NotUrAvgGuy
Well-Known Member
- Jul 19, 2015
- 992
- 416
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
Simon_Templar
Not all who wander are lost
The issue here is that to prevent the transmission of original sin is an act of grace and salvation. Jesus being the savior, cannot himself have needed to be saved. To prevent transmission of sin from Mary to Jesus would necessitate that Jesus was saved by grace.
Catholic and Orthodox teaching do not claim that Mary did not need to be saved. In Catholic doctrine, the immaculate conception of Mary is viewed as an act of Grace, merited by Jesus Christ as all Grace is, by which Mary was saved from sin.
The only difference is that she was saved from sin in the sense that she was prevented from receiving original sin, while we are saved from sin by being delivered from it after.
When you ask "have they thought this through" you should probably make sure you actually understand what they are actually saying and believing.
Catholics fully agree with this. Mary's true blessedness is not that she bore Christ in the flesh, which is truly a great honor, but rather that she is first in the order of Grace, and that she most closely of any human being knew, and loved our Lord and that her whole life was built around saying yes to God.
Upvote
0
Simon_Templar
Not all who wander are lost
For the sake of the conversation I'll say yes, but if you pay attention to the second half of the statement "notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John"
Mary is first in the Kingdom of Heaven. Her true honor is that she perfectly submitted herself to the will of God. In fact, her role here in this sense is foreshadowed in the OT Kingdom of Israel, where the King's mother had a special role in the Kingdom. The queen of the Kingdom was not the King's wife, but rather the King's mother. She had a special role of intercession to the King on behalf of the people.
This is also Mary's role in the Kingdom of Heaven, just as Jesus is the everlasting Davidic King, sitting forever on the throne of David, Mary is the everlasting queen mother, fulfilling that role in the Kingdom.
That role is not awarded to her because of her physical status even, but because of her humility, love of God, and gift of herself to God.
Upvote
0
Simon_Templar
Not all who wander are lost
Your doctrines contradict the word of God. You just don't realize it because you haven't rightly understood the word.
Catholic teaching does not contradict scripture on any point.
Regarding oral tradition, originally all the New Testament was oral tradition. None of it was written down even within at a minimum 20 years or more of Jesus death. For a minimum of 20 years, not a single book of the New Testament was written, and yet the Church functioned and grew, and taught people the gospel and how to worship, and the doctrine of the faith.
The bible itself even says to hold on to and obey the oral tradition, but you ignore what the Bible says, because it contradicts your doctrines about the bible itself (ironically).
But since, this forum is about Mariology, if you think teaching about Mary contradicts scripture, please show me where.
Upvote
0
Simon_Templar
Not all who wander are lost
You ignore the words of Jesus himself.
The saints are not dead, they are alive.
Matthew 22:29-32
Also, isn't this exactly what Jesus did when he met and spoke with Moses and Elijah?
Upvote
0
JulieB67
Well-Known Member
- Apr 21, 2020
- 1,600
- 745
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I did not state teaching about Mary contradicts scripture. Teaching she remained a virgin, was sinless, etc is. Yes we can spin the words 'did not know her until/til" and claiming his brethren were cousins/stepbrothers but one has to stretch and reach to do so instead of letting the scriptures speak for themselves. If we do that there are no contradictions. We know "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Mary is not the exception and is not listed as such.
We are taught that Mary was blessed among women and she was -given that she gave birth to our Savior. But she was not sinless, did not remain a virgin, etc. She was not even a huge part of the gospels or the rest of the Word after Christ started his ministry. Christ states anyone that does the will of the Father is the same as his family. He's not raising his mother up over anyone else and neither should we. The disciples tried to do that among themselves and he shot that down.
But that is not talking down on her just stating simple facts. Was she there during his ministry in some cases? Yes of course. But if she had the importance that people put on her raising her up in such a fashion, I'm sure we would have been taught more about her, etc
Common sense alone even asks us the question would she really leave her only child when they and the company departed? Would she really have missed that fact if he were the only child? I mean, she is supposed to be this perfect sinless person who can do no wrong. I see a normal Mom most likely attending to her younger kids causing her to miss the fact that he was not there. Is this biblical? No, but neither is stating she was sinless, remained a virgin, should be prayed to and so on. There's no prophecy stating she was to be this extra mediator to Christ or anything else. All scripture points to Christ.
