It is by these manners of speech, when we speak of things that do not happen to God as though they did, that we acknowledge it is he who makes them happen to us, those things at least that are praiseworthy, and these only to the extent that scriptural usage allows it. I mean, we certainly ought not to say anything of the sort about God, which we do not read in his scriptures.- Augustine, Commentary on the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book IV, Chapter 9, Section 17 (PL34:302); translation in The Works of Saint Augustine: a Translation for the 21st Century, Part I (Books), Volume 13, On Genesis, p. 251 (New City Press, Hyde Park, NY: 2002)
Latin Text: His locutionum modis, cum ea quae non accidunt Deo tamquam illi accidant loquimur, eum facere agnoscimus ut nobis accidant; ea duntaxat quae laudabilia sunt: et haec quantum Scripturarum usus admittis. Neque enim nos temere aliquid tale de Deo dicere debemus, quod in Scriptura eius non legimus.
Augustine would say that we should not say things about God that we do not read about in His Scriptures, yet we see Rome trying to create extra-biblical traditions about God and what God has done, all the time.
We see it in the Immaculate Conception dogma and the Assumption of Mary dogma. These dogmas cannot be defended from Scripture. Nevertheless, Rome (through many of her apologists) attempts to defend these dogmas on the grounds of fitness.
It is very nice to say that something would be “fitting,” but would it not be as “fitting” to preserve Mary entirely from having to watch her firstborn child [FN1] be crucified? Would it not be “fitting” for God to preserve Mary from the sword piercing her heart [FN2]?
If you think it would not be fitting for his mother to be a sinner, how much less fitting that his maternal grandparents be sinners? How much less fitting that he be descended from the illicit tryst of Judah and Tamar [FN3], or from the illicit union of Lot and his eldest daughter [FN4]?
If you think it would not be fitting for such a great woman as Mary to be assumed into heaven, how does the end of John the Baptist [FN5] square with you? To have his head lopped off as the prize for an exotic dancer? Why should not the greatest of all the prophets [FN6] meet an end like Enoch [FN7] or Elijah [FN8]?
Man's ideas of "fitness" are an untrustworthy and reliable measure of things. God himself declares, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:9) The proper measure is God's revelation of himself through Scripture. Even so, let us measure, rather than harkening unto fables and judging things according to our weak sense of "fitness."
- TurretinFan
FN1: Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. & Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
FN2: Luke 2:34-35 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
Notice that, in context, the indication is that Mary will be one of those who speak against the sign. This prophesy of Simeon appears to have been fulfilled at least Mark 3, where Mary and Jesus’ brethren come to retrieve him, because they think he is insane:
Mark 3:21-35
And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, “He is beside himself.”
And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, “He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.”
And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. Verily I say unto you, ‘All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:’” because they said, “He hath an unclean spirit.”
There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, “Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.”
And he answered them, saying, “Who is my mother, or my brethren?” And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.”
FN3: Matthew 1:3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
Genesis 38:6-30
And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar. And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
And Judah said unto Onan, "Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother."
And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.
Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, "Remain a widow at thy father's house, till Shelah my son be grown:" for he said, "Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did."
And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house. And in process of time the daughter of Shuah Judah's wife died; and Judah was comforted, and went up unto his sheepshearers to Timnath, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite.
And it was told Tamar, saying, "Behold thy father in law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep."
And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.
When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face. And he turned unto her by the way, and said, "Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee;" (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.)
And she said, "What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?"
And he said, "I will send thee a kid from the flock."
And she said, "Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it?"
And he said, "What pledge shall I give thee?"
And she said, "Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand." And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him.
And she arose, and went away, and laid by her vail from her, and put on the garments of her widowhood. And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman's hand: but he found her not.
Then he asked the men of that place, saying, "Where is the harlot, that was openly by the way side?"
And they said, "There was no harlot in this place."
And he returned to Judah, and said, "I cannot find her; and also the men of the place said, that there was no harlot in this place."
And Judah said, "Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed: behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not found her."
And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, "Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom."
And Judah said, "Bring her forth, and let her be burnt."
When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, "By the man, whose these are, am I with child:" and she said, "Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff."
And Judah acknowledged them, and said, "She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son." And he knew her again no more.
And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb. And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, "This came out first." And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, "How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee:" therefore his name was called Pharez. And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah.
FN4: Matthew 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
Ruth 4:10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.
Genesis 19:29-38
And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt. And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
And the firstborn said unto the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father."
And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, "Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father." And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
FN5:
Matthew 14:6-11
But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask.
And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, "Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger."
And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison. And his head was brought in a charger, and given to the damsel: and she brought it to her mother.
Mark 6:21-28
And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee; and when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, "Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee." And he sware unto her, "Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom."
And she went forth, and said unto her mother, "What shall I ask?"
And she said, "The head of John the Baptist."
And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, "I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist."
And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his oath's sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her. And immediately the king sent an executioner, and commanded his head to be brought: and he went and beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head in a charger, and gave it to the damsel: and the damsel gave it to her mother.
FN6:
Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Luke 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
FN7:
Genesis 5:21-24
And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: and Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: and all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: and Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
FN8:
2 Kings 2:9-14
And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha, "Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee."
And Elisha said, "I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me."
And he said, "Thou hast asked a hard thing: nevertheless, if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee; but if not, it shall not be so."
And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it, and he cried, "My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof." And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.
He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan; and he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the LORD God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over.
103 comments:
"The authority of our Scriptures, strengthened by the consent of so may nations, and confirmed by the succession of the Apostles, bishops and councils, is against you."
Hmm I wonder who wrote that?
"To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you."
Hmm, I wonder who wrote that? It seems once again you have taken St. Augustine out of context. Who would have thought such a thing? Oh well, its the same old trick you have been playing for years now, so why stop at this point?
Bellisario,
a) Do you really think that those quotations are the context of the one I quoted? Is your knowledge of what the word "context" means really that deficient?
b) Why on earth do you think that those quotations would, if they were part of the context, change anything I said about what Augustine said?
It looks like your system is just to try to throw out some quotations which you imagine sound more Roman Catholic than the one I've identified.
But, of course, you have not provided the context for your quotations or even a citation for them!
Worse than that, though, you embarrass yourself by being unable to reply to these comments by showing either that those quotations are the context for the one I provided, or by showing that the quotations you provided somehow negate or take away from the comments I provided on the quotation I provided from Augustine.
-TurretinFan
Obviously you have become irritated that your out of context quote was pointed out. St. Augustine did not believe in Scripture Alone. Get over it.
You also incorrectly stated, "We see it in the Immaculate Conception dogma and the Assumption of Mary dogma. These dogmas cannot be defended from Scripture."
That is simply not true.
"Obviously you have become irritated that your out of context quote was pointed out. St. Augustine did not believe in Scripture Alone. Get over it."
As usual, you are long on assertions, short on demonstration, of which we see another instance in your assertion: "That is simply not true."
-TurretinFan
These verses are simply apropos to Matthew's comments.
I would contemplate Augustine adhering to and embracing both of these Apostle's views?
Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Act 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
Act 20:30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.
Act 20:31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears.
Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
1Pe 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.
1Pe 5:9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.
1Pe 5:10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.
1Pe 5:11 To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
TF, I listened to a Carl Trueman lecture on Anselm, and Trueman noted that Anselm's feudalistic background was one of the sources for this word "fitting." That is, there was a lot of emphasis on what seems right, and seems to promote justice, based on some of the hierarchical notions that were common in his day.
Yes, a very popular term during the scholastic period, from what I've seen.
TF,
as I have now read this thread more than just a couple of times, I keep getting the image in my mind's eye of a strand of natural and spiritual DNA whose sequences lay out the structural purposes for which God created the heavens and the earth which also are the reasons for being involved in regulating the use of this Biblical genetic information:::>
Psa 149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their throats and two-edged swords in their hands,
Psa 149:7 to execute vengeance on the nations and punishments on the peoples,
Psa 149:8 to bind their kings with chains and their nobles with fetters of iron,
Psa 149:9 to execute on them the judgment written! This is honor for all his godly ones. Praise the LORD!
Matthew, Catholics (I'm hoping one day you'll catch up with us) believe that Jesus is the Word of God. That's the great silliness of the Scripture-Alone movement. The Bible, and our Traditions among other things testify to what God has revealed in Jesus. Of coarse this is from Dei Verbum (and you've condemned a good many of Vatican II theologians, even though you've never read any of them [tell me I'm wrong], and would have condemned Ratzinger as well no doubt had he not become Pope), and your still back at Vatican I's comments on Revelation which buy right into the Scripture/Tradition dichotomy.
However, Scripturally you're not going to get to far with the Marian Assumption or Immaculate Conception. From a historical critical perspective, taking into account the literal sense of the Scriptures, it's going to be next to impossible.
However, Catholics don't believe that matters. There something about further reflection, or development which makes these teachings plausible (and that is why it is so ironic that in many ways you have refused to keep up with the developments of our own faith community).
Yeah, TurretinFan doesn't get Catholicism, but you don't either, and you play right into his hands everytime.
Turretinfan,
I looked online for this treatise by Augustine and could not find the chapter you reference so I could look at it in context. Just from the quote, it seems he may be speaking of something else.
He said we should not "speak of things that do not happen to God as though they did" without scriptural warrant. For example to say God changed his mind may be scriptural language but not true about God himself as being immutable. Augustine referring to things that "happen to God" seems to imply a completely different meaning than you infer, but I could be wrong.
If what you say is true, we are wrong to say dogmatically that Christ has two natures, that he has two wills, two modes of operation and wrong to declare that He is homoousious with the Father according to his divine nature and consubstantial with us according to his human nature.
Canadian,
The book is in print. If you doubt that I've treated the matter fairly, buy the book.
In context, Augustine is discussing statements like those that assert that God rested from his works, or that God came to know something. In both of these, Augustine asserts that we can imitate the Scriptural usage, but that we shouldn't make up similar statements without Scriptural warrant.
"If what you say is true, we are wrong to say dogmatically that Christ has two natures, that he has two wills, two modes of operation and wrong to declare that He is homoousious with the Father according to his divine nature and consubstantial with us according to his human nature."
Augustine, like virtually all the fathers, thought that his Christology had Scriptural warrant. Don't you agree?
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
"However, Catholics don't believe that matters. There something about further reflection, or development which makes these teachings plausible (and that is why it is so ironic that in many ways you have refused to keep up with the developments of our own faith community)."
We reformed obviously disagree. For something to be part of the catholic faith, it must be part of what was delivered once for all in the apostolic age.
If, therefore, a doctrine cannot be documented from Scripture, it is not properly "catholic."
"Yeah, TurretinFan doesn't get Catholicism, but you don't either, and you play right into his hands everytime."
I don't agree with Romanism, but that doesn't mean that I don't "get" it, unless you are including accepting the doctrines of Rome as part of "getting" them.
-TurretinFan
Yes, TF, I understand that Reformed persons wouldn't agree with this aspect of Catholicism.
That disagreement doesn't mean your not getting it. I think you have to have a certain depth of understanding a subject before your articulated disagreement can have any weight. In general I don't think you understand Catholicism, although having said that I think there are many Internet Catholics that don't understand Catholicism either.
