Mariology vs Mariolatry

Ed, your Church has not been protected from error.

Law acknowledges ''terrible evil'' of sexual abuse at Mass

Has Christ protected the Church, at these victm's expense ?

[edited to name link]

[ November 04, 2002, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

No scripture claims that Mary is "all Powerful"

No scripture claims that Mary was assumed into heaven after her death.

No scripture says that Mary is co-Mediatrix.

No scripture calls for praying to the dead NOR do we have any examples of it in all of scripture.

The scripture calls the dead "The Dead" in Matt 22 and "The dead in Christ" in 1Thess 4 - so yes -that IS the correct NT term.

No scripture says "NO one comes to Christ except through Mary"

No Scripture says that Mary is in heaven working for the salvation of mankind.

You completely took what I said out of context. I said that I relinquished my desire to do "private interpretation" of Scripture. This means that unlike you, I don't look at the Scriptures and declare that my understanding of them is the final and perfect understanding of Scriptures or the Christian Faith.

There are a number of things which are not explicitly spelled out in the Scriptures and which need the Church as the final arbitor of truth. For instance, the Arian controversy which was settled by the Nicean Council. Heretic Arias "proved" from a "sola scriptura" position, pleading Scripture as his standard, that there is no such thing as the Trinity. The Church, however, and not heretic Arias, is the final authority which made the declaration that Jesus is the divine Word, the Logos Who is one with and equal to the Father, "begotten, not made". And that settled that.

2000 years later, you come along and state that you do not see from Scripture that the Blessed Virgin Mary should have the honor and respect that is accorded to her. Well, tough!!! The Church has spoken -- the issue is settled. That's what I mean by that.


No scripture says that errors would NOT come into the church from WITHIN.

We do have scripture (Acts 20 for example) say that "FROM AMONG YOUR OWN SELVES" the grevious wolves would come in drawing desciples after themselves.

Yes. But even though heresies arose WITHIN THE CHURCH, such as the aforementioned Bishop heretic Arias, the promise still stands. Care to read it one more time?

"....I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Doesn't say WHERE the attacks will come from, does it? It just says, as an iron clad promise, that these attacks -- the "gates of hell" as it were -- would not prevail against the Church. That is all I need to know. It is a promise, just as clear and thorough as the promise of His final return and judgement in Revelation.

We DO have scripture saying that IN the church there was to be a 'Falling away" apostacy of the church was predicted by Paul (2Thess 2:1-5)

Wrong again. St. Paul is talking about the Jews in Israel. The falling away is that of the complete apostasy of the Jews as they both rejected Christ and persecuted the Church, resulting in their total destruction by the Roman armies of Titus in AD 70. This has nothing to do with the Church. If it did, then the above mentioned promise in Matthew 16 is null and void and Jesus becomes a liar.

NOW -- make up yer mind. You gonna believe Jesus or the anti-Catholic screed you have been fed for so long?

We DO have scripture saying that within the church there would be the introduction of doctrines of demons.

Yup. Monothellitism, Monophysitism, Donatism, Arianism, Pelagianism -- all doctrines of demons. All introduced into the Church by active Church members.

AND ALL REJECTED BY THE CHURCH AS HERETICAL AND FALSE AND NOT A PART OF CHURCH DOCTRINE!!!

In Acts 17 the saints are "commended" in that they did NOT simply "SWallow" the words of the Apostle Paul but they "STUDIED the scriptures DAILY to see IF those things spoken by Paul were SO". Acts 17:11

No, bad news for YOU, hoss. You see, we converts to the faith have DONE JUST THAT and have found that despite our vehement anti-Catholic prejudices and the presuppositions we were blinded by for so long, that the Church really IS the Church and the Scriptures really support what She teaches as truth. That's why we converted. You think that the admonition to the Bereans says something quite else -- study the Scriptures and find something you don't understand and then go start your own "church". Says nothing of the sort.

Scott Hahn is hardly a slouch in theology. You nor I could even begin to carry his briefcase. You somehow get the opinion that Catholics, ESPECIALLY CONVERTS, are by far the dumbest and most duped people on the face of the earth.

Ain't so, pal. I NEVER studied as hard on anything in my life as I did the teachings of the Church. And I really was trying to find just one reason to NOT JOIN the Church. Couldn't. Had to join.