A verse like this below clearly indicates that this is Mary and his brethren which we notice are not his disciples. So this isn't spiritual brethren. But if you want to believe Mary is traveling with cousins, by all means continue to do so. I will believe that she did "know" her husband after Christ and did produce other children. This is not a contradiction of scriptures but letting them speak for themselves. We can't add to God's Word. And oral tradition coming years later should not be included on what is clearly laid out in the Word.
John 2:12 "After this He went down to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples: and they continued there not many days."
The Greek is pretty selective in using words for brother, relative or cousin. For example in this verse we see two words -
Luke 21:16 "And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death."
Brethren is aldelphos (the womb) a brother, (lit or fig) near or remote. Yes someone could possible spin this in some way but we do not have to do so when his brethren are listed with Mary. Because we see in Luke 21:16 we have "kinsfolk" which is suggenes -a relative (by blood) , a fellow countryman-cousin, kin. So if they were cousins it stands to reason, this word would have been used in John 2:12.
And then comes the theory that they are his step brothers, children by Joseph, but then we are really reaching because we see nothing of these children mentioned about Joseph and so on.
Again, if you want to continue to believe in these theories that are not rooted in scripture by all means. I will continue to believe otherwise.
Upvote
0
Unless of course the magistrate changes it, like it tried to do with the Lords Prayer, and the Lords Supper which it did, to say nothing of the Resurrection and the Life eternal, and the Sabbath..
Upvote
0
Simon_Templar
Not all who wander are lost
Your statement here is dishonest. I don't mean that you are intentionally being dishonest, but what you are doing is a dishonest tactic. You are claiming that your understanding of scripture is "just letting the text speak for itself" and anyone who thinks the text means something other than what you think is "spin" "stretch" "reach" and so on.
In order to "let the scriptures speak for themselves" you have to actually understand them as they were written, in the language they were written in, in the context of the time and culture that they were written by and to.
The fact that you can take an English translation and understand that in the context of modern spoken English and modern American culture, is not "letting the text speak for itself". You are the one who is stretching and spinning.
My view has no contradictions. The fact that my view contradicts YOUR view, does not mean that my view contradicts scripture.
Romans is one of the most misunderstood books in Protestantism. It was also much misunderstood in the past which is why Peter specifically said that Paul's writing was hard to understand and that some people twisted his meaning to their own destruction.
You know who else is not listed as an exception in Romans 3:23... Jesus. Did Jesus sin and fall short of the glory of God? All means all right? There is no righteous, no not one... that leaves no exception for Jesus does it?
You claim that your view has no contradictions, but your view actually creates contradictions, its just that you are trained to ignore them and don't have the rigorous self-criticism to recognize them.
The truth is that Romans is not talking about individual people. If you go back and read the context carefully you will find that Paul is comparing and contrasting the Jews and the Gentiles and he is talking about how each group relates to God. In Romans 3, he is specifically making the point that neither the Jews, nor the Gentiles were righteous before God and none of them obeyed the law. Romans 3:23 does not mean that no individual person (ie all without exception) was ever sinless. That would disqualify Jesus as well. He is saying that all, as in both Jews and Gentiles, without distinction based on race or religion, were sinners.
The point he is making is not that there has never been a sinless person. The point he is making is that both Jews and Gentiles are sinful and therefore both need to be saved by grace in the New Covenant.
You are just not paying attention to the details. We are told more about Mary than most of Jesus' 12 apostles. We are told more about Mary in the gospels than basically anyone except Jesus, and maybe Peter and John.
We are told that the Angel Gabriel appeared to her, used the title "full of grace" for her. The details of this story can be seen to imply that she was intending to be a consecrated virgin. When the Angel said that she would become pregnant, her reply was "how is this possible since I know not man."
She does not say this in the past tense, as in "I have not known man". She says it in the present "I do not know man". This at the very least implies that she is in a state where she does not expect that she will "know a man" in the future. Thus it implies that she may have taken a vow of virginity.
I will point out that some scholars say that the language used reflects a "present continuous" tense for the verb, meaning that the current state is intended to continue into the future. But I won't make that claim myself, since I haven't done the research to verify it to my own satisfaction yet. (I am working on that.)
