Immaculate Conception

The Portuguese Baptist

Centre-right conservative Christian-Democrat
Oct 17, 2015
1,141
450
25
Lisbon, Portugal
✟18,877.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Of course it has basis in Scripture, and basis in Sacred Tradition.

I disagree. I rest my case, if you have nothing more to add.

You do realize that believe is a verb, therefore belief is a work? James tells us that faith without works is dead.

No, believing is not a work. If it were, you would have to believe that the Bible contradicts itself, because Ephesians 2:8-9 says, ‘By faith, not by works’. Faith is acceptance, which is not a work. Allow me now to quote an excerpt from http://www.gotquestions.org/faith-work.html: ‘Suppose someone anonymously sent you a cheque for $1,000,000. The money is yours if you want it, but you still must endorse the cheque. In no way can signing your name be considered earning the million dollars — the endorsement is a non-work. You can never boast about becoming a millionaire through sheer effort or your own business savvy. No, the million dollars was simply a gift, and signing your name was the only way to receive it. Similarly, exercising faith is the only way to receive the generous gift of God, and faith cannot be considered a work worthy of the gift.’

Regarding James, he does not say that it is those works that save you. Faith produces works, but salvation comes from faith, not from works.

Yes, I know. You don't see where someone could have brothers but they could have different mothers? Also, we call people "Brother" even though they aren't blood brothers.

If they had had different mothers, they would be half-brothers, not brothers.

We call each other ‘brother’ in a very different context — that we are all brothers and sisters of Christ, within the Church. The Church had not yet been formed at the time.

The first two words of your statement above speak volumes..."I fail..." you said.

I fail to see your point. :)

Yes, and the Table of Contents of the Bible has 7 more books than your Bible have.

No, it does not. It has 7 fewer books than your Bible has.

The point is that it doesn't have to be in the Bible to be part of your faith, or mine.

The Table of Contents of the Bible simply cannot, by definition, be in the Bible — otherwise, a form of circular reasoning would be created, because the discussion would come up of whether the portion of the Bible in which the books would be listed would have been itself inspired or not.

I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. There, in the article, is the Biblical basis, with explanation.

That article takes up 10 pages of my computer screen! I have better things to do with my time, sorry. I have suggested that you would send a summarised version with only the important bits — just your passages that allegedly prove that Mary is the New Eve.

Because it don't happen. Thanks. And not "me", the Church doesn't.

I rest my case.

I provided an example. Someone has to fix the window, make restitution, make it right. That's apart from forgiveness.

No, it is not. Forgiveness means that you will forgive the kid the burden of paying for the window himself, and you will pay it yourself.

Jesus told his apostles, "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, whose sins are retained are retained." The doctrine on Reconciliation is like all other doctrines. They aren't explicit in the Bible, just as you pointed out that the Trinity is not explicit.

Again, there is a different between not being explicit and not being even there at all!

Besides, when I prove things, you don't read the proof.

I did not read it because you sent me a really long article! To prove the Trinity from the Bible, I mentioned five verses and I managed to explain it in just a couple of lines. Can you really summarise no more than ten times the height of my computer screen?

As if it died when they did? No sir, they conferred the same ordination to the next in line. As with all the sacraments, they are God's work through priests.

Not in the Bible. Again, I rest my case.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟21,391.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I disagree. I rest my case, if you have nothing more to add.



No, believing is not a work. If it were, you would have to believe that the Bible contradicts itself, because Ephesians 2:8-9 says, ‘By faith, not by works’. Faith is acceptance, which is not a work. Allow me now to quote an excerpt from http://www.gotquestions.org/faith-work.html: ‘Suppose someone anonymously sent you a cheque for $1,000,000. The money is yours if you want it, but you still must endorse the cheque. In no way can signing your name be considered earning the million dollars — the endorsement is a non-work. You can never boast about becoming a millionaire through sheer effort or your own business savvy. No, the million dollars was simply a gift, and signing your name was the only way to receive it. Similarly, exercising faith is the only way to receive the generous gift of God, and faith cannot be considered a work worthy of the gift.’

Regarding James, he does not say that it is those works that save you. Faith produces works, but salvation comes from faith, not from works.



If they had had different mothers, they would be half-brothers, not brothers.

We call each other ‘brother’ in a very different context — that we are all brothers and sisters of Christ, within the Church. The Church had not yet been formed at the time.



I fail to see your point. :)



No, it does not. It has 7 fewer books than your Bible has.



The Table of Contents of the Bible simply cannot, by definition, be in the Bible — otherwise, a form of circular reasoning would be created, because the discussion would come up of whether the portion of the Bible in which the books would be listed would have been itself inspired or not.



That article takes up 10 pages of my computer screen! I have better things to do with my time, sorry. I have suggested that you would send a summarised version with only the important bits — just your passages that allegedly prove that Mary is the New Eve.



I rest my case.



No, it is not. Forgiveness means that you will forgive the kid the burden of paying for the window himself, and you will pay it yourself.



Again, there is a different between not being explicit and not being even there at all!



I did not read it because you sent me a really long article! To prove the Trinity from the Bible, I mentioned five verses and I managed to explain it in just a couple of lines. Can you really summarise no more than ten times the height of my computer screen?



Not in the Bible. Again, I rest my case.