That is an avenue of "verification" that the RCC claims is "impossible" since they do not "allow" the saints to "check them out to see IF what they say is SO".

MILLIONS of saints have done so and found that the Church is reliable in what she teaches both docrinally and morally.

IF they did "allow" such a thing - they could hardly persecute the early Catholic reformers and thereby turn them into "protestants".

EXCUUUUUUUUSE ME????? The Protestant Rebellion was stared by people who had new doctrines which the apostles, nor their disciples (the Early Fathers) nor the Church in the East (Orthodox) nor West (Latin Catholic) had NEVER TAUGHT. When these men were brought before councils, they refused to back down and in rebellion against the Church, left and schismated the Body of Christ, ripping it to shreds in defiance of our Lord's prayer in John 17 in which He prayed "...that they may be all ONE." This is not an issue of Bible study anymore than Bishop Arias was a Bible student. It is an issue of rebellion against the teaching and moral authority of the Church.

And Luther lived to see and regret the folly of his sin against God, for he himself said late in life "...for every man with a pulpit and a Bible fancies himself a teacher of the Word of God, spewing forth the most abominable heresies as if they were nuggets of gold."

Well, Herr Doktor Luther, you have no one to blame but yourself, for after all, if YOU are allowed to leave the Church when you don't agree with her interpretation of Scripture, then why would not others be equally allowed to leave your fellowship when they disagree with you? And if you think the Church wrong, by what statement of authority do you claim infallibility for yourself which you deny to the Church, who has the promise of Christ that the gates of hell would not prevail against Her (which therefore makes the Church infallible)?

Bob, if you are "sola scriptura" then you must show me from Scripture any verse which names YOUR NAME as an infallible teacher of the Word of God and therefore, one to be followed. Or, for that matter, any of your heroes (Falwell, Jones, Hyles, Marrs, etc.)

Save your breath. It ain't in there and the best you can do is to torture some verse to try to prove that you are infallibly led. But since there are hundreds of other Protestants who also claim that their interpretation of Scripture is infallibly correct (Protestants who disagree with both you and each other), then I have every right to deeply question any such statement.

Brother Curtis --

How many times am I going to have to tell you that there is a difference between the official teachings of the Church and the sins and failures of Her members? :rolleyes: You find me ONE TEACHING which defends sodomy as acceptable and then I will renounce the Church and every thing in it. Until then, please stop dredging this episode up and trying to make it say something it does not say.

Jesus said the Church would be kept from the gates of hell. He did not say that the field would have no tares in it. And while I am thinking on it, notice that in that parable, the tares are not said to change the ontology of the field, which is the kingdom, the Church. That remains unchanged no matter how many tares sprout up in it.

Brother Ed

 

2 Timothy 3
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

This passage, by the way, was written to a young man whose mother was Jewish and whose father was Greek. No Catholicism there.

Says who? The Church? Give us a source for this belief, please.

Wow! Lorelei and Chemnitz do that on a daily basis here on the board except they can do it from a Sola Scriptura position! Haven't you looked at the Oneness/Trinity debate thread?

...and this differs from other cult beliefs in what way?

2 Timothy 4
3For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,

Nope, Ed, it's pretty specific where the attacks would "come from."

Hate to break it to you, Ed, but they are one and the same.

...no matter how far against Scriptural principles that may be. And this differs from other cults because...?

Yeah, we know. We debate him about once a week whenever one of our guest is at a loss for an argument.

Gee, Ed, Hahn wouldn't let you carry his briefcase? That's cold, man! Or was it just too heavy? Maybe someday you can make a statue of him to which to pray.

No one ever said you were dumb, Ed.

Too bad you didn't join the board first, Ed, maybe you could have found a reason. But let me get this straight. You studied incessantly BEFORE you would join the Church but now that you're in, you lie prostrate and allow It to dictate your theology? ...and this differs from other cults in what way?

Matthew 7

13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

I'll leave the rest of your post for others to comment. I'm sure Luther did NOT study the Scriptures before he left the Church. He must have been duped.

[ November 04, 2002, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Clint --

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

This passage, by the way, was written to a young man whose mother was Jewish and whose father was Greek. No Catholicism there.

Have I got news for you......there was DEFINATELY NO BAPTISTRY THERE EITHER!!!!