However, we know that at this point Mary was already married to Joseph and under Jewish law they were legally allowed to have marital relations. Many will say she was "betrothed", but this is kind of a cultural misunderstanding. In our culture "betrothed" means engaged, you have agreed to marry, but you are not yet married. In Jewish culture "betrothal" meant that the marriage contract had been signed. Once the marriage contract was signed they were legally married and if they engaged in sex, it was not considered fornication. Traditionally, after signing the marriage contract, the couple did not live together for a year, while the husband prepared a dwelling for the new family. Then after a year, the actual wedding feast would be held. However, legally they were married the whole time.
Now, the reason I bring this up is this... If you were married, and were going to move in with your husband in a short time, and someone told you "you are going to have a son" would your reply by "how is that possible, I don't have sex."? Or would you think, oh, I am going to be having sex before too long, I guess I'm going to get pregnant?"
Then we are told how Mary goes to the hill country of Judea for 3 months (to visit Elizabeth). This directly parallels the Old Testament story of how David tried to bring the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem but was forced to leave it in the hill country of Judea for 3 months. Drawing a direct thematic connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant.
This connection continues when Mary meets Elizabeth and John the Baptists "leaps" in his mother's womb, exactly as David is described as "leaping" before the Ark of the Covenant.
We are told little about Jesus' youth, but the little we are told involves Mary (even more than Joseph). It makes a point of telling us how she pondered all the things God told her in her heart, how her heart would be pierced, etc.
Then we have Mary at the wedding in Cana. Here she prompts Jesus to do his first Miracle and essentially begin his public ministry. In this we see both Mary revealed as the new Eve. Were the first Eve prompted Adam to sin, by giving him the fruit, Mary prompted Jesus to begin his ministry (notably by providing wine, which is also deeply symbolic). the First Eve prompted the first Adam to sin and all of mankind fell with him. The New Ever prompted the New Adam to do good, and all of mankind was redeemed through him.
Mary is also revealed here in her primary role in the Kingdom, she brings petition to Jesus on behalf of the people, and she says to the People "do whatever he tells you." This is what Mary always says to us to this day. Note that Mary does not tell Jesus what to do. Rather she brings the problem to his attention. He says "what do you want me to do" and she says to the servants "do whatever he tells you." She does not presume to tell Jesus what to do. She only tells him the problem, then she perfectly trusts in what he will decide, and tells the servants (us) to do the same.
People always misunderstand the incident where Mary shows up and Jesus says "who are my mother and my brothers" etc. They think this is a diss against Mary or a statement that she is unimportant. It isn't. It is an emphasis that earthly human relationships take second place behind the divine family of the Kingdom of heaven. Jesus is emphasizing the point that his true family are those who have faith.
This in no way displaces or denigrates Mary because her whole identity is based on her astounding faith. The entire reason WHY she became the mother of Jesus is because she had complete submission in faith to God's request. She said "be it done unto me according to your word." Complete surrender in faith to the will of God.
When the disciples were waiting on the Holy Spirit, where did they go? to Mary, because she has a unique relationship with the Holy Spirit. She was "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit the same way that the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit in the OT.
That is all right there in scripture if you just pay attention to the details and make the connections to the Old Testament.
This just isn't true. Don't confuse your the interpretation held by your denominational tradition with what the text simply means.
You realize that this view has been held almost universally since the 3rd century AD (200 AD).Those people actually SPOKE GREEK as their 1st language. you are literally saying "I know what the Greek means, better than these people who actually spoke it as a living 1st language."
We have in Matthew 13:55-56 four men listed as "adelphoi" brothers of Jesus. James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude.
In John 19:25 we have a description of the women who are at the cross,
In Matthew 27:56 we have another description of the women who are at the cross, except here it says
John's account leaves out the mother of the sons of Zebedee (James and John)
Matthews account leaves out Mary the mother of Jesus.
But taking the two together tells us that Mary the wife of Cleopas (Mary's "sister") was also the mother of James and Joseph (Joseph is also often rendered as "Joses" which is a short version of the name), who are in Matthew 13:55-56 and in other gospel passages identified as Jesus' brothers.
thus the New Testament itself shows us that they were his cousins.