The Church can and does change what it teaches. If you don't believe that or understand that this is allowed, you don't understand Catholicism.
MKW
when you assert this: The Church can and does change what it teaches.
Which church are you referring to? Are you referring to the Church Christ is building as we speak that God is conjoining to Him by His Hand or the church man is building?
Hi Nat...
The context of my comment shows that I am talking about the Catholic Church.
TF,
But in your post you claimed Augustine said "we should not say things about God that we do not read in His scriptures" as if to say we need scriptural warrant for everything we say about God. This is not what Augustine was saying. He said in regard to things that DO NOT HAPPEN TO GOD we must have scriptural usage to speak of God that way. He did not believe nor did he espouse that nothing could be believed or said theologically or doctrinally or dogmatically unless explicitly in scripture. And it isn't very helpful for you anyway, because "the canonical scriptures" that Augustine used were not the same as the Protestant canon so when he uses books you don't like, will you dismiss it anyway? You have used a patristic statement regarding a specific issue (God's immutability) in a fashion that is untenable.
Wilson says, "you've condemned a good many of Vatican II theologians, even though you've never read any of them [tell me I'm wrong]"
Your wrong.
Wilson says, "and your still back at Vatican I's comments on Revelation which buy right into the Scripture/Tradition dichotomy."
There is no dichotomy between the two whatsoever, and never has been.
Wilson says, "However, Scripturally you're not going to get to far with the Marian Assumption or Immaculate Conception. "
So, do we need to? Enough is contained implicitly in Scripture. The Church herself teaches the two dogmas by Christ's authority and through His revelation, what else do you need?
Wilson says, "Yeah, TurretinFan doesn't get Catholicism, but you don't either, and you play right into his hands everytime."
Anytime you want to debate on Catholicism Wilson, you know where my email address is. I seem to recall debating you on some other topic some time ago and then you disappeared when I wrote a full rebuttal to you. You were then never to be heard from again. Was it something pertaining the Catholic teaching on contraception perhaps?
Surely if you feel so confident that I am behind the times when it come to Catholicism, then you would be willing to put forth a statement to defend your accusation in public? I love written debates and there are many ready to go formats that would allow us to engage in such. Let me know. We will see who believes what in regards to the Catholic faith.
Wilson says, "The Church can and does change what it teaches."
Please do tell! Tell us what dogmas and doctrines have "changed" Wilson. Again, if you are so confident, you should be willing to debate. I look forward to your proposal. Where the rubber meets the road people like TF are just track debris when it comes to opposing the Catholic Church. It is people like Wilson who deny core Catholic teaching and principles from the inside who need to be dealt with.
Wilson says, "you've condemned a good many of Vatican II theologians, even though you've never read any of them [tell me I'm wrong]"
Your wrong.
Wilson says, "and your still back at Vatican I's comments on Revelation which buy right into the Scripture/Tradition dichotomy."
There is nor has ever been a dichotomy between the two.
Wilson says, "Yeah, TurretinFan doesn't get Catholicism, but you don't either, and you play right into his hands everytime."
Didn't I debate you on a topic some time ago, maybe it was contraception? I wrote a detailed rebuttal to your silly claims and then you disappeared if I recall. If you think I am behind the times in regards to the Catholic faith, perhaps you can back up your accusations in a public debate?
Matthew, I comment on your blog from time to time, but we`ve never debated contraception (to my memory). It would be rather pointless, since we probably agree. However if you wrote a lengthy rebutall to `my silly claims` then I am sure with some searching you could find it. If you do let me know.
Regard changes, you changed what I said. I said the Church can and does change what it teaches, and you then asked for an identification of doctrines and dogmas that have. Those are two seperate issues. But to identify a change, take a look at that great axiom `no salvation outside the Church.` In one sense we still believe this (although you`ll rarely hear it), but in another sense there has been a dramatic evolution in the way in which the Church evaluates those that the teaching applies to. The Council of Florence states that pagan, Jew, heretic or schismatic, barring entry into the Church, cannot be saved. To the Second Vatican Fathers, all such people can be (even those of no religion). To square this, we need simply recognize that certain past articulations tend to presume a guilt on the part of those not entering the Church, whereas Vatican II does not.
Finally regarding Scripture and Tradition there is a dichotomy if you believe they are multiple sources of Revelation. The Catholic person believes in one source, and that`s Jesus.
Now you say ``it is people like Wilson who deny core Catholic teaching and principles from the inside who need to be dealt with,`` and I invite you to try. You can write my Bishop and suggest he not ordain me, or you can go to my blog and find such supposed denials of core Catholic teaching. I`m not afraid of you, and you know where to find me. I look forward to seeing this list of `core Catholic teaching and principles` that I deny. :)
You`re the one that has set yourself up against individuals whose work the last two Pope`s have deeply treasured, and you`re the one who has condemned movements encouraged by the last two Pope (like the Charasmatic Renewal).
Wilson says, "Finally regarding Scripture and Tradition there is a dichotomy if you believe they are multiple sources of Revelation. The Catholic person believes in one source, and that`s Jesus."
Your understanding of Scripture and Tradition is severely flawed if you think that the Church ever taught Scripture and Tradition as coming from more that one "Source." That being God almighty. Like I said, you have come out making some bold claims against me, and if you want to do that I welcome a debate so you can back them up. Your celebrated "New Theologians" don't stand a chance to the greats who faithfully lived and taught the Catholic faith before them.
Now that I think of it, your the one who thinks that Karl Rahner is some genius correct? Thats where I remember you from. You came over to my blog crying and complaining about my criticisms of Karl Rahner and his band of dissident stooges. You failed to make your case then, and it appears that your understanding of Vatican II and how salvation outside the Church is understood is also apparently flawed.
You have obviously have failed to grasp the context of The Council of Florence. In case you don't know, those who willfully reject Holy Mother Church and refuse to remain outside of Her, will still go to hell. VCII never changed that. The only provision VCII makes is for those who are in invincible ignorance, nothing more. VCII also does not guarantee that they will be saved, and VCII says that it is only that through God's mercy that they may possibly be saved. Those are just some things you have to distinguish between before you start talking about "changes."
Wilson says, "I`m not afraid of you..."
OK so what, did I ever threaten or attempt to scare you? I'l tell you what. You write up your formal charges against me, and I will respond to it. We will see how it works out for you.
Wilson says, "I`m not afraid of you..."
OK so what, did I ever threaten or attempt to scare you? I'l tell you what. You write up your formal charges against me, and I will respond to it. We will see how it works out for you.
"as if to say we need scriptural warrant for everything we say about God. This is not what Augustine was saying."
I respectfully disagree.
-TurretinFan
"Thats where I remember you from. You came over to my blog crying and complaining about my criticisms of Karl Rahner and his band of dissident stooges."
Presumably including his co-author, Joseph Ratzinger.
If I have to pick a "stooge," between you and someone highly respected by your pope, my choice is clear.
Yet, nevertheless, I doubt your local bishop will take any action against you, no matter what charges were brought to his attention.
-TurretinFan
"I think you have to have a certain depth of understanding a subject before your articulated disagreement can have any weight."
I hope no one reading my materials is giving any positive weight to the arguments I make based on who I am or my depth of knowledge in Roman Catholicism. Instead, I'd prefer for the arguments to be judged on their rationality and evidence.
-TurretinFan
"St. Augustine did not believe in Scripture Alone. "
I don't think you know what Sola Scriptura teaches. Augustine from his writings never held to papal infallibility, or that council councils were infallible or held that unwritten oral tradition was inspired by God or equal in authority with Scripture. Augustine subjected those to the authority of the infallible Scripture. Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume III by David King & William Webster in which they extenstively quote Augustine on this very issue. All too often Roman Catholics try to turn the church fathers in to present day Roman Catholics. Gross anachronism is the way the RCC plays the game with the church father writings and ignore those that disagree with their pet doctrines.
"The Church can and does change what it teaches. If you don't believe that or understand that this is allowed, you don't understand Catholicism."
I think Catholic Answers would disagree with that. They often say they have the same apostolic teachings for the past 2,000 years. I seen them use that type of claim at debates in the past that I listened to. In practice I seen them use the partly Scripture partly tradition view and then flip flop to the " material sufficiency " view.
I think Catholic Answers falls somewhere in-between Messrs. Wilson and Bellisario. They would tend not to openly condemn the folks that Bellisario condemns, but they would also tend not to talk as though those folks have anything useful to say (whereas I think Mr. Wilson might disagree).
More importantly, I think Bellisario is more representative of where Romanism was, CA is more representative of contemporary "conservative" Romanism and Wilson is more representative of "moderate liberal" Romanism.
At least, that's the sense I get. I don't think Wilson is advocating for women priests, but I'm not sure he'd object if things started to head that direction.
Bellisario would have a fit about it, and the Catholic Answers group would try to lobby against it.
-TurretinFan
TF writes, "Presumably including his co-author, Joseph Ratzinger."
If you knew history you would know that Cardinal Ratizinger had opposed Rahner on several occasions. Your assumption that their thoughts on Catholicism are one in the same is gravely mistaken. Perhaps you don't know as much about Catholic theologians as you think you do. I know, thats not possible in your eyes, but be that as it may, the facts are the facts. I know those don't count for much in this forum, but I thought I would put it out thee anyways.
Matthew, you state that I "came over to [your] blog crying and complaining about [your] criticisms of Karl Rahner and his band of dissident stooges."
Obviously that's a caricature of my reaction to you, but its also a caricature of important theologians (like Balthasar or de Lubac) whose work our present Pope deeply treasures. Do you deny this?
Also if I remember correctly you didn't have too many of your own criticisms of such persons, you rather referred to links written by authors of questionable credibility on these subjects.
As for your statement of my denying core Catholic doctrines, I see you've backed off. But if you want to start heresy-hunting you can follow the link to my blog.
TurretinFan I certainly wouldn't view myself as anything other than a Catholic in the Roman Rite. Words like moderate, liberal, I don't put much value in.
I'm not the one condemning key theologians of the last 40 years that have been considered very important by the last 40 years worth of Popes, nor am I willing to grant any credibility to individuals whose views are borderline Catholic (like many of those Catholic apologists who bring with them their Protestant presuppositions about the Bible; i.e. the need to biblically prove Catholic teaching]).
"Cardinal Ratizinger had opposed Rahner on several occasions"
And that would prove what, exactly?
Oh, I know, it would prove that this improperly worded straw man is wrong: "Your assumption that their thoughts on Catholicism are one in the same is gravely mistaken."
And you wonder why your assertions don't count for much here?
-TurretinFan
TF,
Well, thanks for disagreeing respectfully anyway.
You didn't address what I said, but that's ok, it's your blog.
Chafer,
Did the Jews practice Sola Scriptura? Did the apostles practice it? Did the ante-Nicene's, the post Nicenes's? You have some mountains to climb to show this without spoof-texting.
St. Augustine says: "I should not believe the Gospel except on the authority of the Catholic Church"
Infallibility is the gift of a Divine Person given to person's, not a property of texts.