The catholic (or universal) faith is the continuation of the Jewish faith which God gave unto national Israel. That which was in shadows in the Old Covenant is now done in fulfillment in the New Covenant. Example: the Passover pointed to Christ, the Lamb of God. In the Upper Room, Christ both celebrated the last Passover and the first devine Eucharist. That which was pointed to in the Old is now lived out in the New.

If you will go to a Byzantine Catholic Church or an Eastern Orthodox Church, you will see this lived out in full force (sorry, my Roman brothers, but your churches have lost their Jewish flavor). The architecture is based upon the Jewish Temple structure. This is a tradition handed down in the East for centuries. The liturgical rubrics follow a very Jewish pattern. One of our converts two years ago was a Jewish lady who told us that when she first observed the Liturgy, she immediately thought of services in her temple.

You see, Clint, Christianity is not supposed to be a different religion. In truth, it is fulfilled Judaism, with Christ being the fulfillment of all things in it. The Roman rite has lost some of this, and Protestantism....hey, sorry, you guys aren't even close!!

And the word "katholicos" means universal, or that which ALL people, everywhere, and at all times share and participate in. So yes, in a sense, Timothy was very "katholicos" because there was only ONE UNIVERSAL way of worshipping in this new body which was called "the church". There were not a hundred choices in the Roman Empire. That is why the Nicene Creed can describe the Church as ONE, holy, catholicos, and apostolic.

Says who? The Church? Give us a source for this belief, please.

Awwwwww, c'mon Clint. This is TOO EASY. Look around you, man!!! Just on this board alone there are constant arguements over doctrine between the various sects of Protestantism. In the Old Covenant, there was ONE TRUTH. That truth was expressed as God's Word to the prophets and in the writings of the Old Testament. In the New Covenant, in the Early Church, right up to the Reformation, there was again ONE TRUTH. Jesus prayed in John 17 "...that they may all be one..."

And now you have the audacity to defend the splintering of Christianity by hundreds of sects and denominations and claim that there is no need for an infallible interpretor. Look around you. Is THIS what Jesus had in mind for us to "be all one"? I don't think so. And without an infallible interpretor of the Scriptures, what you see in Protestantism is the logical and sad outcome.

Oh, and as for a verse: 1 Tim. 3: 15. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth.

Wow! Lorelei and Chemnitz do that on a daily basis here on the board except they can do it from a Sola Scriptura position! Haven't you looked at the Oneness/Trinity debate thread?

Actually, if you have noticed, I have been away from this board lately more than I have been on it. But HOW do they do that? The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Scriptures at all. This lack of clear wording is what opened the door for heretic Arias.

...and this differs from other cult beliefs in what way?

In that Jesus promised that the Church, the ONE, HOLY, APOSTOLIC, AND CATHOLIC CHURCH, would be led into all truth and that She would be protected from the gates of hell. Now if you can find that promise given to any of the cults which have no organic relationship to the apostles (apostolic succession), then you can make your case. But since the promise of John 16:13 and Matthew 16: 18 -19 was given to the APOSTLES ALONE, and since in Acts we see the OFFICE OF THE APOSTLES being handed down to another generation, we have every right to believe that the Church is the sole arbitor of truth.

And apparently St. Paul believed that also, as he admonished young Timothy in 1 Tim. 3:15.


2 Timothy 4

3For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,

Well, its pretty clear that Luther and Calvin are being discussed here, along with Rogers, Williams, and Simons. The people didn't want to hear the truth, so they heaped these false teachers to themselves.

Hate to break it to you, Ed, but they are one and the same.

Hate to break it to YOU, Clint, but since the Church is the Bride of Christ, our Lord does not batter His beloved Bride with verbal abuse. Such screed comes from the heart of the evil one who despises the Church and would love to see Her destroyed forever. However, the great promises of Christ, the Last Adam, is that He is not going to allow HIS BRIDE to be tricked by the devil as the first Adam did.

...no matter how far against Scriptural principles that may be. And this differs from other cults because...?

Again, your assumption is that Catholic dogma is against Scriptural principles. It is not. The problem is that you have not been taught the covenant of God and how that relates to the Church and the Scriptures. The covenant is the key which unlocks the seeming contradictions of Catholic Faith.