Further, when Jesus died on the Cross, he gave Mary to John the Apostle as his mother, to take care of and provide for. Now, I believe this has a primarily spiritual meaning because John intends us to ourselves into the place of the "disciple that Jesus loved" which is why he does not name himself in his gospel. Thus indicating that Jesus gave Mary to all of us as our mother. However, in the practical physical sense, this would make no sense if Mary had other children.
Leaving that aside, there are other examples where the Greek word Adelphoi is used not to mean a literal brother. It is used to mean kinsmen in a general sense in Acts chapter 7.
The real issue is that Hebrew and Aramaic did not have a word for cousin, or nephew, or uncle. They sometimes would use the extended phrase like "sister son" but sometimes they just used the word "brother" to describe those close relations.
Example, in Genesis 13:8 Abraham calls Lot his brother, when in reality they are uncle and nephew. When this was translated in Greek in the Septuagint, they just translated it as "adelphos". There are other examples as well.
Upvote
0
concretecamper
I stand with Candice.
- Nov 23, 2013
- 6,813
- 2,584
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
JulieB67
Well-Known Member
- Apr 21, 2020
- 1,600
- 745
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I posted the words in the Greek I found relevant concerning brethren/kinsfolk. I did not simply take the English translations of those words.
I see many.
Anyone without any preconceived notions that reads the word for the first time would not come to any of your conclusions. It's just not there. All of this is taught. Anyone reading the words (even translated back)"Mary and his brethren would indeed believe they are his brothers. Anyone reading about Stephen would know that there is indeed more than one person "full of grace" Anyone reading that Mary knew Joseph not "until/til would believe she would eventually "know" her husband and produce other children who were with her at times as later noted.
People become easily indoctrinated over time with certain beliefs. I know this because I was once indoctrinated myself over false doctrines I was fed in church. Ceasing to believe then once I saw they were unbiblical.
My point is only oral tradition later on states she was sinless, remained a virgin, was some sort of mediator and so on. If she was all of these things they were left out of the letters we have. They are left out of the gospels. You believe in the traditions of men. I will believe as Paul states the traditions that were brought forth, not those added later on. Those can make void the word of God.
I see this as a huge reach. This is not a good argument for Mary to be sinless. We can't compare Christ and Mary. Mary who knew she needed a Savior.
Another reach. She was engaged to Joseph. She knew him after Christ and we see his brethren with her. We shouldn't have to spin everything to come to produce a doctrine. Even taking things back to the Greek you would still have to spin.
Another reach, we are told that Christ and even Stephen are full of grace -entirely different translations that the
kecharitomene Mary has. The Greek word means to grace, indue with special honor/highly favored -make accepted, be highly favored.
I'm sure you already know these already but this still does not imply she was sinless or remained a virgin. She was given the special honor and was favored among women to give birth to Christ. While this is truly wonderful, we are not told she was anything more than this such as being a perpetual virgin or sinless.
Again, not biblical. Of course you believe Oral tradition is just as important if not more important than the Word. But there is no comparison to the ark of the covenant in the gospels. Christ didn't teach this and so on. John is leaping because he felt the presence of the Savior. This has nothing to do with Mary other than she is carrying him. Her womb is not sacred or anything afterwards. She still had to go through the purification process, etc.
Not biblical
We don't need Mary to prompt Christ to do good. Not biblical. Even without Mary and this first miracle, Christ was to be the Savior. Mary other than giving birth to him has nothing to do with that.
No, she doesn't. We can go straight to the Father through Christ. We don't need Mary to tell us anything. You're are stating an instance when both Mary and Christ walked the earth.
She needed help with the wine for a wedding. There's nothing here bringing petitions for all time to the people. Again, she sought his help when they both walked the earth for a wedding. After Christ died, the veil was rent from top to bottom. That symbolizes that one does not an earthly high priest anymore to go to the holy of holies. We have Christ for that. Mary has nothing to do with that.
No one is dissing Mary. It's just the fact that Christ puts everyone on the same level that does the will of God.
Which should be a red flag for you if she had such an important part in the Kingdom other than being blessed to have given birth to the Savior.
You would certainly think she would be included in the account.