Sola scriptura needs a text internally guaranteed via Sola Scriptura which you cannot provide. The hermenetical rules under the mantle of Sola Scriptura are themselves extra-biblical.
All interpretations under Sola Scriptura have no authority to be binding or normative for the people of God, unlike every Council claimed for itself. Everything is up for grabs for the exegete and scholar to try and extract from texts (biblical or patristic) and these scholars cannot define with authority what is divine truth. The church, the pillar and ground of the truth, must have an assurance of the gift of infallibly to expound what the Spirit of truth teaches her.
Wilson writes, " you rather referred to links written by authors of questionable credibility on these subjects."
Great theologians like Fr. John Hardon are not questionable, and if I recall you never were able to refute any of his conclusions regarding Rahner. What he said about him was quite true. If you disagree with his conclusion on Rahner, you would have to actually look at his arguement and then prove otherwise. So far you have not done such a thing.
TF, it is plain that you aligned Ratizinger into the same camp as Rahner by saying that he is well repsected by Pope regarding Rahner's theological conclusions. You have to actually prove somthing like that before you say it. It would also help if you understood the movement that Ratizinger made away from that camp early on in his career. So you have quite a bit of explaining to do before you make sweeping assumptions like you have done here.
"You didn't address what I said, but that's ok, it's your blog."
Good point about it being my blog. I didn't feel like you gave much argument for your position, so I didn't feel a rebuttal was necessary. Scripture is Augustine's sole source for doctrinal authority.
"Infallibility is the gift of a Divine Person given to person's, not a property of texts."
That's a popular line from places like "Catholic Answers." But Augustine says: "And if the sacred and infallible Scriptures say that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, in order that it may be understood that He had made nothing previously—for if He had made anything before the rest, this thing would rather be said to have been made "in the beginning,"— then assuredly the world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time." City of God, Book 11, Chapter 6.
Thanks for your thoughts, Bellisario. I found lots of references (all favorable) to Rahner on the Vatican website, and I found zero references to Hardon.
Maybe you'll write to them, and set them straight!
-TurretinFan
You have to actually prove somthing like that before you say it.
Matthew Bellisario -- I'm wondering how you're such an expert on protocol when you think Catholics aren't being treated properly, but your, uh, knowledge level of these things drops of significantly when it is you who are saying things without proving them?
Very briefly, no person familiar with post-Vatican II theology would place Ratzinger and Rahner in the same camp (Ratzinger is more alligned to the Communio tradition, and Rahner the Concilium), however they are part of the same Church. For one to speak about the other, as certain bloggers would of those they disagree with, is unimaginable.
"Did the Jews practice Sola Scriptura? "
The question there is based on a false understanding of Sola Scripture. Sola Scripture related to the period of time when the Scripture is completely written. And to the period of time once all the Apostles died. Once the NT was written no new divine revelation was given. Not unless you believe in present day prophets or apostles like Mormons , Adventist or Jehovah Wittnesses or some Pentecostals? Sola Scripture becomes the normative rule of faith once the Scripture which is the OT and NT are written. Hence you attempted to build up a strawman because The Jews in the OT was still being given new divine revelation by the OT prophets and those with the prophetic gift. That set of circumstances does not exist today.
"Did the apostles practice it?"
Jesus and the apostles setted forth the future foundation for it to take place once the apostles died and the NT is completed. Jesus Himself pointed to the Jews to " search the Scripture " for individuals there with regard to the Old Testament and in which is inconsistant with the RCC view for it's rule of faith since it does not allow for private interpretation of Scripture as put forth and encouraged by Jesus. ( Jn. 5:39 ) Likewise Paul later on talk Christians to " test all things and hold fast to what is true " which relates to private judgement of what is being taught and is something Roman Catholicism does not allow. ( 1 Thes. 5:21 ). Therefore the private judgement with regard to Scripture is a true apostolic tradition. And is an essential aspects with regard to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Canadian:
"Sola scriptura needs a text internally guaranteed via Sola Scriptura which you cannot provide. The hermenetical rules under the mantle of Sola Scriptura are themselves extra-biblical.
All interpretations under Sola Scriptura have no authority to be binding or normative for the people of God, unlike every Council claimed for itself. Everything is up for grabs for the exegete and scholar to try and extract from texts (biblical or patristic) and these scholars cannot define with authority what is divine truth. The church, the pillar and ground of the truth, must have an assurance of the gift of infallibly to expound what the Spirit of truth teaches her."
gulp!
You miss an important reality here, don't you?
Act 13:1 Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Act 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
Act 13:3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.
Act 13:4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus.
And why was there such unanimity of purpose there?
One can get a sense of it, here:
2Co 3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you?
2Co 3:2 You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all.
2Co 3:3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
2Co 3:4 Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God.
2Co 3:5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God,
2Co 3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
I suggest, for your sake, you repent and believe the Gospel so that you too can receive a water that flows abundantly, fresh, daily delivered to your belly too?
Your problem, Canadian, is the same as these guys:
Joh 1:32 And John bore witness: "I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.
Joh 1:33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?
Joh 3:11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.
Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
"Did the ante-Nicene's, the post Nicenes's? "
Yes they did. Since the NT was completely written and no new divine revelation was being given since there were no apostles or prophets at that time. Irenaeus himself says " We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did not at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. "
That appears to be in line with the priciple setted forth by the apostle John who wrote " but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
This is another essential aspect to Sola Scriptura which teaches that Scripture contains all doctrines relating to man's salvation or doctrines necesary to be believed for salvation by the Christian are in fact found in Scripture. Scripture is clear on the matter relating to salvation contrary to the claims to the RCC which claims it is unclear and must be combined with the addition to tradition. Hence rule of faith is partly Scripture and partly tradition as determined by the RCC.
"You have some mountains to climb to show this without spoof-texting. "
I can say that is what Roman Catholicism has historically done with the church father writings. Extentive full quotes are found of the church fathers are in the book Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Volume III by King & Webster. Never found any sound refutation of it by any RCC apologist who generally ignore this work. I read the church father writings since I was a kid. Unlike many Roman Catholics are unfamiliar with their writings and often misquote them or misrepresent what they taught.
"St. Augustine says: "I should not believe the Gospel except on the authority of the Catholic Church" "
He viewed the Catholic Church there as consisting of all Christians throughout the world and not limited to the Roman See alone there. The Church has the authority to preach the Gospel. That presents no problem at all. The thing is Augustine no where there which you quote does he ever teach the Catholic Church itself is infallible in doctrinal teaching. The Church is an authority but the church itself is subjected to the higher authority of Scripture. The Church is a lesser rule of faith for the Christian but the church can error and has in the past. That quote is hardly any proof for the claims of the RCC. Learn to read Augustine in his historical context. You are missing several essential things for the RCC view. 1. Augustine does not teach there the church itself is infallible in teaching doctrine. 2. He does not teach the Catholic Church is found in the present time only in the Roman See since West and East split in 1054ad. 3. He does not teach the Catholic Church has present day apostles or prophets to give new divine revelation.
"Infallibility is the gift of a Divine Person given to person's, not a property of texts. "
Papal infallibility was never the belief of the entire Catholic Church. That is a claim made only by the Western Church /Roman See. And is a view rejected by Eastern Orthodox which predates present day Roman Catholicism. Present day RCC is post 1054ad doctrinally. Liberious Bishop of Rome and Pope Honornius utterly disproves the claims of Papal infallibility. The Letters of Liberious are more than sufficient to show his formal heresy. More importantly the 6th Ecumenical council did not believe in it either since they condemned Honorius and other bishops in the church for formal heresy.
TF writes, "Thanks for your thoughts, Bellisario. I found lots of references (all favorable) to Rahner on the Vatican website, and I found zero references to Hardon.
Maybe you'll write to them, and set them straight!"
My response,
Uhmm, I don't need to. The Vatican and the Popes have all recognized him as a great theologian, so once again your ignorance is proven here TF.
"Fr. Hardon also served as a consultant for the drafting of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) and promulgated by His Holiness, Pope John Paul II in 1992. "
Canadian
I wrote a much longer response to the largest of your paragraphs in a thread above and hit the publish button but nothing was posted.
Hmmmmm?
I will attempt to comment on this though that you wrote above then try to publish it. You wrote:
Infallibility is the gift of a Divine Person given to person's, not a property of texts.
My comment comes by way of a question in light of those words.
Do you understand what happens when a person's Will is probated?
Think about it. The person who wrote the will isn't the one enforcing the will. The person relies upon the Law to effect their will for them after they depart the realm where the Law holds power to be enforced. The will holds it's own property and once it is probated, after the person departs, it is no longer effective once it is affective! There is no need for the use of the Law to enforce an affective will effected.
You can learn something about the Will Jesus wrote by reasoning through these Words recounted by Luke here:
Luk 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
Luk 24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
Do you agree with me that Christ's Will is summed up in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms and then explained in New Testament books of the Bible, Matthew thru to the Book of the Revelation John recorded on the Patmos Island?
MB:
"...once again your ignorance is proven here TF."
I do pray for TF that his will will remain strong and allow you to continue to post stuff like this!
Of course he will delete vulgarities as he should.
But, you provide so much comic relief I sometimes cannot contain it.
Methinks your ignorance is funny! :)
"Sola scriptura needs a text internally guaranteed via Sola Scriptura which you cannot provide."
Sola Scriptura denies any so called infallibility to any Bishop/elder in the Christian church. It claims only Scripture itself as a rule of faith for the Church is infallible. Appears you dont know what Sola Scriptura teaches. The doctrine itself is found exegetically in 2 Tim 3:16-17. You should see some of the church fathers interpretation of that passage. It may ruin the day for any Roman Catholic.
"The hermenetical rules under the mantle of Sola Scriptura are themselves extra-biblical. "
That is a misrepresentation there.Sola Scripture does not deny the use of extra biblical things such as tradition or use of OT Hebrew or NT Greek dictionaries or historical data at all. But rather it affirms Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith and all things such as Bishops, Councils and so forth are subject to Scripture. TRY AND LEARN THE DOCTRINE BEFORE MAKING SILLY COMMENTS SUCH AS THAT ONE.
"All interpretations under Sola Scriptura have no authority to be binding or normative for the people of God, unlike every Council claimed for itself. "
No human Bishop or Bible teacher is infallible. Likewise church councils after the time of the apostles were fallible. Point of fact is the Arian Councils had more bishops at them than Nicea yet are rejected because it is heretical based on Scripture. Councils are only accepted if what it teaches lines up with Scripture. By the way, the RCC itself has not made any dogmatically defined or settled exegesis of the Scripture verse by verse at all. The RCC does not have what it claims. Papal infallibility is the most useless doctrine since it has hardly ever been used less than 6 times or less historically in RCC history. The RCC failed in it's claimed teaching authority since it cant tell me what any verse of Scripture is teaching.
"Methinks your ignorance is funny! :)"
It seems that I have proven that TF is wrong in saying that Fr. Hardon was not recognized or referenced by the Vatican. It demonstrates ignorance. It was not meant as an insult.