Maybe someday you can make a statue of him to which to pray.

Only if he is declared a saint after death.

Actually, we Easterners don't use statuary anyway. We use icons. :D :D

Too bad you didn't join the board first, Ed, maybe you could have found a reason. But let me get this straight. You studied incessantly BEFORE you would join the Church but now that you're in, you lie prostrate and allow It to dictate your theology? ...and this differs from other cults in what way?

Oaky. Here's the difference. I study the Scriptures now and when I come to a part which I do not understand, I can roll it over in my mind, think about it, try to understand it, but ultimately, I have the assurance that there are those in the Church whom God has given wisdom and who have written on this subject so that I can glean from their wisdom and bring my learning into line with the teaching of the Church.

Your position, on the other hand, is that you take the Scriptures and study them, and if you "find something" new doctrinally in them, you may possibly go to your pastor and try to convince him that he needs to change his preaching. Now if he will not "see" what you have "seen", then there is a severe problem, and most likely the answer will be that you will go through the congregation, find those who will share your belief, and start a new assembly.

We have the unity which our Lord prayed for in John 17. You have contention, fractiousness, arguments, and a new "church" every other week as brothers and sisters disagree with one another. And having been a Fundamentalist myself, I can say from first hand experience that some of these disagreements can become QUITE UNCHRISTIAN in their lack of charity over doctrinal issues.

I'll leave the rest of your post for others to comment. I'm sure Luther did NOT study the Scriptures before he left the Church. He must have been duped.

Duped BIG TIME!!! The father of lies got to him. But in all fairness, any Catholic with a grain of honesty must admit that the leadership of the Church had become corrupt and was in need a general overhaul. However, LEAVING the Church was not the way to accomplish this. Others, such as Erasmus stayed in the Church and participated in the concicular decisions which began the process of restoration and cleansing.

Yes, it must have been a tough time to be a Catholic back then. But leaving the Church was no more permissable then than leaving the Church would have been over David's adultery with Bathsheeba. The sins of the leaders do not change the ontological nature of the Church. They do bring scandal and rebuke upon Her, and this is lamentable that Christ's enemies might speak evilly about Him because of our actions. But the Church remains the Church, and that will never change.

Nice talking at cha!

Cordially in disagreement,

Brother Ed

[

 

I see - so when it comes between the Word of God and the Word of man - (traditions of your church) you pick man every time.

Ok - we agree to dissagree on that point.

Whoa - ! Hold on there Brother Ed.

You just got through arguing above - that you would toss the scriptures every time when it came to a choice.

You even gave the example above where it was "PROVEN" from scripture that there is no triune God and how the Catholic church all by itself stood up as "the authority" opposing scripture - and the RCC won!.

Now first of all - you are wrong in thinking that the scriptures refute the doctrine of the trinity. No trinitarian today (except a Catholic) appeals to the Catholic traditions before they can "see" the doctrine of the triune God - IN scripture. But that is another debate.

The point is - you just made the argument that you have no problem tossing scriptura when it pleases you.

Now you "claim" that you have objectively "Checked the RCC out AGAINST scripture to see IF the things the RCC teaches is SO"???

Which is it Ed?? Will the real communicant please stand up?

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 05, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Ed, did you see my post above?

 

All the waterways had dried up at this point in time? Ephesus was right on the Mediterranean Sea. That's a pretty big baptismal.

You are using the term "catholic" where you should be using Christian. That's part of the problem here.

John 4
21Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

"Katholicos" is a term that is NEVER ONCE used in the Scriptures. It was first coined by Aristotle and had nothing to do with Christianity. I'm sure it was quite "pleasing" to the Greek speaking Romans, though. May have even won a convert or two. Also, the word "church" is the Greek "ekklesia" which translates to "assembly." Here's the lexicon link. Nothing there about "universalism" or "catholicism".

Strong's Lexicon

So your conversion was based more on emotionalism and human reasoning than an actual Scriptural exegesis. Your view, interpretation and consequent conversion did not come from close study of Scriptures, Ed. You fell into the Catholic bias that has been promoted for centuries. Antiquity does not equal truth.

Oh, well, that's a whole different matter! Icons! Why they aren't... OOPS, wait a minute! One doesn't need an idol to comit idolatry.