As for Christ and John and his mother. It makes sense that he would entrust both her physical and "spiritual needs" to the disciple he loved. Some of his own brethren did not come to the faith until later on. She is also losing a son and gaining one.
As I said, I will continue to believe as I do. You think I am wrong in my interpretations or how I read into the Bible. But I just can't add to the Word. Especially oral traditions later added on. Paul says we are to hold onto what's been brought forth. Yes, we are not privy to everything that was taught but we have the letters, we have the gospels. So we have the traditions that were brought forth. Paul's traditions are those as well. There's nothing that the disciples and later Paul taught that should raise her up in the fashion that oral traditions produced later on. I just cannot believe something would be left out of such importance. You believe otherwise. We shall see in the end....
Upvote
0
Simon_Templar
Not all who wander are lost
Here is the thing...
This thread, and your original comments attack my view as being "unbiblical" and even against scripture. Catholics get attacked this way ALL the time, by people who don't know our beliefs or why they are what they are. If I push back and counter-attack, it is because I'm trying to get people to see the hypocrisy of what they are doing. You accuse others of being "unbiblical" because you don't agree with their understanding of scripture. What if they don't agree with yours, doesn't that give them just as much right to tell you that your views are unbiblical and contradict scripture?
But then protestants, most of the time, come back with an arrogant "no my view is just what scripture says!" and if you try to argue "maybe you are misunderstanding what scripture says" they accuse you of stretching and reaching and twisting and quibbling over things that don't matter, etc. It's just dishonest.
If you disagree with my understanding of scripture, fine, tell me you disagree and tell me why. Don't just assume that your view is the only possible view and anyone who thinks otherwise either doesn't know or is denying scripture.
The FACT is that my view is based on scripture and is derivable from scripture.
Obviously, you think your understanding of scripture is correct, and I think mine is correct. However, I'm not in here telling you that you MUST believe my view or else you deny the Bible. That is basically what you are doing to me.
All I am saying is that my view is ultimately based on scripture, it just happens to be an interpretation of scripture that you don't agree with. Therefore it is false and a bit insulting to say "that's just unbiblical". No, its just an understanding of the Bible that you don't agree with. Those two things are not the same.
Yes, I have a tradition that I rely upon to interpret scripture which includes things that are not directly stated in scripture. You attack that and condemn it, but what is particularly irritating is that you also have a tradition upon which your interpretation of scripture is based, which is not the same thing as the Scripture. In my view, some of your doctrines also directly violate what scripture says. But you come at me with this sense of superiority that you are not "adding to the Word". Which is false. ALL traditions that interpret the written word, add to the word. It is impossible not to. You can't interpret something without at the very least running it through the filter of your mind and your worldview, which both adds and subtracts things that you aren't even aware of. Further, any false understanding of scripture is, by definition either adding to or taking from scripture something that is not there.
For example, you have a superior attitude towards "oral tradition" because you view it as adding to scripture in an unjustifiable way. Except scripture itself tells us that we must hold to the Apostolic oral tradition and puts it on the same level as scripture.
Paul says 'hold fast to the traditions that you were taught either in a letter (scripture, the written word) or by word of mouth (oral tradition)'
There is such a thing as apostolic oral tradition, and it has the same authority as scripture.
This thread, and your original comments attack my view as being "unbiblical" and even against scripture. Catholics get attacked this way ALL the time, by people who don't know our beliefs or why they are what they are. If I push back and counter-attack, it is because I'm trying to get people to see the hypocrisy of what they are doing. You accuse others of being "unbiblical" because you don't agree with their understanding of scripture. What if they don't agree with yours, doesn't that give them just as much right to tell you that your views are unbiblical and contradict scripture?
But then protestants, most of the time, come back with an arrogant "no my view is just what scripture says!" and if you try to argue "maybe you are misunderstanding what scripture says" they accuse you of stretching and reaching and twisting and quibbling over things that don't matter, etc. It's just dishonest.
If you disagree with my understanding of scripture, fine, tell me you disagree and tell me why. Don't just assume that your view is the only possible view and anyone who thinks otherwise either doesn't know or is denying scripture.
The FACT is that my view is based on scripture and is derivable from scripture.
Obviously, you think your understanding of scripture is correct, and I think mine is correct. However, I'm not in here telling you that you MUST believe my view or else you deny the Bible. That is basically what you are doing to me.