"Everything is up for grabs for the exegete and scholar to try and extract from texts (biblical or patristic) and these scholars cannot define with authority what is divine truth."
We are told by the apostle Paul to test all things and hold fast to what is good. We are to use private judgment with regard to what is being taught in the Church. A major problem I see is the RCC itself can't itself tell me what is the correct interpretation of any verse in Scripture much less what the interpretation of each and every verse in the Bible is. RCC failed to provide what it claims to have.
"The church, the pillar and ground of the truth, must have an assurance of the gift of infallibly to expound what the Spirit of truth teaches her. "
Which church ? RCC ,Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic or what ? The apostle Paul was not refering to the Church of Rome in 1 Tim 3:15. He was refering to a local church. Each local church is to teach and proclaim the truth which is found in Scripture and uphold it. Since the NT was written and the apostles died there are no present day apostles or prophets or one with the prophetic gift. Hence there is no human teacher in the Church with a claimed gift of infallibility in teaching from the so called " chair of Peter " . Do you wish to claim present day apostles or prophets or people with the prophetic gift like Mormons, Adventist , Jehovah Wittnesses or some Pentecostals do ? If not, then your claims and statements holds no water. All doctriness necessary to be believed by Christians relating to salvation that were orally preached by the apostles which were intended to be part of our rule of faith are presently located only in Scripture. The Apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church . ( see Eph 2:20 ) But we have neither apostles or prophets today. The foundation is already set. And we find apostolic teaching intended for our sole infallible rule of faith in Scripture.
Chaf,
you wrote: But rather it affirms Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith and all things such as Bishops, Councils and so forth are subject to Scripture.
As I was attempting to address Canadian's words above and they did not publish, hopefully these words will in addressing what you wrote?
Act 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
2Co 3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you?
2Co 3:2 You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all.
2Co 3:3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
2Co 3:4 Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God.
2Co 3:5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God,
2Co 3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Here are two examples of where Sola Scriptura defines itself effecting the Election of the Saints. There is nothing in those Words a reprobate would use.
While I adhere to Scripture alone, I have to add that all Scripture that I understand truly comes by way of revelation and revelation that the Spirit speaks directly to me as we see He spoke to those gathered in Antioch or through men as He does most certainly in here when I read some of TF's or your comments as we see there in 2 Corinthians 3.
The ploy of the devils and their scheme throughout every generation is sure and unchanging. It is to use unfortunate men and women to redirect our reliance upon God and the Word of His Grace and not place sole reliance upon what the Scripture teaches when revealing God or the devils, His Words of Grace and their words of deceit.
So, there is a place for men today to speak and to be spoken to.
Ironically, there is a lesson we can learn from Mary, the human mother of Jesus by her actions, noted here:
Luk 2:18 And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them.
Luk 2:19 But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart.
There were a string of comments for which I am to blame about providing a taxonomy of Romanism, which was getting down a seemingly ad hominem path that I'd rather not let this blog go down. I acknowledge my own complicity in this, and have rolled up the comments on that subthread, including at least one complimentary of me (which hopefully shows that I'm doing this to keep the topic focused).
Mr. Bellisario,
You wrote: "Uhmm, I don't need to. The Vatican and the Popes have all recognized him as a great theologian, so once again your ignorance is proven here TF."
Maybe the problem is your reading comprehension. You provided a sentence taken from Hardon's own biography (link).
I don't know if you sincerely got confused and thought that Hardon's biography is hosted on the Vatican website, or what your problem is.
I certainly never said he never got any recognition from the Vatican, despite your false statement asserting that I had said that "Fr. Hardon was not recognized or referenced by the Vatican."
Is he mentioned on the Vatican website? He is not mentioned by name, as far as I could find.
Does that mean Hardon is a nobody? No ... he's even a possible candidate for beatification (or at least he was, I'm not sure if they closed any window on that).
Perhaps you should read more carefully before you make yourself look foolish with comments like the ones you've provided above.
-TurretinFan
Chafer,
As a quick prelude, I am not Catholic.
My reference to the Jews and SS was because most advocates use the unbelieving, Jewish, OT searching Berean's falsely for support of something that the Berean's didn't believe.
Jesus in no way promoted searching the scriptures like Enlightenment scientists. That is nearly in fact how the Jews he rebuked in Jn.5 treated them because they would not come to Him. Your 1Thess verses say "Do not despise the words of prophets but test everything" it doesn't say by scripture alone. The NT writers expected and commanded submission "to those that have the rule over you" so their searching of the scriptures is always as part of the ecclesia not as standing over it.
As for RCC denying private exegesis and interpretation, see Dei Verbum ch.3.
The ante and post Nicene's did not embrace SS. All the Council's proclaimed things like Chalcedon's:
"Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy....this holy, sacred, great and universal synod decrees no one is permitted to produce, or write down, or compose any other creed or to think or teach otherwise...."
Or the 3rd Council (Ephesus):
"...that our churches and yours are at one in professing the same faith as the inspired scriptures and the tradition of our holy fathers."
"Our Lord Jesus Christ...has determined through this synod
that the name Nestorius should be stripped of his episcopal dignity..."
The 6th Council:
"Wherefore this holy and universal synod, driving afar the error of impiety....with the 5 holy and universal synods....reaffirming the Divine tenets of piety in all respects....under God's inspiration...."
Whether you agree with them or not, they believed they decreed with divine authority binding and normative dogma for all believers. That is not Sola Scriptura. They invoke the authority of the scriptures, the previous Councils, and the holy fathers before them.
....cont'd.......
The local church never had license to take up this kind of authority for themselves. Local churches were always under ecclesial authority (beginning with apostles) from the universal church. Each didn't go to scripture to write their own creed because they were independent from the church catholic.
You accuse the RCC of not providing commentary on every verse of scripture.
Did the apostles then fail you because they didn't provide the meaning of every verse of scripture in an apostolic commentary? That is a ridiculous accusation.
Jesus said the Spirit would lead the church into all truth yet your church has no authority to make normative even what it believes to be true.
How do you even deal with or recognize the sin of schism? Schism from who? How would you demand repentance for this sin?
You imply that the apostles had the gift of infallibility to establish the church, then they wrote scripture, then they died and infallibility was reduced to a text. It is a mere assertion that this ceased to be a gift given to persons (whether papal or conciliar)with the death of the apostles.
Honorius was condemned by a Council yet he did not commit the church to this heresy. What you call formal heresy (monotheletism) is not found in scripture and yet is binding dogma for all Christians. Hmmmm.
Sola Scriptura in reality amounts to the individual's interpretation of scripture and results in his submission to an authority of his choosing (maybe) until he is confronted by a better scholar or exegete and forsakes his former understanding. Protestants have the scriptures to disect, analyze, and disagree over, the Orthodox have the scriptures and tradition to do the same. Only Rome has an authoritative teaching office in addition to scripture and Tradition to define, expound, and make normative the truth that the Spirit leads her into. This seems reasonable though I'm not yet sure it is true :-)
Would God reduce his church to be a battle of scholars who fundamentally with plausable exegesis, disagree even on matters of salvation itself? All upholding the same "infallible, perspicuous Bible alone."
.....cont'd.....
The local church never had license to take up this kind of authority for themselves. Local churches were always under ecclesial authority (beginning with apostles) from the universal church. Each didn't go to scripture to write their own creed because they were independent from the church catholic.
You accuse the RCC of not providing commentary on every verse of scripture.
Did the apostles then fail you because they didn't provide the meaning of every verse of scripture in an apostolic commentary? That is a ridiculous accusation.
Jesus said the Spirit would lead the church into all truth yet your church has no authority to make normative even what it believes to be true.
How do you even deal with or recognize the sin of schism? Schism from who? How would you demand repentance for this sin?
You imply that the apostles had the gift of infallibility to establish the church, then they wrote scripture, then they died and infallibility was reduced to a text. It is a mere assertion that this ceased to be a gift given to persons (whether papal or conciliar)with the death of the apostles.
Honorius was condemned by a Council yet he did not commit the church to this heresy. What you call formal heresy (monotheletism) is not found in scripture and yet is binding dogma for all Christians. Hmmmm.
Sola Scriptura in reality amounts to the individual's interpretation of scripture and results in his submission to an authority of his choosing (maybe) until he is confronted by a better scholar or exegete and forsakes his former understanding. Protestants have the scriptures to disect, analyze, and disagree over, the Orthodox have the scriptures and tradition to do the same. Only Rome has an authoritative teaching office in addition to scripture and Tradition to define, expound, and make normative the truth that the Spirit leads her into. This seems reasonable though I'm not yet sure it is true :-)
Would God reduce his church to be a battle of scholars who fundamentally with plausable exegesis, disagree even on matters of salvation itself? All upholding the same "infallible, perspicuous Bible alone."
.....cont'd....
The local church never had license to take up this kind of authority for themselves. Local churches were always under ecclesial authority (beginning with apostles) from the universal church. Each didn't go to scripture to write their own creed because they were independent from the church catholic.
You accuse the RCC of not providing commentary on every verse of scripture.
Did the apostles then fail you because they didn't provide the meaning of every verse of scripture in an apostolic commentary? That is a ridiculous accusation.
Jesus said the Spirit would lead the church into all truth yet your church has no authority to make normative even what it believes to be true.
How do you even deal with or recognize the sin of schism? Schism from who? How would you demand repentance for this sin?
You imply that the apostles had the gift of infallibility to establish the church, then they wrote scripture, then they died and infallibility was reduced to a text. It is a mere assertion that this ceased to be a gift given to persons (whether papal or conciliar)with the death of the apostles.
Honorius was condemned by a Council yet he did not commit the church to this heresy. What you call formal heresy (monotheletism) is not found in scripture and yet is binding dogma for all Christians. Hmmmm.
Sola Scriptura in reality amounts to the individual's interpretation of scripture and results in his submission to an authority of his choosing (maybe) until he is confronted by a better scholar or exegete and forsakes his former understanding. Protestants have the scriptures to disect, analyze, and disagree over, the Orthodox have the scriptures and tradition to do the same. Only Rome has an authoritative teaching office in addition to scripture and Tradition to define, expound, and make normative the truth that the Spirit leads her into. This seems reasonable though I'm not yet sure it is true :-)
Would God reduce his church to be a battle of scholars who fundamentally with plausable exegesis, disagree even on matters of salvation itself? All upholding the same "infallible, perspicuous Bible alone."
....cont'd....
The local church never had license to take up this kind of authority for themselves. Local churches were always under ecclesial authority (beginning with apostles) from the universal church. Each didn't go to scripture to write their own creed because they were independent from the church catholic.
You accuse the RCC of not providing commentary on every verse of scripture.
Did the apostles then fail you because they didn't provide the meaning of every verse of scripture in an apostolic commentary? That is a ridiculous accusation.
Jesus said the Spirit would lead the church into all truth yet your church has no authority to make normative even what it believes to be true.
How do you even deal with or recognize the sin of schism? Schism from who? How would you demand repentance for this sin?
