Catholic Mary

BIG difference is that while the Bible commands us to worship and venerate the Son , Jesus, JUST same way we fdo the Father, NO WHERE told to honor mary in same fashion!

not told that she is ANYTHING other than the One God chose to have bear His Son, and she was not "God bearer" just the one who bore humanity of the Messiah!

also, Bible NEVER says that she was sinless, nor any other title RCC bestows upon her!

So what we Baptists call Jesus as Son of God, messiah etc are ALL in the Bible, NONE of what the RCC labels Mary with is Biblical!

that is why the RCC HAD tro create the fictional Apostolic succession and traditional equal to sacred scriptures!

 

Sorry, but there were several temples in Rome dedicated to Cybele worship besides the main temple on Palatine hill. There was another lessor temple dedicated to Cyble on Vatican hill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temples_of_Cybele_in_Rome

Her title was "great mother" as well as "The Mother of the Gods" as this was the Greek title adopted by the Romans. If you would have just finished reading down under the Subtitle "Roman" in your wiki reference you would have read this statement:

the Greek title Meter Theon Idaia ("Mother of the Gods, from Mount Ida"). Rome's cult to Cybele shows several adaptations of its Greek model.

 

The grounds on whether or not a person's prayers are heard or not is their relationship with Jesus Christ, not their religion, or even their association with a church. If they have trusted Christ as their Savior and have been born again by His Spirit (born again not meaning baptized), then yes, God will hear their prayers.

No, because a statue cannot represent a spirit. God is spirit. They that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Those are the words of Jesus. The wrath of God was against the nation of Israel when they built a golden and calf and worshiped before it, and still believed in the worship of Jehovah at the same time. Any image is wrong.

I thought the same thing as a Catholic. But those attributes: worship (prayer), omniscience, omni-presence, belong to God alone. Catholics attribute them to Mary, making her, by default, a goddess. She may not be that way in their minds. But the prayer and adoration given her which is due only to God makes Mary a god. Worship belongs to God alone.

No. If you remember the Pharisees came to John the Baptist. John rebuked them sternly. He said to them to bring forth fruits of repentance first, and then he would baptize them. Repentance had to come first. Baptism would simply symbolic that they had repented.
One day, as he was baptizing, John pointed out Jesus to his disciples, and he said:
"Behold the lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29)
--He knew WHO could forgive sins, not what. Only God can forgive sins, and Christ is God. John pointed that out to His disciples. John was the forerunner of Christ.

 

The Bible does not validate nor does it teach. The people (yes - those poor old fallible people) are the ones who interpret, validate, and teach based on the truth therein.

WM

 

The red herring. The problem is I do. The issue is your faith. In order to recieve justifying grace into your life it must be accepted. Acceptance isn't an issue of works to obtain grace. Its an issue of will to cooperate. Imputation is weak because it does not change the individual it only makes a declaration. Infused is stronger because it causes a fundamental change in the individual. Thus the person is not only declaired such but is transformed into such.

 

Pure irrelevance on your part. Because you don't understand something you call it double talk. How cheap.

 

First of all it wasn't the Catholics that had Tyndale put to death but King Henry the VIII. The Catholics might have disciplined or sensor Tyndale but it was the protestant king of England that put him to death. I would never have you killed DHK. You are Canadian and its against my belief to treat Canadians in such a manner even if they are opposed to my view.

 

Hi DHK,

You're not denying that Jesus still has a body, of course. So what do you mean then, that God is only spirit, not flesh? Is it wrong to worship the physical bodily Christ?

Well, for the record, I don't think Mary is omniscient or omni-present. I agree it would be a big problem to give the saints those traits.

I still think we must worship the same God. Otherwise why would I be so happy to hear about how you go to Islamic countries as a missionary? If we had different gods, that would upset me, but instead it gives me hope.

 

I don't think I've ever met a Catholic who thought it was appropriate to persecute protestants. So it's not just you

 

No, you don't and it is obvious you don't. Go to the thread entitled "Romans 2:14-25 and take a look at my last post and see if you agree with it. If not, try to refute it! Justifying faith excludes everything that is by principle characterized as works on your part whether it is works defined as pure self-effort or works defined as enabled by God's grace - makes no difference.