All I am saying is that my view is ultimately based on scripture, it just happens to be an interpretation of scripture that you don't agree with. Therefore it is false and a bit insulting to say "that's just unbiblical". No, its just an understanding of the Bible that you don't agree with. Those two things are not the same.
Yes, I have a tradition that I rely upon to interpret scripture which includes things that are not directly stated in scripture. You attack that and condemn it, but what is particularly irritating is that you also have a tradition upon which your interpretation of scripture is based, which is not the same thing as the Scripture. In my view, some of your doctrines also directly violate what scripture says. But you come at me with this sense of superiority that you are not "adding to the Word". Which is false. ALL traditions that interpret the written word, add to the word. It is impossible not to. You can't interpret something without at the very least running it through the filter of your mind and your worldview, which both adds and subtracts things that you aren't even aware of. Further, any false understanding of scripture is, by definition either adding to or taking from scripture something that is not there.
For example, you have a superior attitude towards "oral tradition" because you view it as adding to scripture in an unjustifiable way. Except scripture itself tells us that we must hold to the Apostolic oral tradition and puts it on the same level as scripture.
Paul says 'hold fast to the traditions that you were taught either in a letter (scripture, the written word) or by word of mouth (oral tradition)'
There is such a thing as apostolic oral tradition, and it has the same authority as scripture.
Upvote
0
JulieB67
Well-Known Member
- Apr 21, 2020
- 1,600
- 745
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I'm honestly not trying to be insulting with my comments. My beliefs come from scripture. I've honestly seen not one verse that even implies Mary was to remain a virgin, sinless, is symbolic of the ark of the covenant, etc. You are seeing those beliefs. But I honestly believe if you hadn't been "taught" those you might believe differently.
I had certain beliefs that left my church (who had taught them to me) over when I saw they could not be backed up in scripture. We are supposed to study for ourselves to show ourselves approved. So I just want to proceed in the Word with an open mind, having been fed false doctrine myself.
But I'm only stating this because I do have an open mind. I got rid of any preconceived notions I had going forward. It's what got me into reading the Word in it's entirety for the first time. So I'm not speaking with any arrogance, I honestly do not see your beliefs backed up in the word. I don't see them as biblical. And you did not provide any biblical support. Just theories. I do not want to deal in theories and I don't think I should have to, especially when I feel like Christ's ministry was complete.
Mary being highly favored/full of grace so she must not be a sinner and must remain a virgin is a theory, it's not biblical. Mary helping Christ at the wedding proves she's a mediator to Christ for all time is a theory it's not biblical. It just proves she sought his help at a wedding when they both walked the earth and he performed a miracle. Mary being the new Eve- not biblical. That's an honest statement, not meant to be insulting. All of the suppositions as well about his brothers being cousins is just a theory. It's not biblical. Most evidence points otherwise. I'm looking strictly for God's truth, not men's traditions. I'm looking for doctrines backed up in the Word. But you deal in oral traditions just as much but I'm only looking for the traditions laid out in the Word. Paul states we are to hold onto to those traditions, not new ones added later. You believe your church is the true church and therefore cannot spread false doctrines. I believe the true church is the one that's laid out by the prophets, apostles -Christ being the foundation. The true church that holds to the traditions brought forth by that very foundation. That church is not an organization, it's not a denomination. It can meet anywhere, etc (we know the early churches were all over and even met in people's houses. It's easy to see in this day and age which church is producing good fruit or not. By their fruits we shall know them as Christ states. Sadly I see few and far physical churches/organizations teaching the Word of God, chapter by chapter and verse by verse, rightly dividing the Word. I see also see bad fruits coming from them as well, changing beliefs to suit the world and so on. We have to be careful. I speak for all, including myself.
Upvote
0
Simon_Templar
Not all who wander are lost
It is a teaching that is based on what scripture says, combined with what the sacred Tradition of the Church says. It does have basis in scripture, you just don't agree with the inference or the interpretation involved.
You may think the typology in question is a stretch, and you are entitled to think so, but it is still biblical typology.