You imply that the apostles had the gift of infallibility to establish the church, then they wrote scripture, then they died and infallibility was reduced to a text. It is a mere assertion that this ceased to be a gift given to persons (whether papal or conciliar)with the death of the apostles.
Honorius was condemned by a Council yet he did not commit the church to this heresy. What you call formal heresy (monotheletism) is not found in scripture and yet is binding dogma for all Christians. Hmmmm.
Sola Scriptura in reality amounts to the individual's interpretation of scripture and results in his submission to an authority of his choosing (maybe) until he is confronted by a better scholar or exegete and forsakes his former understanding. Protestants have the scriptures to disect, analyze, and disagree over, the Orthodox have the scriptures and tradition to do the same. Only Rome has an authoritative teaching office in addition to scripture and Tradition to define, expound, and make normative the truth that the Spirit leads her into. This seems reasonable though I'm not yet sure it is true :-)
Would God reduce his church to be a battle of scholars who fundamentally with plausable exegesis, disagree even on matters of salvation itself? All upholding the same "infallible, perspicuous Bible alone."
"As a quick prelude, I am not Catholic."
May I ask what are you then with regard to your religious beliefs ?
"My reference to the Jews and SS was because most advocates use the unbelieving, Jewish, OT searching Berean's falsely for support of something that the Berean's didn't believe. "
Jesus in his ministry was preaching of the Jews who has the Old Testament which consisted of the law of Moses, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus expressly told those whom he preached to search the Scriptures. He did this to show that He himself is the promised Messiah of Israel. The Jews would then check their Old Testament and render private judgement with regard to it's interpretation and see if Jesus is who he claimed he was when he spoke in John 5. This concept of private judgement of Scripture is an essential part of the doctrine of Sola Scripture which became operative once the NT was completed and all the apostles were dead.
"Jesus in no way promoted searching the scriptures like Enlightenment scientists. That is nearly in fact how the Jews he rebuked in Jn.5 treated them because they would not come to Him. "
No one is saying that at all. But we are to search the Scriptures for essential doctrines relating to our knowledge of God and matters relating to our salvation. And this is exactly what we see in John 5.
Jn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
The word " search " means to examine. Specifically they were to examine the contents of their OT and test the claims of Jesus Christ in relation to it. Jesus appealed to the Scriptures for His claims. And the Jewish people used private judgement in their determination of it.
"Your 1Thess verses say "Do not despise the words of prophets but test everything" it doesn't say by scripture alone. "
That is not a valid objection to Sola Scriptura there. Sola Scriptura does not exclude the use of church father writings or even tradition. It rather claims Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith. Now as for that verse the Christian is to test all things by Scripture which in this case at the time the OT at that time in which to test what they were being taught. Since Scripture was the only infallible place to check what was being taught orally by to them then yes it refers to Scripture. They are to jduge what is true and what is false by Scripture. Since at this present time all the NT is completed the only way to do this is by Scripture. We dont have present day apostles or prophets. No claimed infallible church councils or no claimed infallible Pope. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith where as Bishops , Bible teachers and councils can error. And most importantly Popes can error on doctrine too.
"The NT writers expected and commanded submission "to those that have the rule over you" so their searching of the scriptures is always as part of the ecclesia not as standing over it."
Alittle problem there.The apostles did not believe or teach Bishops/ Elders in the church were infallible in their teaching. The apostles were their living authority at that time since they were setting up the foundation Eph 2:20 . And their teaching regarding salvation and all essential teachings intended to be a part of our rule of faith is located in the OT and NT which is Scripture. The Church is not equal in authority to Scripture. Scripture is given by inspiration of God whereas the church is not.The Word of God created the church not the other way around. The only thing that changed was the form. First the oral word of Godf and now we have the written word of God which is Scripture and left for the church to follow. The church is subjected to Scripture. The church is merely a fallible authority for the Christian while Scripture is our sole infallible authority.
"As for RCC denying private exegesis and interpretation, see Dei Verbum ch.3. "
I was unable to locate that at this time. The right is however denied to the laity the right of private judgement of Scripture. Likewise reading of Scripture was denied to the people by the church. I will remind you of this prior to the present time.
Look and see what the old RCC view on the reading and owning of Scripture.
Session XXV: Rule IV of the Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books Drawn Up by The Fathers Chosen by the Council of Trent and Approved by Pope Pius: Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. H. J. Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Original Text with English Translation (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1955), p. 274-75.
"The ante and post Nicene's did not embrace SS. "
They did. It can be considered a unanimous consent with regard to it. To that see Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith by King & Webster. This does ane extensive treatment on this very issue and has full quotations of the church fathers. All the essential aspects for the full doctrine is found in the church father writings. I dont think you understand what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is.
"All the Council's proclaimed things like Chalcedon's:
Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy....this holy, sacred, great and universal synod decrees no one is permitted to produce, or write down, or compose any other creed or to think or teach otherwise...."
You did a partial quote there. I am unable to locate it at this time. But from my memory they formulated their teaching from Scripture. And did not believe they themselves were infallible as a council nor considered themselves equal in authority to Scripture. I accept councils so long as it is biblically based. This does not contradict Sola Scriptura. The council were defended orthodox teaching there againist heretics. Councils are a lesser authority to the Christian but not an infallible authority.
"Or the 3rd Council (Ephesus):
"...that our churches and yours are at one in professing the same faith as the inspired scriptures and the tradition of our holy fathers."
"Our Lord Jesus Christ...has determined through this synod
that the name Nestorius should be stripped of his episcopal dignity..." "
More selective partial quote there. Same as above. Councils are a lesser rule of faith for the church but is fallible whereas Scripture is infallible. The " Holy traditions " there was the same as that in Scripture. The tradition in context is that of the Christian faith. And not some unknown unwritten tradition that gets defined later by Roman Catholicism in their " Roman Church Councils " .
" The 6th Council:
"Wherefore this holy and universal synod, driving afar the error of impiety....with the 5 holy and universal synods....reaffirming the Divine tenets of piety in all respects....under God's inspiration....""
This is another selective partial quote.I am unable to locate at this time. Since I cant remember offhand the context of that right now I will withhold comment on it. Though I have a feeling it is misquoted to me. :(
"Whether you agree with them or not, they believed they decreed with divine authority binding and normative dogma for all believers. "
They did not believe they were an infallible authority. That is the contrast here. Councils of the church are bound by Scripture and not equal in authority to it. This is the essential issue here. Councils can be freely rejected such as the Arian Councils of the West and East that took place during the times of Nicea. And Nicea had to fight got many years for acceptence againist the Arians. The people at that time knew nothing of claimed infallible councils. Nor had any concept like the present idea of " ecumenical church councils " . You did gross anchronism on that.
"That is not Sola Scriptura."
You have no idea what the full doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches. I strongly recommend that you study and find out what the doctrine teaches.
"They invoke the authority of the scriptures, the previous Councils, and the holy fathers before them. "
That is still consistant with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Councils and church fathers are fallible authorities for the Christian which are subject to infallible Scripture. We test all things and hold fast to what is true in this regard. Scripture corrects any council , any Bishop / Elder and any and every church father. Councils and Bishops and Church fathers often taught or declared some doctrine that was false. Whereas in contrast Scripture can not error.
" ....cont'd....
The local church never had license to take up this kind of authority for themselves. Local churches were always under ecclesial authority (beginning with apostles) from the universal church. "
The apostles are dead. And there are no present day apostles. Apostolic authority is found only in the New Testament which is their recorded teaching for the church which is preserved for us. Your claim holds no water unless you wish to claim present day apostles and prophets for the church today.
Eph 5:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
"Each didn't go to scripture to write their own creed because they were independent from the church catholic. "
Church Council creeds was a later formulation over 250 years after the days of the apostles. The Arians held councils too and formed Arian Creeds which was signed and approved of by Liberius Bishop of Rome. I object to equating catholic church with Roman Catholicism. The Catholic Church as defined in the early church consisted of all Christians in the world. It was not limited to the Roman See in the West or the 4 Sees in the East. Anchronism clouds your thinking.
"You accuse the RCC of not providing commentary on every verse of scripture."
My exact claim was it provides no dogmatically defined infallible verse by verse commentary on Scripture. Since to do so would be teaching the people of God Scripture it failed in it's claimed task of teaching. It has more than 1,500 years to do this and yet has not.
"Did the apostles then fail you because they didn't provide the meaning of every verse of scripture in an apostolic commentary? That is a ridiculous accusation. "
That is false. The apostle Paul explained Gen 15:6 very well in detail in Romans 4 and Galations 3. My accusation is right on. It is held by me that the New Testament expands and explains the Old Testament as a greater light. The apostles did their job and correctly.The provided the basic foundation of the Christian faith as per Eph 2:20.
"Jesus said the Spirit would lead the church into all truth yet your church has no authority to make normative even what it believes to be true. "
The truth is located in Scripture which each and every Christian has. I wish to point out Jesus did not teach that the visible church would be free of doctrinal error. The NT was written to correct doctrinal errors. And I hope you are aware of passages such as 1 Tim 4:1 . The raise of Arianism , Modalism and other heresy in church history shows this. I wish to add you have no idea on " my church " or of what I am.
"How do you even deal with or recognize the sin of schism? Schism from who? How would you demand repentance for this sin? "
I seen it historically in the 7th Ecumenical Council, Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II. The doctrinal heresy proclaimed and defended there is how we say it and it's demand of others to follow it. They played the role of Rom. 16:17-19. I deal with it by refuting it's teachings and prayer for God to gran repentence to those part of the system of Roman Catholicism and for them to see the truth.
"You imply that the apostles had the gift of infallibility to establish the church, then they wrote scripture, then they died and infallibility was reduced to a text. It is a mere assertion that this ceased to be a gift given to persons (whether papal or conciliar)with the death of the apostles."
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
1 Cor 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
Rev 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
"Honorius was condemned by a Council yet he did not commit the church to this heresy. What you call formal heresy (monotheletism) is not found in scripture and yet is binding dogma for all Christians. Hmmmm."
People used his writing on that as supporting it for authority for teaching it. Heretics used his writing to prove it's valid apostolic teaching. He commited formal heresy. They knew nothing of Papal infallibility . It was done in his office as " Pope " , it impacted the church in supporting that heresy and it infected the church due to it.
"Sola Scriptura in reality amounts to the individual's interpretation of scripture and results in his submission to an authority of his choosing (maybe) until he is confronted by a better scholar or exegete and forsakes his former understanding."
No.It means to test all things and hold fast to what is true. Your comments indicates your failure to understand what it teaches.
"Potestants have the scriptures to disect, analyze, and disagree over, the Orthodox have the scriptures and tradition to do the same."
The Orthodox are divided with one another on doctrinal issues itself. Only a blind person would fail to see this. The issues which divide Protestants are usually those which the church fathers themselves disagreed on one another with. Yet you dont place that standard on them or the Orthodox.
"Wold God reduce his church to be a battle of scholars who fundamentally with plausable exegesis, disagree even on matters of salvation itself? "
We are never promised infallible Bishops or elders in the church or any councils either. You are ignorant of Protestant beliefs. Protestants hold to justification by faith only in Christ. The reformers were all united on the issue of Sola Fide and so are confessional Protestants who hold to Sola Scriptura.
