Problems with Orthodoxy and Catholicism

The Gospel of Rome versus the Gospel of Christ

Every Catholic advocate on this forum knows fully well that the Catholic Catechism makes it clear that salvation outside the Roman Catholic church is the EXCEPTION TO THE RULE and that the rule of salvation is in the church and its sacraments. The EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE revolve around IGNORANCE of the truth as Rome perceives the gospel.

However, the Gospel of Christ has nothing to do with the church and the ordinances but is the "GOOD NEWS" of the satisfaction of Divine Justice in behalf of repentant believing sinners (1 Cor. 15:3-4) as a FREE GIFT of grace (Rom. 3:24-26) received through imputation by faith (Rom. 4:1-25).

1. It is not received conditioned upon personal "works" - Rom. 4:1-5

2. It is not received conditioned upon sacraments - Rom. 4:6-12

3. It is not received conditioned upon obedience to law - Rom. 4:13-15

4. It is not received conditioned upon personal performance - Rom. 4:16-21

5. It is received upon faith "in" Christ's finished work -Rom. 3:24-26; 4:23-25

6. Justification by faith is a completed action - Rom. 5:1-2 (Aorist, perfect tenses of completed action).

7. The completed action is demonstrated by following evidences - Rom. 5:1-11

8. The completed action is the basis for and accompanied with progressive sanctification - Rom. 6-8

9. "FREED from sin" - Rom. 6:7 ("freed" translates same Greek term previously translated "justified" from Rom. 3:34-5:18.

True children of God love Him BECAUSE He first loved them.

True Children of God choose Him BECAUSE He first chose them

True Children of God serve out of LOVE not out of fear

True Children of God are kept from falling while false professors are not

True Children of God cannot get away with sin - Heb. 12:5-10

Where there is true justification by faith there will also be progressive sanctification by faith.

True Children of God are ALL those given to the Son by the Father and all that are given NONE shall be lost but should be raised up at the last day because they are saved by grace, kept by grace according to God's eternal purpose of Grace - Eph. 1:11; Rom. 8:28-39

 

OK Wally, I believe we are all in sync there. Question I would like a direct answer to. Who or what group 1st enacted, advertised & made available this preposterous virgin Mary worship?

 

It comes right out of "Mystery" Babylon Religion. Alexander Hislop documents its origin in his book "Two Babylons." It is the same Old Testament "Queen of Heaven" practice just Romanized by the church at Rome. It entered into apostolic churches who grew slack in their demands for new birth before baptism and separation from the world and their evangelical attempts to incoporate unregenerate people who were steeped in Babylonian religious practices - a little leaven leaventh the whole lump and it is this leavened lump of apostolic churches that gradually became Roman Catholicism. Montanists, Novationists, and other Apostolic church groups opposed this paganization of Christianity. Those "born after the flesh" persecuted those "born after the Spirit" (Gal. 4:17) and it has not changed.

Look, even secular enclyclopedias when tracing the roots of pagan holidays like Christmas and Easter state they were pagan practices adopted by what became Roman Catholicism in order to win pagans to their flavor of Christianity.

 

Yes I know, thank you I have that history as well. What I was looking for specifically the "Who, What, When & Where of it. I want to flesh out just who (for example a pope, a Archbishop like Augustine, a body of men sitting in committee perhaps....in other words. somebody of authority decided that the Roman Catholic Church would both promote & sell the product of "Mary The Goddess" to the peasants/flock throughout Europe, Asia & Africa (then the Christian World). Wally, I'm also looking for some history to go with it if humanly possibly. It would be nice to expose the deception once & for all.

Also to a lesser degree, Ive only heard story's from frustrated RC Priests about the mandate to NOT marry. Putting some facts to it would be appreciated.

 

I have to seriously doubt Hislop. Taking Hislop a step further, one of our Evangelical brothers Ralph Woodrow - picked up this torch and wrote a new book Babylon Mystery Religion- drawing heavily on The Two Babylons.

Quoted from Wikipedia - and could be researched if you care enough I'll interject this quote:

Do you blindly trust this stuff? I mean the RCC may have some serious issues, and non-biblical teachings, but some of this stuff is ludicrous, and intellectually dishonest - not to mention embarrassing among educated people.

Also -

You can argue Roman error easily and honestly, but when you bring this book up, you label yourself to others as well....you research it and tell me what you think.

 

I would refer you again to J N D Kelly's Early Christian Doctrine as a pretty solid reference ( and definitely not Hislop as he is about as scholarly as a Chick Tract). The basic point is that there was no one single moment but rather an evolution and development of*/ deviation from* the beliefs and practices of the NT churches with regard to Mary as with regard to so much else.

(*Delete according to you own particular beliefs!)

 

What a gift you have for words my friend....you should run for office "vir bonus dicendi peritus " No, these are tactics promoted by the Church to both deflect & to advertise and someone was pulling the strings. If they were clever & covered there tracks well, we have to live with it but I'd like to see more investigation. Do I have to dress up like Guido Sarducci, go to the Vatican & get it my self? And can you find the pope in a da pizza?

 

Matt is right. J.N.D. Kelly is your best source for a concise and authoritative treatment of the development of the Marian doctrines. Or you can dig through scores of primary sources, none of which has a comprehensive treatment of Mary. Maybe you can start with these:

 

does the book provide me the answers Im looking for or just more endless conjecture...you guys know what Im talking about.

 

I examined Woodrows critique of Hislop. Hislops references are massive as any reader can observe. Woodrows major concerns are minor and nit picky in comparison. The truth of the matter is that Woodrow found minor errors but the bulk of Hislop research still stands solid. The minor errors are in regard to minor points. Not everyone agrees with Woodrow's critiques. The sad thing is that Woodow does exactly what he accuses Hislop of doing. He makes unfounded accusations. He accuses Hislop of founding myths but does not provide documenation to prove his accusations in many cases. Rome has placed Hislop's book on their black list since it was printed and has spent years trying to discredit it and the best they can do is nit pick minor points.

 

Critique of Ralph Woodrow's critique of Hislop

The following address is a critique of Ralph Woodrow's smear job of Hislop's book.

http://www.seedofabraham.net/2babreb.htm

 

So called "Church Father's"

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/churchfathers.html

"The fact is that the “early Fathers” were mostly heretics!"

"Therefore, the “church fathers” are actually the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. They are the men who laid the foundation of apostasy that produced Romanism and Greek Orthodoxy."

 

Yes, I said it was the uninspired men who got things mixed up.
But the way you had put a couple of things kind of made it sound like it was John and Paul's fault. Any confusion was on the part of those who misunderstood the meanign of the Logos or Paul's writings.

 

Perhaps you might try reading it and read the pages from the bottom up as it is not the "index" where the massive references are located but in the footenotes at the bottom of the pages in the text of the book. The references are found in the front of the book (not the index) consisting of five pages (pp. XV-XX) in small 9 point print. Nearly every single paged is footnoted and some pages are primarily footenotes in entirety. I have the book in my hand. If you have it, pick it up and just look at it. "Massive" is the correct descriptive term.

 

Is this the guy who believes we should keep the Torah? Along with the Bible? This guys seems a little out there - not saying he isn't ok, but I get a very strange vibe from his articles.