Servants of Mary

Bob,

By the way, ask Ray about Sunday worship. You guys have been getting along so well I am sure you will agree just fine on that issue. Oh, I suppose if you tell ray that he has to worship on Saturday and he rejects it, he may lose his salvation. But I thought that couldn't happen. Tell me, are ray's opinions on the Bible all infallible? How about yours? I thought so. Well if you are not sure of all of your Biblical interprutatoins, how can you be 100% sure your going to heaven if, after all, that relies on interpruations that you don't believe is infallible. You cant silly.

God bless Bob.

 

Bob,

By the way, ask Ray about Sunday worship. You guys have been getting along so well I am sure you will agree just fine on that issue. Oh, I suppose if you tell ray that he has to worship on Saturday and he rejects it, he may lose his salvation. But I thought that couldn't happen. Tell me, are ray's opinions on the Bible all infallible? How about yours? I thought so. Well if you are not sure of all of your Biblical interprutatoins, how can you be 100% sure your going to heaven if, after all, that relies on interpruations that you don't believe is infallible. You cant silly.

God bless Bob.

PS, your the first SDA I have met that agrees with OSAS. Most are rather legalistic. Unless of course your just putting on the Rodney King act to butter up Ray.

 

What part of that is "me promoting OSAS"???

Details .. see the details.

That is me saying I am one of those Arminians that does not go for OSAS.

In Christ,

Bob

 

thessalonian,

No one has to believe in eternal security in order to be saved. Many people do not believe in this doctrine. The one criterion for entering Heaven at death is found in John 3:16. My father, brother and sister do not believe in this either, but I trust that they will be saved. I was saved at the age of eleven but in Bible College we really studied this issue and slowly I came to this belief that if a person is a child of God, that one, will ultimately see the beatific vision. [I John 3:2]

 

Another RC argument about to fall.

The Assurance of salvation is not based on "my being infallible". NOR is it based on "my being all-knowing".

The assurance of salvation is based in the KEY PRINCIPLE that Protestants accept and Catholics tend to reject --- Direct participation in the New Covenant as GOD states it in Hebrews 8 "THEY SHALL NOT teach everyone his neighbor saying KNOW THE LORD for ALL SHALL KNOW Me". The "Holy Spirit of Truth will GUIDE YOU into all truth". John 16.

It is God HIMSELF that provides our assurance - not dead people, not prayers to dead people, not sinful priests with supposed powers to turn bread into the body of Christ and claiming the power to absolve us -- but direct contact with God. It is an entirely different model.

"The Spirit BEARS WITNESS with OUR spirit that WE ARE the children of God" Romans 8:16.

Assurance is the result of a direct living connection with God - a real life "transaction" between the soul and God.

It is not based on the "supposed infallability" of any sinful human on the planet.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Another RC argument about to fall.

The Assurance of salvation is not based on "my being infallible". NOR is it based on "my being all-knowing".

The assurance of salvation is based in the KEY PRINCIPLE that Protestants accept and Catholics tend to reject --- Direct participation in the New Covenant as GOD states it in Hebrews 8 "THEY SHALL NOT teach everyone his neighbor saying KNOW THE LORD for ALL SHALL KNOW Me". The "Holy Spirit of Truth will GUIDE YOU into all truth". John 16.

It is God HIMSELF that provides our assurance - not dead people, not prayers to dead people, not sinful priests with supposed powers to turn bread into the body of Christ and claiming the power to absolve us -- but direct contact with God. It is an entirely different model.

"The Spirit BEARS WITNESS with OUR spirit that WE ARE the children of God" Romans 8:16.

Assurance is the result of a direct living connection with God - a real life "transaction" between the soul and God.

It is not based on the "supposed infallability" of any sinful human on the planet.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, do you look in the mirror alot.

 

Well then it is not a part of the Gospel. For no man can reject the Gospel and be saved. I wonder why so many Protestants focus on it when the come up to me in parks and places like that. It is a rather unnecessary piece of the puzzel it seems to me. Worse yet, it is a lie and I will tell you that it puts your soul in great danger, especially because you preach it to others. I am not the judge. I hope he is merciful.

 

Any idea of Jesus appointing Peter as a pope and establishing the Catholic
Church isn't a part of the Gospel either.

 

Hey Carson, Hope you are well!!