Ezekiel 14
4Therefore speak to them and say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: Any one of the house of Israel who takes his idols into his heart and sets the stumbling block of his iniquity before his face, and yet comes to the prophet, I the LORD will answer him as he comes with the multitude of his idols,

I feel a new thread coming on...

 

Hi Clint,

You wrote, "Also, the word "church" is the Greek "ekklesia" which translates to "assembly." Here's the lexicon link. Nothing there about "universalism" or "catholicism"."

I have no quarrel with your presentation of the literal definition of the Greek ekklesia. However, Scripture speaks of the Christian assembly in a particular way that the Protestant conception of "the church" cannot account for.

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." The Church has a certain authority to exclude recalcitrant sinners. Does this mean that if your congregation excommunicates a member, then that member can go join another assembly? If so, then this verse remains a little superfluous, don't you think? If there is one Church, then it would make sense.

"But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison." The Church is not assembled in this passage. Even when the Christians are not together, in their individual homes, the Church exists. Thus, they need not be assembled in order to be "the Church".

"Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God" Isn't it difficult to give offense to an invisible church? Notice that only one church is being spoken of.

"For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." It's difficult to persecute something that is invisible.

"if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." Protestants can hardly say that their local church is infallible. Notice that Paul does not place the Scriptures as the mainstay of truth; the bulwark is the Church - the invisible Church that no one can see and is composed of all the "true believers"? Paul doesn't have this conception when he envisages the church.

Paul also didn't see the Church as divided, as Protestants do.

1 Cor 1:10 - "I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment."

Notice that Paul sees Christ's body as one visibly. He does not imagine for a moment that Christ's body is divided, that the Church is an invisible entity of Christians from opposing denominations. The Church is the Body of Christ, not the Soul of Christ.

Col 3:15 - "And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful."

St. Cyprian of Carthage understood Paul well in 250 A.D., "God is one and Christ is one, and ONE IS HIS CHURCH, and the faith is one, and His people welded together by the glue of concord into a solid unity of body. Unity cannot be rest asunder, NOR CAN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH, through the division of its structure, be divided into separate pieces." (On the Unity of the Church 23)

St. Irenaeus writes in 180 A.D., "...the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but ONE HOUSE. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and HANDS THEM DOWN, as if she possessed but ONE MOUTH." (Against Hersies 1,10,2)

Of course, my Catholic faith agrees harmoniously with that of Irenaeus. We share the same faith. You disagree with Irenaeus. You pit Irenaeus against your interpretation of the Bible, which is informed by your Protestant tradition. I don't have to because I stand in the apostolic tradition. 2 Traditions: (1) Authentic Apostolic Tradition, (2) The 16th c. Aberration of Protestantism.

Of course, we disagree, but I think that the Catholic case is founded well scripturally and historically. To deny that is quite presumptuous and isn't honest to either the Bible nor History.

Blessings,

Carson

 

I know brother Clint can speak for himself, but our understanding of the Bible has nothing to do with tradition, for we are fairly warned not to put tradition over the Bible. Our understanding of the Bible comes from the Bible. Not protestant leaders, but from the pens of Paul, Peter, James, and John.

Galatians 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

The only verse that I can see, tonight, that can back up your viewpoint, is done only when taken out of context...

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

But none of the epistles backs up Mariolotry. It wasn't taught in New Testament times, and it shouldn't be taught now.

 

Hi Carson --

You mean about Brother Hahn mentioning my "long beard"? Guess that made an impression on him. Did he mention the question I popped on him? Some fun. He also gave an incredible defense for the use of the filioque from the aspect of the covenant of the triune God.

I know brother Clint can speak for himself, but our understanding of the Bible has nothing to do with tradition, for we are fairly warned not to put tradition over the Bible. Our understanding of the Bible comes from the Bible. Not protestant leaders, but from the pens of Paul, Peter, James, and John.

Honest to Pete, Brother Curtis, I mean no offense, but this is just laughable to the extreme. I remember being a Fundamentalist and I was of "The Camp of Bob Jones". There were others who were of "The Camp of Jack Hyles". Still others of "The Camp of Tex Marrs". And others "Of the Camp of Jerry Falwell".