What you say is fundementally true to a point but your explanation as to how it is affected is completely sacramental and that is repudiated by Paul in Romans 4:5-12.

In regeneration there is the impartation of the divine nature and creation of a new inward WILLING man that is created in true righteousness and holiness. Thus this is exactly what you would term "infused." However, regeneration is inseparable with gospel conversion and thus inseparable with justification by faith which is by imputation.

So the Biblical position is that imparted righteousness through regeneration of the inward/new man and imputed righteousness (legal position) before God occur simeltaneous together.

It is this union between both that is the basis of James argument (James 2:14-26) and the argument of Paul in Romans 6-8.

However, Romans 3:24-5:2 deals exclusively with Justification by faith before God apart from regeneration.

Obtaining the willingess to come to Christ or embrace Christ, receive Christ is the work of God (Jn. 6:29) as no man can come to him except the father "draw him" (Jn. 6:44) and faith be "given unto him of the Father" (Jn. 6;65) and every single solitary last one the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son and every single solitary last one that comes to the Son not one will be lost but each will be raised up to the resurrection of eternal life (Jn. 6:39,40,44) because every single last one the Father teaches will come to Christ (Jn. 6:45).

So you do not understand anything about justification or regeneration as Rome believes they are bestowed through sacraments which Paul flatly denies and totally repudiates in Romans 4:9-11.

 

I understand it perfectly! It is double talk! That statement clearly asserts that justification is by works, the works enabled by God's grace or grace produced works, or the participation of man with God due to enabling grace.

However, Romans 3:27-28 repudiates that concept completely. See my last post on Romans 3:27-28 in the thread entitled "Romans 7:14-25" and see if you can disprove my interpretation of that text.

 

WM, what are you trying to say? Your first statement seems to agree exactly with what I said, as I said the Bible does not validate nor does it teach it. Is that a partial quote from me that you forgot to enclose as a quote??

Your second statement appears to contradict the first statement? What scripture provides either example or precept for them to interpret, validate and teach such things?

 

re-read the canon for understanding.

 

pretty simple!

Biblical salvation is ONLY saved by faith and grace ALONE!

We do NOT assist the Lord, such as by tasking sacramental grace, by good works, being baptised etc

NONE of those items are required to become regenerated and saved by grace of God!

 

Ok - I should have been clearer.

My point was not that scripture validates or does not validate a position, nor was it that scripture teaches or does not teach a doctrine. It was that scipture can do niether regardless of who claims that it can. The Bible is only a book with content inspired by God assembled by men. It is us - the reader who gets validation from scripture. It is us - the reader who brings our own fallible biases into the lenses through which we all view scripture.

That's all well and good except for the fact that not everything is in scripture.

Well, I don't see it that way. For example, many religions and cultures used the name "God" for their deity. By your logic, I could make the claim that using the term "God" is therefore a myth rooted in paganism. Really...

WM

 

Well, I don't see it that way. For example, many religions and cultures used the name "God" for their deity. By your logic, I could make the claim that using the term "God" is therefore a myth rooted in paganism. Really...

WM[/QUOTE]

 

1 Pet. 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Peter denies that the scriptures were the "private interpretation" of the writers of scripture but rather what they wrote is the personal opinion of God and God alone. They were moved along by the Holy Spirit to write what God wanted them to write and that is precisely why it the scriptures are called "The Word of God" or "God's Word."

Hence, the scriptures provide OBJECTIVE truth not merely SUBJECTIVE truths. The scriptures can be "rightly divided" and false interpretations can be demonstrated by common sense rules of interpretation as every scripture is placed in a CONTEXT for definition.

God has designed the scriptures to be understood and to be used to discern truth from error (Isa. 8:20; 1 Jn 4:1,6; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; etc.).

However, the Roman Catholic teaching contradicts what the Scriptures do provide. The scriptures explicitly say "all have sinned" and the only clearly stated exception is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ never claimed the need of a "redeemer" but Mary does claim "my redeemer."