"ll upholding the same "infallible, perspicuous Bible alone." "
Care to produce me a present day infallible teacher of Scripture on the earth today? Last time I checked there are no apostles or prophets around today.
Only Rome has an authoritative teaching office in addition to scripture and Tradition to define, expound, and make normative the truth that the Spirit leads her into. This seems reasonable though I'm not yet sure it is true :-)
"Only Rome has an authoritative teaching office in addition to scripture and Tradition to define, expound, and make normative the truth that the Spirit leads her into. This seems reasonable though I'm not yet sure it is true :-) "
It is not true and same can be said with regard to the Orthodox as well. Neither can produce an infallible teacher. Care to produce an apostle or prophet for me thats around today ? Cults such as Mormons, Adventist, Jehovah Wittnesses have this. Their claim is false just as that of RCC and Eastern Orthodox.
Something caught my eye: You accuse the RCC of not providing commentary on every verse of scripture.
Did the apostles then fail you because they didn't provide the meaning of every verse of scripture in an apostolic commentary? That is a ridiculous accusation.
Jesus left us with Scriptures that perspicuously convey the gospel. But folks like the Romanists insist that an infallible interpreter is necessary. Yet their infallible interpreter virtually never interprets infallibly.
It's kind of amusing for them to be so insistent that we desperately need one, but when the rubber meets the road, nothing happens.
-TurretinFan
TF, ha!
Again the juice is sweet that you have squeezed out of the pulp for us to sip:
It's kind of amusing for them to be so insistent that we desperately need one, but when the rubber meets the road, nothing happens.
Why then does nothing happen when the rubber meets the road?
Well, because their infallibility is fallible and because of this fallibility they cannot recognize how fallible their infallibility is that has gotten them so far away from the Infallibility of the Scriptures upon which they claim their infallibility is infallible.
It makes perfect sense then that being so far away from the Infallibility of the Scriptures as they have gotten nothing happens when their rubber meets their road!
Now, let's be perfectly clear what it means, that nothing happens when the rubber meets the road?
Here is some Infallible advice from Scripture that speaks contrary to "nothing". These verses bring "Hope" and "Something" when the Spirit and the Word are One within the one who hears:::>
Act 26:14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
Act 26:15 And I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.
Act 26:16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you,
Act 26:17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles--to whom I am sending you
Act 26:18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'
Act 26:19 "Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,
Act 26:20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.
That there is why he exhorted the Ephesian Elders this way, which is the Way of the Lord saving the souls of His Elect Saints:
Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
Augustine would say that we should not say things about God that we do not read about in His Scriptures, yet we see Rome trying to create extra-biblical traditions about God and what God has done, all the time.
We see it in the Immaculate Conception dogma and the Assumption of Mary dogma. These dogmas cannot be defended from Scripture. Nevertheless, Rome (through many of her apologists) attempts to defend these dogmas on the grounds of fitness.
JM comment – Scripture contains many truths hidden according to typology. There is powerful evidence for Mary as the ark of the covenant, which was the most holy thing of the OT, made from the purest gold. As Mary is the new ark of the covenant, then she too must have been made pure – ie without sin.
It is very nice to say that something would be “fitting,” but would it not be as “fitting” to preserve Mary entirely from having to watch her firstborn child [FN1] be crucified? Would it not be “fitting” for God to preserve Mary from the sword piercing her heart [FN2]?
JM comment – It is fitting for Mary to suffer as mediatrix, coredemptrix and first disciple. We are told we receive glory after suffering, so Mary as the fist disciple is to suffer greatly to receive the greatest glory for a human. Fittingness is exactly what we should see with regard to Mary’s suffering.
If you think it would not be fitting for his mother to be a sinner, how much less fitting that his maternal grandparents be sinners? How much less fitting that he be descended from the illicit tryst of Judah and Tamar [FN3], or from the illicit union of Lot and his eldest daughter [FN4]?
JM comment – Mary’s sinlessness is based upon her unique relation to a divine person as the one and only mother of God. Therefore your objection is a non sequitur, because Mary’s mother and grand parents do not have the unique relation of mother/father of God.
If you think it would not be fitting for such a great woman as Mary to be assumed into heaven, how does the end of John the Baptist [FN5] square with you? To have his head lopped off as the prize for an exotic dancer? Why should not the greatest of all the prophets [FN6] meet an end like Enoch [FN7] or Elijah [FN8]?
JM comment – Many prophets of the OT were persecuted and killed by Israel and therefore it is fitting that the greatest OT prophet is also martyred as a gift from Christ to show JB was a true prophet.
Man's ideas of "fitness" are an untrustworthy and reliable measure of things.
JM comment – Not yet demonstrated.
God himself declares, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:9)
JM comment – context is ignored.
The proper measure is God's revelation of himself through Scripture. Even so, let us measure, rather than harkening unto fables and judging things according to our weak sense of "fitness."
JM comment – So far the argument from fitness works quite well and TF’s other comment are typically evasive hand waving.
FN2: Luke 2:34-35 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
Notice that, in context, the indication is that Mary will be one of those who speak against the sign. This prophesy of Simeon appears to have been fulfilled at least Mark 3, where Mary and Jesus’ brethren come to retrieve him, because they think he is insane:
JM comment – The context is Mary as the mother of God who keeps the law. This is done after she has given herself to the Lord in the annunciation as the handmaid of the Lord, which means Mary is a disciple of Christ. There is nothing in Luke 2:34-35 that even hints at Mary being against Jesus as you falsely claim.
JM
JM: your comments seem to have disappeared, I'm not sure where.
You wrote: "Scripture contains many truths hidden according to typology. There is powerful evidence for Mary as the ark of the covenant, which was the most holy thing of the OT, made from the purest gold. As Mary is the new ark of the covenant, then she too must have been made pure – ie without sin."
a) No, there isn't powerful evidence of Mary as the ark of the covenant.
b) Actually, the ark of the covenant was made from shittim wood and overlaid with gold.
c) Even if the ark represented Mary (it doesn't - it represents Christ), it would not follow that every aspect of the ark would need to find some parallel in Mary. And even if every aspect did need to find some parallel, it doesn't follow that the particular parallel you've suggested is right. The purity of the gold could simply represent her sexual purity, i.e. her viriginity.
JM wrote: "It is fitting for Mary to suffer as mediatrix, coredemptrix and first disciple. We are told we receive glory after suffering, so Mary as the fist disciple is to suffer greatly to receive the greatest glory for a human. Fittingness is exactly what we should see with regard to Mary’s suffering."
a) John the Baptist entered into glory before Mary did.
b) We're not told when Mary began to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. The first disciple that Jesus himself called was Andrew.
c) There's no reason to suppose that Mary is any of the things you've suggested, and it is not fitting that there should be any other mediator than the one mediator.
JM wrote: "Mary’s sinlessness is based upon her unique relation to a divine person as the one and only mother of God. Therefore your objection is a non sequitur, because Mary’s mother and grand parents do not have the unique relation of mother/father of God."
Anna (or whatever her name really was) has the unique relationship of being the one and only grandmother of Jesus, who is God. Therefore, my objection follows.
It's a different unique relationship than "mother," but it's no less of an ancestral relationship and no less unique.
JM wrote: "Many prophets of the OT were persecuted and killed by Israel and therefore it is fitting that the greatest OT prophet is also martyred as a gift from Christ to show JB was a true prophet."
Being killed doesn't show that someone is a true prophet, therefore the argument for fitness fails.
- TurretinFan
JM: your comments seem to have disappeared, I'm not sure where.
You wrote: "Scripture contains many truths hidden according to typology. There is powerful evidence for Mary as the ark of the covenant, which was the most holy thing of the OT, made from the purest gold. As Mary is the new ark of the covenant, then she too must have been made pure – ie without sin."
a) No, there isn't powerful evidence of Mary as the ark of the covenant.
JM Comment – There’s substantial evidence according to typology according to an article
“In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord" (Luke 1:39–45).
• Mary arose and went to the hill country of Judea. I have been to both Ein Kerem (where Elizabeth lived) and Abu Ghosh (where the ark resided), and they are only a short walk apart. Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea.
• When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" Elizabeth uses almost the same words: "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke is telling us something—drawing our minds back to the Old Testament, showing us a parallel.
• When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. He was wearing an ephod, the clothing of a priest. When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb—and John was from the priestly line of Aaron. Both leapt and danced in the presence of the ark. The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed, and in the short paragraph in Luke, Elizabeth uses the word blessed three times. Her home was certainly blessed by the presence of the ark and the Lord within.
• When the Old Testament ark arrived—as when Mary arrived—they were both greeted with shouts of joy. The word for the cry of Elizabeth’s greeting is a rare Greek word used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the ark and worship (cf. Word Biblical Commentary, 67). This word would flip on the light switch for any knowledgeable Jew.
• The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9–11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21–22).
It seems clear that Luke has used typology to reveal something about the place of Mary in salvation history. In the Ark of the Old Covenant, God came to his people with a spiritual presence, but in Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, God comes to dwell with his people not only spiritually but physically, in the womb of a specially prepared Jewish girl.
JM
JM wrote: "It is fitting for Mary to suffer as mediatrix, coredemptrix and first disciple. We are told we receive glory after suffering, so Mary as the fist disciple is to suffer greatly to receive the greatest glory for a human. Fittingness is exactly what we should see with regard to Mary’s suffering."
a) John the Baptist entered into glory before Mary did.
JM Comment – scriptures please.
b) We're not told when Mary began to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. The first disciple that Jesus himself called was Andrew.
JM Comment – Mary was a faithful Jew so she had faith in Yahweh before and after the annunciation. Her faith involved the coming of the Messiah and that’s why she spoke the magnificat in Luke 1. Evidently Mary had a very deep faith in what had been revealed to her, which included her becoming the mother of God. To say Mary was not the first disciple is to ignore the annunciation and the events immediately following in the life of Mary.
c) There's no reason to suppose that Mary is any of the things you've suggested, and it is not fitting that there should be any other mediator than the one mediator.
JM Comment – There are plenty of reasons and your statements to the contrary contain no arguments of substance. Christ is the cause of grace, who came through Mary. To have grace come through Mary means she is the mediatrix of all grace. This mediation begins at the annunciation and continues through the life of Christ, where Christ begins his public ministry at her request in the wedding of Cana and continues in heaven whereby she intercedes with her high priest Son for the salvation of sinners. We know she does this as the new ark acting within the new Jerusalem and as the new Queen mother fulfilling the role of the OT queen mother.
JM wrote: "Mary’s sinlessness is based upon her unique relation to a divine person as the one and only mother of God. Therefore your objection is a non sequitur, because Mary’s mother and grand parents do not have the unique relation of mother/father of God."
Anna (or whatever her name really was) has the unique relationship of being the one and only grandmother of Jesus, who is God. Therefore, my objection follows.
JM Comment – So why does the grand mother of God have to be sinless when God never entered her womb as a type of the temple sanctuary? The answer – the only reason is the Protestants must find a reason to overcome clear evidence for Mary’s very special role in redemptive history as mother of God who was given the grace of the IC.