And there WERE arguments over interpretation. Do not try to put forth this idea that Fundamental Baptists are somehow this peaceable, loving, and UNITED group of people when it comes to interpretation. (Get into a debate with a KJV only person some time and see how far that gits ya).

I have been there and I have seen it first hand.

And as I have said before, beyond that, there are Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, et al who will say the same thing you just said -- that they only use the Bible to interpret the Bible -- yet they all disagree with each other.

Sorry. Yer argument does not wash.

Clint --

No, my friend, it was NOT emotionalism which drew me to the Church. As I have maintained before, it was the study of the covenant.

As I studied Catholic theological positions, I put each one of the through the covenant to see if they fit the covenantal descriptions which I had read in my studies. The foundational book for this is Ray Sutton's THAT YOU MAY PROSPER - Dominion by Covenant. You may read it free at the I.C.E. Website. I would challenge you to set aside your prejudices and go read Sutton's book. He wrote it as a Presbyterian, so it is not a papist publication, okay? Just click on the link and look it up.

Anyway, as I put each facet of the covenant together, I found that the structure of the Church, its hierarchy, its type/antetype fulfillments of Judaism, ALL FIT!!!

And you know the emotions that caused in me?

FEAR!!!

That is the common response of converts who have been steeped in the kind of anti-Catholicism which is prominant on this and other boards. Emotionally I became a WRECK for the next 6 months. I realized LOGICALLY that to be intellectually consistent, I had to convert, but from the standpoint of the emotional -- I definately was in no hurry to get there!!!

Try to imagine that you woke up this morning and something that Carson has said to you suddenly makes PROFOUND SENSE. Some piece of Scripture he has quoted to you begins to rattle around in your head and will not leave you alone. It begins to goad you to further study. You cannot get away from it!!!

I bet that you will be far from excited. You will be distraught and probably do what Scott Hahn did -- call a friend, tell him what is vexing you, and beg him to talk you out of it. Of course, with Scott Hahn, the problem was that he wound up converting his friend to the faith a year before he entered.

No, it is FAR from emotionalism which drives a dedicated anti-Catholic to convert. Believe me.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

I'll read the book, Ed, but I have to say that this phrase I bolded in the review at the link you gave me throws up a major red flag:

I'll get back to you in a few days.

 

Clint --

I appreciate your openness. Let me assure you that this isn't some esoteric numerology or some secret wierd meanings that only a select few can understand.

The "code", as it were, is simply the proper application of certain principles which appear over and over in the Scriptures. A biblical covenant has the following five principles to it:

T = Transcendence of God (Based on Suzerainity treaties, the greater is approached by the lesser to make covenant and establish relationship)

H = Hierarchy (Covenants have a structure which is followed. For instance, Biblical covenants are strictly PATRIARCHIAL in nature, not feminist)

E = Ethics and morality (Covenants have rules which are to be followed)

0 = Oaths and sanctions (Covenants are entered into by the taking of solemn oaths. The keeping of the covenant brings blessing. The breaking of it brings sanctions)

S = Succession (Covenants pass down from generation to generation)

Sutton goes on to show in various Old and New Testament passages just how these principles apply.

While I think that Sutton's basic premise is Biblical and sound, he only lays the foundation. The edifice, if you please, is to take these principles and apply them to the FAMILY. Sutton defines a covenant in the Presbyterian understanding of a legal contract (such as a Suzerainity treaty). Our relationship with God is FAR FAR MORE than just a cold and informal contract. It is entering into a structured family and entering into UNITY with God. As I have said before, Ezekial 16 is the model for this.

Good reading. Hope we can have a profitable discussion on this afterwards.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

That advice applies better outside the Catholic church. With the RCC the claim is made to "Freedome from doctrinal error" in ALL ages via Papal infallability in terms of doctrine.

So "disconnecting" from "early statements" of the 4th and 5th century is impossible much less from the early 20th century.

Given the position of the church - it is ALL fair game. IF you find that it EVER sanctioned doctrinal error in Its teachings - then its claim to doctrinal purity collapses. IF you find that it was in error AND you find that it REPUDIATES that error (which you are not even claiming with these older sources) EVEN THEN - it is a problem, since the error ITSELF was not supposed to be HELD for decades/centuries/millenia etc.

So whether it is indulgences, purgatory, prayers to the dead, mariolotry, etc it is all up for inspection and review to see IF the claim to "Doctrinal purity at all times" is holding up.