I admit I'm over-sensitive and over react because this is a pet peeve of mine. You are not being particularly insulting. I am just sick of constantly getting the attitude from Protestants that they basically own the Bible and their opinion of what the Bible says is simply "the plain meaning of scripture" In my opinion, many, if not most, Protestants essentially view themselves as the Pope. They object to the idea of a Pope, but essentially claim infallibility for themselves that they think is absurd in the Pope.
Let me ask how you think I should use the term Biblical vs Unbiblical with examples from my point of view.
I have in other discussions stated that the Protestant doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone is not biblical. I said this because the doctrine directly contradicts numerous scriptures, and is explicitly condemned word for word by James.
Am I correct to say it is unbiblical? or should I allow that it is "biblical" but incorrect, because I know that Protestants do derive it from biblical sources, that they have simply misunderstood?
Or again, I say that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, because literally is not found in any passage of the Bible. There is no passage that says this anywhere in the Bible. Plus it also contradicts statements that ARE in the Bible. Yet I know that Protestants think it is biblical because they have misrepresented and misunderstood what Paul says about scripture being "God breathed"?
Should I say this is unbiblical and that people who believe it are adding to the bible? or should I say that it is biblical, but that it is incorrect, because they have misunderstood the verse in question?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
JulieB67
Well-Known Member
- Apr 21, 2020
- 1,600
- 745
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Not one human is infallible. But for myself I try and continue to grow in the Word. If I don't see something backed up with scripture that's where I have problems. As I said I had to drop doctrines that I once believed in that I couldn't back up when studying for myself.
I can't speak for others, (I'm non denominational) but I certainly believe James's words when it comes to faith/works He's a second witness to Christ's teaching on the subject.
James 2:18 "Yea, a man may say, "Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."
Works are proof of faith.
Matthew 7:16 "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"
Matthew 7:17 "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit."
Matthew 7:19 "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."
Matthew 7:20 "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
This is how we can know if a person has true faith or not -by their works/fruits.
To me it's simple. If someone has sincere faith in Christ, they will naturally produce works because they have achieved true repentance (change of mind/heart) Works/fruits spring from what Christ has taught us -love God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. We can hang all the law on them. And if we have truly changed, of course we love God and of course we certainly love our neighbor and therefore works spring from that. How can it not? I believe that's the heart of James teaching. Works are proof of faith.
Will we fall short of that mark at times, yes, of course but one should always strive to put the spirit above the flesh.
James states -
James 2:19 "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."
Christ goes on to say-
Matthew 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father Which is in heaven."
James 1:22 "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves."
One cannot state they simply believe and go on living their lives as they did before -not caring. If that's the case one has not achieved true repentance. They haven't changed their minds and if they haven't changed their mind naturally works will not follow.
They go hand in hand. I will state though that sanctification is an ongoing process with the help of the Holy Spirit. That can take time.
I know some bring up this verse by Paul
Romans 4:5 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."
I think this would be a example of a special case.
Ultimately I leave that up to God. He's the heart knower, he knows who's sincere in their faith or not.
I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know on the subject but just stating my beliefs.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
JoeT
Well-Known Member
- Oct 5, 2020
- 1,208
- 169
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
I've followed the last few pages and when I came to this it seems to be forming an argument that hasn't been under discussion. Nevertheless, I would agree that there is no one who is infallible in the sense of being impeccable. The First Vatican Council declared the long held doctrine that in specific cases, the Pope is indeed infallible in doctrine. "For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated." Notice that this power is given the Pope representing the Church.
Peter's office and the Church as a whole, by virtue of Christ [Matthew 18:18; 28:18 seq.] has the power to teach as well as sanctify. The Church is built on St. Peter and his successors, [Matthew 16: 18]. Catholics believe that the body Church is represented by her Bishops and priests. Thus, Christ gave this power to the persons of Peter and the Apostles representing the Church. Thus, we find it is the Body of Christ that is infallible through the teachings of the Holy Spirit, [John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7].
Be careful. A cancer continues grows in a human body, so too can free thinkers contact carcinogenic material without discipline in faith. "WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES." [sic. Dr. Don Felix Sarday Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin]. Thus, Catholics view the doctrine of infallibility to be enlightening the intellect in the discipline faith in discernment of God's Truth.