Paul never said that he participated in Christ's work on the cross. Paul never said that his suffering were worthy of anything. He, in his thankfulness to Jesus was willing to suffer for the sake of sharing the gospel. Paul did not say he suffered for another person but rather for the sake of doing God's work. Jesus did the work, Paul suffered for sharing the work. If we sacrifice it is ultimetly for the cause and sake of Jesus not for others. Like I said the fight is over, we can't enter a boxing ring to fight when the opponent has already been knocked out. See my point

In Christ,
Brian

 

Hi Brian,

You don't think John saw an actual person? What do you think he saw?
Sorry for the delay in responding. I have concluded that Israel does not fit the woman. I will go with the Church and Mary. I believe on another thread you said you thought it was Israel. But why would there be two symbols of isreal, i.e. the crown of 12 stars (which I agree is likely the 12 tribes) and the woman. This is redundant. Further, it cannot be Isreal because of v. 17.

17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to
make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.

It is quite clear from 1 John 2:3,4 that John is refering to Christians here. It is the woman's children which are certainly not children of Isreal/Zion who the Bible does not speak favorably of if you look in the OT. This verse fits very well with the Catholic idea that Mary is our spiritual Mother.

I do not see how you cannot see Mary in this vision. The text says that she gave birth to the male child. This clearly is in ref. to Is 7:14. Further, the woman being clothed with the sun is quite telling as any queenship of Mary intimately depends on the light of her Son, Jesus Christ reflected by her humble life and motherly love for him. Through the ages the moon has also been likened to Mary. The moon reflects the SUN's light.

[ June 16, 2003, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

Hi Brian,

You wrote, "Paul never said that his suffering were worthy of anything."

Col 1:24, "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church."

 

With words one can spin anything! That is seminary teaching #1!

 

Hey Carson,
Is anything lacking in Christ?, was His death not quite good enough that we have to throw our own sufferings into the equation? Of course not, therefore the meaning of the verse must be interpreted somewhat differently. We could probably both come up with alternate interpretations of that verse. btw, Hope you are having a relaxing summer.

Thess.
I like your line about the moon being lightened by the sun. It is an interesting thought in the conversation about Mary. Actually, it is a neat analogy in regards to all believers. If Jesus is the sun, all believers, not just Mary, would be a reflection of His light.
To say that John HAD to see a actual woman is just speculation. He may have, but he knew it wasn't really a woman by what he wrote. I know verse 17 makes the understanding of the woman a little more difficult but lets face it and you eluded to the fact that the 12 stars are the 12 tribes. We know that Isreal gave us Jesus, not the "church" for Jesus gave birth TO the church, it did not give birth (life) to him. No, the woman is Isreal and I always have to remind myself that the nation of Isreal is comprised of the "people of promise" even if "they" as a nation fell. I can expound on that if you wish but I am sure you see where I am going with that thought.

Carson and Thess. (what is your first name btw) thanks for the good tones to your posts. I do like discussing things with you both.

In Christian Love

[ June 17, 2003, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

"12 stars are the 12 tribes. ". Once again, 12 Tribes and Israel are redundant. Israel has itself as a crown?

This article might be worth your time.

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/woman.html

I also think that the stuff in Rev 11 about the Ark of the covenant (I hope you have read the parrellels of 2 Sam 6 and Luke 1) just before this passage points to Mary and to the Church. The Ark was the God bearer of the Old. Mary was the God bearer in bringing Jesus in to the world. Like the analogy of the moon that you extended to us also (Glad you like the stuff about the moon. I see nothing wrong with you extending it to us also in that we are to "imitate those who imitate Christ" and thus also reflect his light in the world. Your actually getting it far more than you know.) we are the God bearer in the world today. So in a sense I don't think it is out of line to say the Church is the AOC of the new.

So do you think that we are children of Israel?

 

Hi Brian,

My summer is going well. Resting a bit, playing lots of ultimate frisbee, on my eleventh book, and about to start a class next Monday in catechetical methods.

You asked, "Is anything lacking in Christ? was His not quite good enough that we have to throw our own sufferings into the equation?"

Yes, there is something lacking in the afflictions of Christ. Paul says so, and his words cannot be discounted.

"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church"

While Christ's suffering was completely meritorious for our redemption (objective redemption) - it is actually infinitely meritorious, meriting infinitely more than it needed to - his suffering is lacking in the sense that he allows for our suffering to be united to his infinitely worthwhile suffering (subjective redemption) for the good of the Church's salvation.

Christ allows for us to participate in the ongoing salvation of the Church through our individual suffering, which gives our suffering real meaning. Without this particiption in Christ's suffering, our suffering is merely practical on a natural level. E.g., I had to endure the stubbing of my toe while running to church to minister to some youth. With participation, our suffering has a whole new level of meaning and reality. E.g., I offered the stubbing of my toe in union with the Passion of Jesus Christ for the salvation of the youth in my church.

