Scott Hahn was Evangelical, but converted to Catholicism. That explains why he teaches the false doctrine of Theotokos.

 

Hahn is one of the foremost Catholic apologists. Having been a former fundamental evangelical, he writes, and teaches on how to debate IFB pastors, and other evangelicals. One of his students posted here for some time, but was banned for his attempts to recruit disciples.

I truly feel sorry for a person like Hahn. He is in one of the most dangerous positions a person can be in. Having been a fundamental evangelical he knows the gospel inside and out. He has no excuse for not being saved. However, he is an apologist for the RCC. He knows and believes RCC doctrine. He knows it well, very well. One cannot be fully aware of the gospel and believe in Catholic doctrine at the same time and still be saved. One cannot serve two masters. He has received the truth and has rejected it.

 

Sorry for the delay in replying but I've been away from my computer.

#1 No

#2 No

#3 No

#4. Yes and yes

 

Just "not important enough to actually be found IN SCRITPRUE"??

Just not necessary to the point of "actually mentioning it" or "ever using it"???

When the biology and parenthood of Mary is specificially blessed in her relationship to Christ the appropriate response is "ON THE CONTRARY"???

When confronted with
"Stronger than God"
"Wiser than God"
"corrector of God"

EVEN The RCC draws the line - NOT CONSIDERING THESE other non-Biblical titles "even valid" much less "NECESSARY" to defend the deity of Christ.

BUT IF we MUST continually revise Mary's biological and parental role to be "... OF GOD" to protect Christ THEN all such titles -- non-biblical as they are would have been embraced.

Clearly this is only a "play for Mariolotry" and not an actual logical argument that all these obvious and clear parental roles must be suffixed with "OF GOD" to protect Christ!

in Christ,

Bob

 

The first 3 out of 5 you got right. 60% on a test has always been a failing grade.

To state that Mary gave birth to the Deity of Jesus implies Jesus had no Deity prior to His earthly birth.
To state that Mary gave birth to the Divine Nature of Jesus implies Jesus had no Divine Nature prior to His earthly birth.

The Word of God declares that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He always had His Deity and His Divine Nature

Go back to your Bible and study.

 

Eliyah,

1. I didn't point out any specific person.

The identity was clear. I can't refer back to it because it was edited as offensive.

2. I used the same language. It is their choice if they still choose the path of either foolish or heretick which are mentioned in the Bible.
As it is your choice to be foolish. I suggest you look inward.

Was Apostle Paul a hypocrite?
Let's not change the subject

Are the Bible writers not allowed on this board?
???