The Protestant argument is this – Mary was given the IC because God cannot dwell with sin. Therefore Mary’s mother was also given the IC because the mother of God cannot dwell in sin.
Therefore Mary’s grand mother was also given the IC because Mary’s mother is the grand mother of God cannot dwell in sin.
Therefore if Mary was given the IC, then there must also be a line of women with the IC right back to Eve.
But there is not biblical record of a long line of IC’s, so Mary didn’t receive the IC.
The fallacy in this argument is to equate Mary’s unique role as mother of God with that of other women who do not have that unique role. In other words, the fallacy can be exposed a follows –
Mary required her to be given grace for her unique role and such unique grace includes the grace of the IC. - True
Mary’s maternal relation to her Son is both direct and immediate and therefore requires a unique grace from God. - True
Mary’s mother has a maternal relation to the Son of God which is only indirect and therefore requires a unique grace from God. – False
The line above is false, because the maternal relation to God is only indirect. This is evidenced from the OT, whereby a relation to a person or an office that is indirect does not require a special gift from God. For example the 11 tribes were related to Levi, yet only Levi had the priesthood. The 11 tribes were related to Judah, yet only Judah had the line of kings. The gentiles were indirectly related to the covenant and were only permitted to participate in some, but not all of the feasts. From these examples we see a special grace is not equated with indirect association through genealogy or office. Therefore the argument for the line down to Mary requiring the IC is false.
TF-It's a different unique relationship than "mother," but it's no less of an ancestral relationship and no less unique.
JM Comment – answered above. There are some big differences.
JM wrote: "Many prophets of the OT were persecuted and killed by Israel and therefore it is fitting that the greatest OT prophet is also martyred as a gift from Christ to show JB was a true prophet."
Being killed doesn't show that someone is a true prophet, therefore the argument for fitness fails.
- TurretinFan
JM Comment – being killed is the OT mark of being a prophet. Jesus said Jerusalem killed the prophets and so too therefore it is fitting that JB be killed as a prophet.
JM
"It seems clear that Luke has used typology to reveal something about the place of Mary in salvation history. "
All Mary's role is was to give birth to Jesus Christ in the incarnation. Mary is not essential or necessary part of anyone's salvation at all.
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
I strongly recommand that you cease to turn Mary functionally in to deity. Hyprdulia is nothing more that a form of idol worship.
"JM Comment – being killed is the OT mark of being a prophet. Jesus said Jerusalem killed the prophets and so too therefore it is fitting that JB be killed as a prophet."
Following your claims do you wish to contend that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God too ?
All Mary's role is was to give birth to Jesus Christ in the incarnation. Mary is not essential or necessary part of anyone's salvation at all.”
Actually Elizabeth refers to Mary as the mother of my Lord, which means she has a royal role in the new Israel of God.
”Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
The name refers to a dynasty, which involves a family genealogy, which involves Mary in salvation.
”John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
And Jesus came to us through Mary.
”I strongly recommend that you cease to turn Mary functionally in to deity. Hyprdulia is nothing more that a form of idol worship.”
Honor is not the same as worship otherwise God has commanded that children offer sacrificial worship to their parents. There are big differences between latria and hyperdulia and I suggest you sort out your theology before you make statements to others about subjects which you have only a rudimentary understanding.
JM
Following your claims do you wish to contend that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God too ?
JS is not in the OT you idiot.
JM
"Actually Elizabeth refers to Mary as the mother of my Lord, which means she has a royal role in the new Israel of God. "
How does that prove hyperdulia ? It does not. My Lord refers to the person of Jesus Christ . Mary has no other role that is distinct from other believers in Christ. She gave birth to Jesus Christ. She is a like all other believers in Christ.
"quot"The name refers to a dynasty, which involves a family genealogy, which involves Mary in salvation. "
What you said still refuted by the text I quoted.
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
The name there refers to the Lord Jesus Christ. Salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. Christ alone is how any of God's elect people will be saved through. No other person is involved in this and certainly not Mary.Mary is not involved in the process of salvation of God's elect people. She did not die for our sins in contrast to Jesus Christ who did. Mary like all of God's elect people were provided redemption by means of Christ blood ( see Eph 1:7 ) . Mary like all of God's elect needed the redemption by Jesus Christ.
"And Jesus came to us through Mary. "
Mary merely was used by God for the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Salvation is only through Jesus Christ as the text teaches.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
"Honor is not the same as worship otherwise God has commanded that children offer sacrificial worship to their parents. There are big differences between latria and hyperdulia and I suggest you sort out your theology before you make statements to others about subjects which you have only a rudimentary understanding. "
In a religious context Roman Catholicism does worship Mary.They pray to her and bow down to statues of her. That is nothing more than idol worship. The NT Greek word used for worship in a religious context does not have the claimed distinctions made by RCC and Eastern Orthodox. You did not address that specific point I was making. I honor my parents but never in a religious context in which acts of praying to them or bowing down to a statue of them ever takes places. Functionally there is no distinction between latria and hyperdulia since under each God and Mary are each prayed to and bowed down to in a religious context . My theology is sorted out. I am stable in my beliefs and I dont go all over flip floping in it at all. I have had the same general beliefs for over 18 years. I was taught this heretical practice of hyperdulia since I was a kid. So I am qualified to make comments on such a false practice. Roman Catholicism is no better than the pagans functionally on this mattter. My objections are sound and reasonable. You have no idea of who I am or of my theological doctrinal beliefs. So it is very unwise to make a claim I have no understanding of something or of not having my own theology sorted out.
"JS is not in the OT you idiot."
You are the one indicating conditions in which new divine revelation is given in the church dispensation presently. That is the claim of Mormonism and Joseph Smith in their rejection of Sola Scriptura. RCC like Mormonism uses very similiar arguments for the need of an infallible teaching authority with their claimed prophets and apostles much as Roman Catholicism has claimed Papal infallibility and claimed infallible church councils. Remember you are the RCC is the one that contends for the same conditions as in the Old Testament as existing today thus the necessity for claimed teaching authority which they say is within the RCC itself to provide it to tell the people of God what is Scripture and tradition and to determine what they are. We dont need an infallible interperter of Scripture since Scripture is sufficiently clear on matters relating to salvation and daily christian living. You call me an " idiot ". Please try and invent a new ad hom to say to me that is more original than that one.
"she has a royal role in the new Israel of God."
Without getting to fine points of detail on ecclesiology and eschatology , I must point out the incorrect nature of your use of the words new Israel of God. According to Rom 2:28-29, 9:1-6 and Gal. 6:16 teaches the Israel of God is physical Jews who come to faith in Jesus Christ. This includes Jewish believers in the Old Testament times and the New Testament times. Mary has nothing to do with a so a called NEW Israel of God when the Israel of God already existed in Old Testament times with Jewish beleivers down through the present in New Testament times. The only thing that can be said of Mary there is she is part of the Israel of God which already existed since she was a Jewish believer in Christ.
"Actually Elizabeth refers to Mary as the mother of my Lord, which means she has a royal role in the new Israel of God. "
How does that prove hyperdulia? It does not. My Lord refers to the person of Jesus Christ . Mary has no other role that is distinct from other believers in Christ. She gave birth to Jesus Christ. She is a like all other believers in Christ.”
“My Lord” is a royal title, indicating Mary is the royal mother of the king of the universe and as such she deserves an honour above all other mothers.
"quot"The name refers to a dynasty, which involves a family genealogy, which involves Mary in salvation. "
What you said still refuted by the text I quoted.”
No it isn’t. A name comes from the Genesis narrative meaning Shem – through which the royal priestly line comes. This line is a dynasty involving Mary.
”Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
The name there refers to the Lord Jesus Christ. Salvation is through Jesus Christ alone.”
Not Demonstrated.
“Christ alone is how any of God's elect people will be saved through.”
Actually salvation is the work of the Trinity and therefore because the Word became flesh, salvation is also through Mary’s action. Your Christ alone statements are not biblical and you know it.
“ No other person is involved in this and certainly not Mary.”
Luke says the Trinity and Mary are involved in the work of saving men and you say its Christ alone. I go with Luke and you can invent your own man made theology.
“Mary is not involved in the process of salvation of God's elect people. She did not die for our sins in contrast to Jesus Christ who did. Mary like all of God's elect people were provided redemption by means of Christ blood ( see Eph 1:7 ) . Mary like all of God's elect needed the redemption by Jesus Christ.”
Christ’s blood came from Mary, Christ’s body came from Mary and Christ mission began at Cana because of Mary’s intercession. According to St Paul a man is justified by faith and as Mary was the first to have faith in her Son, Paul is saying a man is justified by imitating Mary.
"And Jesus came to us through Mary. "
Mary merely was used by God for the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Salvation is only through Jesus Christ as the text teaches.”
Only? You are inventing a new doctrine based upon your own man made tradition.
”John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
And the “me” came to us via Mary. The Father sends the Son through Mary and fittingly, we a re drawn to the Son by the Father through Mary as mother of all the brethren.
"Honor is not the same as worship otherwise God has commanded that children offer sacrificial worship to their parents. There are big differences between latria and hyperdulia and I suggest you sort out your theology before you make statements to others about subjects which you have only a rudimentary understanding. "
In a religious context Roman Catholicism does worship Mary. They pray to her and bow down to statues of her. That is nothing more than idol worship.”
Its only idol worship in the world of Protestantism because Protestantism has a false understanding of the gospel, the role of the OT and what Jesus came to achieve. Bowing down and praying are works of honor. Sacrifice is an act of worship.
“The NT Greek word used for worship in a religious context does not have the claimed distinctions made by RCC and Eastern Orthodox. You did not address that specific point I was making. I honor my parents but never in a religious context in which acts of praying to them or bowing down to a statue of them ever takes places.”
It doesn’t matter. You honor your parents so according to your criteria you are worshipping your parents.
JM
"Actually Elizabeth refers to Mary as the mother of my Lord, which means she has a royal role in the new Israel of God. "
How does that prove hyperdulia ? It does not. My Lord refers to the person of Jesus Christ . Mary has no other role that is distinct from other believers in Christ. She gave birth to Jesus Christ. She is a like all other believers in Christ.”
“My Lord” is a royal title, indicating Mary is the royal mother of the king of the universe and as such she deserves an honour above all other mothers.
"quot"The name refers to a dynasty, which involves a family genealogy, which involves Mary in salvation. "
What you said still refuted by the text I quoted.”
No it isn’t. A name comes from the Genesis narrative meaning Shem – through which the royal priestly line comes. This line is a dynasty involving Mary.
”Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
The name there refers to the Lord Jesus Christ. Salvation is through Jesus Christ alone.”
Not Demonstrated.
“Christ alone is how any of God's elect people will be saved through.”
Actually salvation is the work of the Trinity and therefore because the Word became flesh, salvation is also through Mary’s action. Your Christ alone statements are not biblical and you know it.
“ No other person is involved in this and certainly not Mary.”
Luke says the Trinity and Mary are involved in the work of saving men and you say its Christ alone. I go with Luke and you can invent your own man made theology.