The Bible clearly defines the role of marriage and its responsibilitiess and that regular sexual union is a command of God (1 Cor. 7:4-5). The Bible clearly states Mary and Jospeh were married.

The Bible clearly states that Jesus had "brothers" and "sisters" in direct connection with both Joseph and Mary and those terms in that context has to be forced to mean something other than what it naturally implies if taken at face reading.

The Bible clearly restricts religious prayer (proseuchomai) only between saints on earth toward one Spirit being in Heaven - the Triune God.

The Bible clearly denies any more than "one mediator between God and man" and therefore it is anti-biblical to speak of a "co-redemptrix" or other mediators between men on earth and God in heaven.

Whether you see it that way or not does not change the facts of history. The titles "Pontif Maximus" and "The Queen of Heaven" have their prior origin in Babylonian paganism practiced at Rome not in the Scriptures. The "college of Pontifs" has its origin in paganism not in the Scriptures and that is exactly the relationship between the Roman Catholic "Pontif Maxiumus" and "college of Cardinals" from whence the "Pontif Maximus" is chosen.

 

OK ... one more time:
Point 1) Catholic doctrine forbids the worship of anyone or anything other than God.

Point 2) There is a difference between veneration (honor) and worship.

If you don't believe me then go look it up in their Catechism. However, here's a good description:

(Greek doulia; Latin servitus), a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while latria means worship given to God alone, and hyperdulia the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary. St. Augustine (City of God X.2) distinguishes two kinds of servitus: "one which is due to men . . . which in Greek is called dulia; the other, latria, which is the service pertaining to the worship of God". St. Thomas (II-II:103:3) bases the distinction on the difference between God's supreme dominion and that which one man may exercise over another. Catholic theologians insist that the difference is one of kind and not merely of degree; dulia and latria being as far apart as are the creature and the Creator. Leibniz, though a Protestant, recognizes the "discrimen infinitum atque immensum between the honour which is due to God and that which is shown to the saints, the one being called by theologians, after Augustine's example, latria, the other dulia"; and he further declares that this difference should "not only be inculcated in the minds of hearers and learners, but should also be manifested as far as possible by outward signs" (Syst. theol., p. 184). A further distinction is made between dulia in the absolute sense, the honour paid to persons, and dulia in the relative sense, the honour paid to inanimate objects, such as images and relics. With regard to the saints, dulia includes veneration and invocation; the former being the honour paid directly to them, the latter having primarily in view the petitioner's advantage.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm

You might want to look at the Nestorian heresy before you make that claim. Nestorians considered Mary the "Christotokos" (the woman who gave birth to the human Jesus) rather than the "Theotokos" (the person who gave birth to God), and believed that she bore Jesus in human form. Those who consider Mary the “Theotokos” believe she bore the divine Jesus. This has always been the position of the Church since the beginning.

And just where do you think the Greek word "Theotokos" comes from?

This is pure and unadulterated garbage.

Just look at Church history and how far back this “fictional Apostolic succession” goes.

Irenaus Against Heresies Book III: 2-3 c. 180 A.D

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

-- Later, Augustine confirms this line of succession. --

Augustine (Letters 53:2 [A.D. 412]).

2. For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found.

Oops...

WM

 

Can you worship without veneration? If not, then veneration is inclusive of true worship. Hence, what attitudes and acts constittue true worship? The very house of God is repeatedly characterized as the "house of prayer."

The Greek term "proseuchomai" is the technical term for RELIGIOUS prayer. It is never ever used between men on earth and any one in heaven but God. All other terms translated "prayer" have no religious significance as they can be used in casual conversation and yet these words are never ever used by men on earth to describe any kind of conversation with anyone in heaven but God.

Bowing to a king as a sign of civil honor or respect for office is not a RELIGIOUS act. However, bowing to a RELIGIOUS image is a RELIGIOUS act and thus an act of worship.

Simply denying it is on the basis of a term definitions does not change it from what it is, a RELIGIOUS act. The Bible forbids bowing to images as a RELIGIOUS act (Exod. 20:4-5).

 

You went from faith alone to grace alone. nice jump. Catholics also believe that grace is essential for salvation.

Note faith and grace together means neither is alone.