Certainly it would not work to claim "doctrinal purity" as in "after a few more thousand years we will probably be rid of all of our current doctrinal errors".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Carson, your argument above can only work when addressing a non-Catholic that does not have a centralized structure and it does not work well even in that instance.

Obviously if one is excommunicated from the Catholic church they can attend any non-Catholic church they wish to attend - and become a member in good standing. The same is true of other non-Catholic churches - IF THEY discipline one of their members - that SAME member may go to another non-Catholic church OR EVEN a Catholic one and be accepted by those churches. There is in fact no difference there.

Furthermore - in the non-Catholic churches with centralized organization structures such as we see in Acts 15 - the analogy is the same, since loss of membership in a centralized structure means that you can not simply "Be a member in good standing" at a sister church within that same structure if your name has been withdrawn from the books due to church discipline.

You may want to focus on other arguments in that case.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

The "problem" with your statement is two fold.

#1. Rev 12 does show the church - the one true Chosen church of the saints of God as ONE entity - in both OT and NT times - about to give birth to Christ and then being persecuted after the ascension of Christ. The fact that these are in fact TWO Different church systems - the One True Hebrew NAtion church system and then the One True Christian church system does NOT prevent the illustration as that of ONE woman in both times.

Romans 11 does the same showing that BOTH the Christian church members AND the Jewish church members are grafted in together as the same plant - and that the jews fell out of their position due to unbelief - but it is still ONE entity - though composed of TWO church system.

#2. It is clear that the churches of the NT age had different problems, different views and even differences between the Jews and the Gentiles and the Helenistic greeks. But they are still represented as one. EVen before the cross, when the desciples attempted to use your own model of "not with us means against us" Christ argues the opposite sayhing "if they are NOT against us - they are with us" even though they did not follow as the desciples did.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

In regards to your last post, this is why you are considered "seperated brethren," for you have elements of the truth of the Church, just as the churches that Paul wrote to in all his letters, but you've strayed on one issue or another. You're still brethren, you just haven't come home yet.

God bless,

Grant

 

Grant,

You have to admit that the "one true church" the Hebrew nation church - already failed - and yet God allows the Christian church to take their place and thereby declare "success" so that the ONE woman of Rev 12 - is the same in OT and NT ages. But that does not mean that the Jewish High Priest is still in charge of the One True Church.

IN the same way - the falling away predicted for the Christian church - has resulted in division as well as error and compromise of doctrines within that old structure. But just as in the case of the One True church of the OT - the Hebrew Nation church - the NT one true church continues - even though the old structure became error-prone.

THe precident is there in scripture - with the One True Hebrew nation church - and its 'Forever promises' regarding it's teaching authority on earth as we saw in ISaiah 58.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bump - on behalf of the CoRedemptrix thread.

Thanks to Carson for getting us back on track with this.

Carson provided some very good documentation on the complete lack of support for the Mary as the second Eve in scripture - in those places where we see Christ as the 2nd Adam addressed.

To find the appelations to Mary that are found in mariolotry today we must resort to man-made speculation alone. Scripture does not support it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

AS has been pointed out on this thread - the pagan religions have the exact same practice in using images to represent the dead. The RC churches in euorope show the images to be wearing away due to centuries of saliva - the kisses of the church members - adoring the saints.

And the RCC DOES forbid praying to the living as one would pray to the dead. They only allow this for the dead saints.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi BobRyan,

Have you ever looked up the term "bigotry" in the dictionary? It's a fascinating vice.

Read my lips. Catholics adore nobody and nothing other than the Most Holy Trinity.

This is really simple. Do I have to repeat myself? Okay, very well then.

Catholics do not worship statues or saints.

Still don't get it? Let me try once again.

"Only God is to be worshipped" - the Catholic Church.

Are you still confused? Okay, one last time:

Pictures are just images that symbolize people we love, and by kissing them, we do so out of love just as one lays flowers on a grave to honor a descendent.

You STILL don't get it? One FINAL time:

We don't worship Mary.

I hope this helps. If it doesn't, may God bless you and keep you, may he turn his face to you and give you his countenance, and may he bring you to everlasting life.

yours in Christ,

Carson

[ November 26, 2002, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]