That is the purpose of the Christian life: to share in the life of Christ and thus to fill up what is lacking. What is lacking? Our participation. Again, the key doctrine of Christianity comes up once again.

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Ga 2:20).

 

thessalonian,

I think you asked this question. 'So do you think that we are children of Israel?

The Apostle Paul in writing to the Galatian Church said in 6:16 that anyone who has received Christ as Savior, has become ' . . . the Israel of God.' Verse 15 says none of the named things are important but ' . . . a new creation.' The new creation is mentioned also in II Corinthians 5:17.

The cross reference for Galatians 6:16 is Galatians 3:7-9 which says that anyone who is born again has become the spiritual sons and daughters of Abraham. Vs. 9 Those who have faith in Christ have been blessed with Abraham's kind of faith which made a place in Heaven for him. [Hebrews 11:8-17]

If I recall correctly the name Israel means Prince. To be in the faith as we are we have become princes and, if you will, princesses of God. Hopefully my Christian life and witness will match up with my title.

 

I see merit in the concept of a New Isreal, that being the Church in the New Testament. But then he said the woman was not the Church so that doesn't work for him either.

 

Carson, below is the common way that Col. 1:24 is interpreted. The afflictions are Christs because he is the head of the church and His body, the church gets afflicted. This is not in regards to his personal bodily afflictions. His bodily giving was complete because He shed His blood. Anyway, we are partners (your term) as ones who share the message of His ultimate affliction. Our afllictions don’t add to His, but are given for the sake of His. I believe there is a difference in what we are saying though it may be that we are not that far apart either.


Geneva SB says: 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for r you, and fill up s that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

(r) For our profit and benefit.
(s) The afflictions of the Church are said to be Christ's afflictions, by reason of that fellowship and knitting together that the body and the head have with one another. And this is not because there is any more need to have the Church redeemed, but because Christ shows his power in the daily weakness of his own, and that for the comfort of the whole body.

J,F, and B say: 24. Who--The oldest manuscripts omit "who"; then translate, "Now I rejoice." Some very old manuscripts, and the best of the Latin versions, and Vulgate, read as English Version. To enhance the glory of Christ as paramount to all, he mentions his own sufferings for the Church of Christ. "Now" stands in contrast to "I was made," in the past time (Col 1:23).
for you--"on your behalf," that ye may be confirmed in resting solely on Christ (to the exclusion of angel-worship) by the glorification of Christ in my sufferings (Eph 3:1).
fill up that which is behind--literally, "the deficiencies"--all that are lacking of the afflictions of Christ (compare Note, see on 2Co 1:5). Christ is "afflicted in all His people's afflictions" (Isa 63:9). "The Church is His body in which He is, dwells, lives, and therefore also suffers" [VITRINGA]. Christ was destined to endure certain afflictions in this figurative body, as well as in His literal; these were "that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ," which Paul "filled up." His own meritorious sufferings in expiation for sin were once for all completely filled up on the Cross. But His Church (His second Self) has her whole measure of afflictions fixed. The more Paul, a member, endured, the less remain for the rest of the Church to endure; the communion of saints thus giving them an interest in his sufferings. It is in reference to the Church's afflictions, which are "Christ's afflictions, that Paul here saith, "I fill up the deficiencies," or "what remain behind of the afflictions of Christ." She is afflicted to promote her growth in holiness, and her completeness in Christ. Not one suffering is lost (Ps 56:8). All her members have thus a mutual interest in one another's sufferings (1Co 12:26). But Rome's inference hence, is utterly false that the Church has a stock treasury of the merits and satisfactions of Christ and His apostles, out of which she may dispense indulgences; the context has no reference to sufferings in expiation of sin and productive of merit. Believers should regard their sufferings less in relation to themselves as individuals, and more as parts of a grand whole, carrying out God's perfect plan.

In Christ,
Brian

 

Thess. writes:
"12 stars are the 12 tribes. ". Once again, 12 Tribes and Israel are redundant. Israel has itself as a crown?"

Hi Thess. This was not one of your better arguments. You have had some good ones, I admit that. Right here in this country we say things like "The 50 states of the USA" The USA is the 50 staes and is also the USA, it is not redundant to talk about a breakdown within a nation. If the statue of liberty had a crown with 50 points would that too be redundant? What if we had a flag with, say 50 stars, would that be redundant,----- Oh wait we do

Take care,
In Christ,
Brian

 

I guess from your perspective where John didn't know whether what he saw was a real woman or a graven images of some sort, I can agree that it is a poor argement. From my perspective he saw a real woman and so it is not a poor arguement because he did not see Israel. He saw Mary and Mary is a type of the Church so he saw the Church.