“Mary is not involved in the process of salvation of God's elect people. She did not die for our sins in contrast to Jesus Christ who did. Mary like all of God's elect people were provided redemption by means of Christ blood ( see Eph 1:7 ) . Mary like all of God's elect needed the redemption by Jesus Christ.”
Christ’s blood came from Mary, Christ’s body came from Mary and Christ mission began at Cana because of Mary’s intercession. According to St Paul a man is justified by faith and as Mary was the first to have faith in her Son, Paul is saying a man is justified by imitating Mary.
"And Jesus came to us through Mary. "
Mary merely was used by God for the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Salvation is only through Jesus Christ as the text teaches.”
Only? You are inventing a new doctrine based upon your own man made tradition.
”John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
And the “me” came to us via Mary. The Father sends the Son through Mary and fittingly, we a re drawn to the Son by the Father through Mary as mother of all the brethren.
JM
"Honor is not the same as worship otherwise God has commanded that children offer sacrificial worship to their parents. There are big differences between latria and hyperdulia and I suggest you sort out your theology before you make statements to others about subjects which you have only a rudimentary understanding. "
In a religious context Roman Catholicism does worship Mary. They pray to her and bow down to statues of her. That is nothing more than idol worship.”
Its only idol worship in the world of Protestantism because Protestantism has a false understanding of the gospel, the role of the OT and what Jesus came to achieve. Bowing down and praying are works of honor. Sacrifice is an act of worship.
“The NT Greek word used for worship in a religious context does not have the claimed distinctions made by RCC and Eastern Orthodox. You did not address that specific point I was making. I honor my parents but never in a religious context in which acts of praying to them or bowing down to a statue of them ever takes places.”
It doesn’t matter. You honor your parents so according to your criteria you are worshipping your parents.
“Functionally there is no distinction between latria and hyperdulia since under each God and Mary are each prayed to and bowed down to in a religious context.”
Functionally is not the criteria we use, nor is it the criteria used in the OT. Worship of God in the OT is specified by the covenant which involves sacrifice. This same principle holds in the NT. In fact if you think bowing down to another is worship, then you are accusing David of worshipping his mother. I guess poor old Davo didn’t know what he was doing!
“My theology is sorted out. I am stable in my beliefs and I dont go all over flip floping in it at all. I have had the same general beliefs for over 18 years. I was taught this heretical practice of hyperdulia since I was a kid. So I am qualified to make comments on such a false practice.”
This doesn’t follow.
“Roman Catholicism is no better than the pagans functionally on this mattter.”
Then David was a pagan.
“My objections are sound and reasonable.”
We’ve seen otherwise.
“You have no idea of who I am or of my theological doctrinal beliefs.”
I see your beliefs are very poorly founded in reason and scripture.
“So it is very unwise to make a claim I have no understanding of something or of not having my own theology sorted out.”
Not true. Your claims concerning Christ alone theology is bankrupt. Biblical salvation is Trinitarian. Your understanding of salvation is Christ alone – Do you see the big hole in your theology? I do.
JM
"We dont need an infallible interperter of Scripture since Scripture is sufficiently clear on matters relating to salvation and daily christian living. You call me an " idiot ". Please try and invent a new ad hom to say to me that is more original than that one."
And where does scripture teach men do not need an official interpreter of to teach men the doctrines of salvation? Nowhere. Therefore your theology is based on a man made doctrine.
Any similarity between the Mormons and the RCC is accidental and was created by the Mormons who came many centuries after the RCC began.
JM
JM
“Without getting to fine points of detail on ecclesiology and eschatology , I must point out the incorrect nature of your use of the words new Israel of God. According to Rom 2:28-29, 9:1-6 and Gal. 6:16 teaches the Israel of God is physical Jews who come to faith in Jesus Christ.”
According to Gal 6:15, Paul is talking about Christians - For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
It is therefore Christians who are in Christ Jesus who are the new Israel of God.
Rom 2:28-29 – only discusses circumcision and the law – no mention of the Israel of God here.
Rom 9:1-6 – no mention of the Israel of God here either.
Your quotes do not teach the Israel of God is physical Jews who come to faith in Jesus Christ.
“Mary has nothing to do with a so a called NEW Israel of God when the Israel of God already existed in Old Testament times with Jewish beleivers down through the present in New Testament times. The only thing that can be said of Mary there is she is part of the Israel of God which already existed since she was a Jewish believer in Christ.”
The new Israel of God is the NT church, which is the same as the kingdom of Christ, with Christ as its head as a royal priest king, his mother as a royal Queen, founded on the apostles.
Your arguments are thoroughly bogus.
JM
"Any similarity between the Mormons and the RCC is accidental and was created by the Mormons who came many centuries after the RCC began."
Not according to the Mormons. But ... of course, we reject their claims just like we reject your claims.
"The new Israel of God is the NT church, which is the same as the kingdom of Christ, with Christ as its head as a royal priest king, his mother as a royal Queen, founded on the apostles."
You've made this or a similar assertion in about three threads. You don't seem to have a way to back it up. Just saying it over and over again doesn't really establish its truth.
"Actually Elizabeth refers to Mary as the mother of my Lord, which means she has a royal role in the new Israel of God."
No, it means she's the mother of Elizabeth's Lord.
-TurretinFan
"Any similarity between the Mormons and the RCC is accidental and was created by the Mormons who came many centuries after the RCC began."
Not according to the Mormons. But ... of course, we reject their claims just like we reject your claims.
JM – and we reject you and the Mormons because neither are apostolic. We also see big flaws in reformation theology with its man made theories of SS and penal substitution (which currently remains unanswered on one of your threads!)
"The new Israel of God is the NT church, which is the same as the kingdom of Christ, with Christ as its head as a royal priest king, his mother as a royal Queen, founded on the apostles."
You've made this or a similar assertion in about three threads. You don't seem to have a way to back it up. Just saying it over and over again doesn't really establish its truth.
JM- St Paul tells us the church is the new Israel of God, Christ gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, which s to give Peter the keys to be head of the church and Luke tells us directly that Mary is the Queen mother when she says “mother of my Lord”.
"Actually Elizabeth refers to Mary as the mother of my Lord, which means she has a royal role in the new Israel of God."
No, it means she's the mother of Elizabeth's Lord.
JM- and the mother of Elizabeth’s Lord is to say mother of the king of the universe, which means Mary is the mother of a king, which means Mary is a Queen mother. Unbelievably simple, but it must be rejected by the Protestant because if he accepts Mary is the Queen mother of the king of the universe, he then must accept that there was something very special about Mary and that something special continues with Mary interceding for us in heaven. This is too much for the puny world of sola fide and sola scriptora (or should I say sole Romans/Galatians) in which the church has next to no role in the life of the Christian and the OT is only a distant and irrelevant memory that was somehow fulfilled by Jesus brief teaching ministry and the cross.
I’ve noticed when talking to Protestants, they are so convinced of their theology, yet when I take them to scripture, the text always never fits their particular theology and they have to make bold faced denials of the obvious or at least the semi obvious. The queenship of Mary is one of the semi obvious truths of scripture and it must be denied by the protestant, so it is and that is that.
JM
"and we reject you and the Mormons because neither are apostolic."
Actually, all three of us make that claim. Only we have the Bible on our side in that. But yes, you can reject the evidence of Scripture and history and accept either the RC or Mormon claims to be apostolic.
"We also see big flaws in reformation theology with its man made theories of SS and penal substitution (which currently remains unanswered on one of your threads!)"
a) Obviously, that's for another thread.
b) Yes, I think there's like 50 comments from you on older threads that I have not yet got to.
"The new Israel of God is the NT church, which is the same as the kingdom of Christ, with Christ as its head as a royal priest king, his mother as a royal Queen, founded on the apostles."
Mary is never called the Queen by the apostles.
"St Paul tells us the church is the new Israel of God, Christ gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, which s to give Peter the keys to be head of the church and Luke tells us directly that Mary is the Queen mother when she says “mother of my Lord”."
Only your first clause is supportable from the text, and only that is broadly supported. The keys of the kingdom are the keys that bind and loose, that release sinners from the very gates of hell. If only you read the Scriptures more carefully, you would see this.
Mary was the Mother of Jesus. That doesn't make her a queen.
"and the mother of Elizabeth’s Lord is to say mother of the king of the universe, which means Mary is the mother of a king, which means Mary is a Queen mother."
That's faulty logic. Not every mother of every king is a queen mother.
"Unbelievably simple, but it must be rejected by the Protestant because if he accepts Mary is the Queen mother of the king of the universe, he then must accept that there was something very special about Mary and that something special continues with Mary interceding for us in heaven."
This also does not follow. Even if Mary were a "queen mother" (which the Scriptures do not teach), it would not follow that Mary intercedes for us in heaven.
And, of course, we reject your doctrine because you cannot establish it from Scripture.
"This is too much for the puny world of sola fide and sola scriptora (or should I say sole Romans/Galatians) in which the church has next to no role in the life of the Christian and the OT is only a distant and irrelevant memory that was somehow fulfilled by Jesus brief teaching ministry and the cross."
That's an inaccurate picture of Christianity.
"I’ve noticed when talking to Protestants, they are so convinced of their theology, yet when I take them to scripture, the text always never fits their particular theology and they have to make bold faced denials of the obvious or at least the semi obvious."
I've noticed you have a habit here of citing Scripture and then imposing Romanism on it. If that's what you are doing with others, no wonder they reject you out of hand!
"The queenship of Mary is one of the semi obvious truths of scripture and it must be denied by the protestant, so it is and that is that."
This has to be one of the most foolish aspects to your argument. We have nothing invested in denying Scriptural truth. If you can establish something from Scripture, we're all ears. But when you simply impose your religion onto Scripture, that's when you lose our attention.
-TurretinFan
"The queenship of Mary is one of the semi obvious truths of scripture and it must be denied by the protestant, so it is and that is that."
This has to be one of the most foolish aspects to your argument. We have nothing invested in denying Scriptural truth. If you can establish something from Scripture, we're all ears. But when you simply impose your religion onto Scripture, that's when you lose our attention.
-TurretinFan
JM – But FT, don’t you see. That’s exactly what the reformers were doing with their own theologies. They all invented new theologies based on their own understandings of scripture and these theologies have long since been modified or abandoned at least in part be subsequent denominational splits.
You continued apologetic position that you are in favor of anything that can be derived from scripture is contradicted by the fact that you hold to both SS and SF which are not found in scripture.
JM
"But FT, don’t you see. That’s exactly what the reformers were doing with their own theologies. They all invented new theologies based on their own understandings of scripture and these theologies have long since been modified or abandoned at least in part be subsequent denominational splits."
Let's say they did. Allegedly "obvious" truths from Scripture should part of those theologies.
"You continued apologetic position that you are in favor of anything that can be derived from scripture is contradicted by the fact that you hold to both SS and SF which are not found in scripture."
That's a fact not in evidence. It's your assertion that they are not taught in Scripture, but (as we have previously demonstrated) they are.
-TurretinFan
Post a Comment