JoeT
Last edited:
Upvote
0
JulieB67
Well-Known Member
- Apr 21, 2020
- 1,600
- 745
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
It's been my experince that many Christians are not 24/7 disciplined. They go to their churches (I'm speaking of all churches) either one or two days a week and the rest of the time it's business as usual living in this world, being of the world, etc.
I certainly believe the one true church's foundation was laid out by the prophets, apostles with Christ being that cornerstone but I have a hard time with any church that doesn't hold to the traditions that were brought forth by them and later adding to them. Certainly we aren't privy to every teaching orally but we do have the foundation in the gospels and later spread by the apostles. That's my belief, I know others believe differently.
I'm always careful. And the irony is, I've been more disciplined since leaving my church teachings well over 20 years ago. I'm in the Word every day and have read the bible in it's entirety- something many supposed Christians I know personally have never even undertaken. Do I claim to know everything? No but when it comes to discipline I continue to to that, continue to strive and put the spirit above the flesh every day while preparing to have the gospel armour on in case I need to stand in that "evil day". I continue to seek the meat of God's work and not just the milk which Paul states once we have laid that foundation (Christ ) we can move on to other things.That's what I believe true discipline is. Why would I need a priest to discipline when I have the very high priest in Christ? We don't. That veil was rent from top to bottom.
Others believe they need their "churches" to discipline them in the faith and keep them in check I realize that. But that's what the Holy Spirit is for. It's good to have teachers but again, if something is taught that's not scriptural I have to question that. We are supposed to.
And Christ's words always ring true to me -"by their fruits ye shall know them" That's what we need to be careful about. And sadly many churches (of all denominations) are conforming more and more to "this world". How do I know this? By their fruits/works they are producing.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Valletta
Well-Known Member
- Oct 10, 2020
- 8,530
- 3,221
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Realize that the Catholic Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written. The Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in a process that spanned centuries. The Bible obviously had to conform with Catholic teaching, but NEVER was the Bible intended to spell out all the teachings of Jesus that were passed down through the Apostles. All kinds of beliefs could spring from reading the Bible with no prior teachings, I think a lot of people would not come to the realization of the Holy Trinity by reading the Bible alone with no prior knowledge of Christianity. That being said, certainly nothing in the Bible contradicts Catholic teaching and the Bible gives great support to Catholic teaching. For example, a knowledge of the Koine Greek text when the Angel Gabriel used the title for Mary as "full of grace" would give one the understanding that Mary was previously imbued with an everlasting grace. "Catholic" means "universal," and the Catholic Church is both in Heaven and on Earth. Thus we are in communion with the saints in Heaven, as per our Creed which we call the Apostles Creed. Speculation that Mary had other children simply contradicts what was passed down from the Apostles.
Upvote
0
JulieB67
Well-Known Member
- Apr 21, 2020
- 1,600
- 745
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
And yet chose other books for their own bible that have blatant contradictions to other books chosen. This argument has never held water for me. God will chose whomever he will to set things in motion. We've seen that time and time again. But we can't just veer off course.
I believe otherwise. There's a reason we have the Word still intact today. Anyone can add a tradition, new doctrine but thankfully God's word will never change.
Just as all kinds of beliefs can be spread by the traditions of men.
Again, I truly believe we can look at many churches today and see absolutely who's veered off course,-who's holding to the traditions brought forth that the Christ, prophets, apostles laid down or is more or less conforming to the world. We have eyes, we can see. By their fruits ye shall know them. I will choose to believe our Father/Christ over man.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Valletta
Well-Known Member
- Oct 10, 2020
- 8,530
- 3,221
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
I've never come across any contradictions, I don't know who told you that. You can understand why some Jews who rejected Jesus were not happy to keep Maccabees, for example, one of my favorite passages is about those who were tortured for their belief in resurrection. That passage, referred to in Hebrews, is only found in Maccabees. Jesus said and did many things that are not in the Bible. In fact the Bible itself tells us we are to stand fast to keep both oral and written traditions. The Bible-only theory didn't catch fire until roughly a thousand years later. You appear to confuse mere tradition with Sacred Tradition. We speak of the Word of God as consisting of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. God's Word does not change, although we can come to a deeper understanding of God's Word as time progresses. One of your traditions is that there are only 66 books of the Bible. That's not in the Bible, that's a mere tradition. I too believe God over man, try not to judge others.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