According to the Word of God, Mary is the Immaculate Conception and the Mediatrix of All Graces. The Bible says to hold fast to both the written and oral traditions.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I disagree. I rest my case, if you have nothing more to add.
I gave you loads, but you aren't going to read what I gave you, so just disappear, if you don't want to know!
No, believing is not a work.
And I rest my case, regarding Protestants changing the meanings (and categories) of words. Believe is a verb, you have to do it, therefore, a work.
If it were, you would have to believe that the Bible contradicts itself, because Ephesians 2:8-9 says, ‘By faith, not by works’.
Paul was not talking about the same thing James is. Paul was talking about Pharisaic laws of the Judaizers. James talks about doing things for humans. Remember, Jesus told us that we MUST feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, give comfort to the sick and imprisoned? Those are the works James is talking about. Believing is one of those.
Faith is acceptance, which is not a work. Allow me now to quote an excerpt from http://www.gotquestions.org/faith-work.html: ‘Suppose someone anonymously sent you a cheque for $1,000,000. The money is yours if you want it, but you still must endorse the cheque. In no way can signing your name be considered earning the million dollars — the endorsement is a non-work. You can never boast about becoming a millionaire through sheer effort or your own business savvy. No, the million dollars was simply a gift, and signing your name was the only way to receive it. Similarly, exercising faith is the only way to receive the generous gift of God, and faith cannot be considered a work worthy of the gift.’

Regarding James, he does not say that it is those works that save you. Faith produces works, but salvation comes from faith, not from works.
Yes, but without doing those works, your faith is dead. God gives us the grace to have faith, and good works proceed from that.
If they had had different mothers, they would be half-brothers, not brothers.
No such concept in ancient times.
We call each other ‘brother’ in a very different context — that we are all brothers and sisters of Christ, within the Church. The Church had not yet been formed at the time.
So you think there was no Church when Christ walked the earth? Where's that in Scripture???
I fail to see your point. :)
There you go again, failing.
No, it does not. It has 7 fewer books than your Bible has.
The Church came before the Bible, and it had 7 more books in it when the Church decided so.
The Table of Contents of the Bible simply cannot, by definition, be in the Bible — otherwise, a form of circular reasoning would be created, because the discussion would come up of whether the portion of the Bible in which the books would be listed would have been itself inspired or not.
I know many books which contain a Table of Contents...The table of contents of the Bible, with the 7 Deuterocanonical books, is inspired.
That article takes up 10 pages of my computer screen! I have better things to do with my time, sorry. I have suggested that you would send a summarised version with only the important bits — just your passages that allegedly prove that Mary is the New Eve.
Well, if you're not interested in the subject, why are you even here, at all???
I rest my case.
Easy to rest it if you have none.
No, it is not. Forgiveness means that you will forgive the kid the burden of paying for the window himself, and you will pay it yourself.
What baloney, no wonder this country is in the state that it's in!
Again, there is a different between not being explicit and not being even there at all!
But it is there. See the article I provided.
I did not read it because you sent me a really long article! To prove the Trinity from the Bible, I mentioned five verses and I managed to explain it in just a couple of lines. Can you really summarise no more than ten times the height of my computer screen?
So sorry, I gave you 10. Too much for your brain?
Not in the Bible. Again, I rest my case.
Which is no case at all. Peter ordained Matthias, Paul ordained Timothy and Titus, you say that's not Biblical? What does ordination mean, to you? Something you can get off the internet? :doh:
 
Upvote 0

The Portuguese Baptist

Centre-right conservative Christian-Democrat
Oct 17, 2015
1,141
450
25
Lisbon, Portugal
✟18,877.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
According to the Word of God, Mary is the Immaculate Conception and the Mediatrix of All Graces. The Bible says to hold fast to both the written and oral traditions.

Even if they contradict the Bible? Not sure where you read that…
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Upvote 0

The Portuguese Baptist

Centre-right conservative Christian-Democrat
Oct 17, 2015
1,141
450
25
Lisbon, Portugal
✟18,877.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I gave you loads, but you aren't going to read what I gave you, so just disappear, if you don't want to know!

Granted! I rest my case. (If you need to take up so much of my time to prove something, anyway, it's probably not very important — otherwise, you would find a way to summarise it.)

And I rest my case, regarding Protestants changing the meanings (and categories) of words. Believe is a verb, you have to do it, therefore, a work.

I rest my case.

Paul was not talking about the same thing James is. Paul was talking about Pharisaic laws of the Judaizers.

Not in the context of Ephesians 2:8-9. These verses mention ‘works’ in general, with no such specification.

James talks about doing things for humans. Remember, Jesus told us that we MUST feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, give comfort to the sick and imprisoned? Those are the works James is talking about.

He never said we must do it to be saved. Instead, he said that anyone who would just believe would be saved (John 1:12; John 3:16; John 6:28-29).

Believing is one of those.

In which passage do you read ‘believing in Jesus’ in the same category as ‘feeding the hungry’?

Yes, but without doing those works, your faith is dead. God gives us the grace to have faith, and good works proceed from that.

Yes, but it is faith that saves you, not the works. If you have true faith, you will inevitably do those works and also be saved (not because of those works, though, but because of that faith). If you convert seconds before your death, you have no time to do any good works, but your faith saves you.

No such concept in ancient times.

No half-brothers in ancient times?

So you think there was no Church when Christ walked the earth? Where's that in Scripture??? […]

Granted, I should clarify. What I meant was that, when Jesus was on Earth, they would not use the terms ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ to describe members of the Church of Christ as we do today. The Church was only actually founded in Acts (even though her members had been elected before time began). Those with Jesus would not have used those terms to describe the Church because they did not know there was such a church. Besides, why would they mention Jesus' father and mother to then suddenly mention spiritual brothers and sisters?

[…] The Church came before the Bible, and it had 7 more books in it when the Church decided so.

So, now the Church decides which books belong in the Bible?

I know many books which contain a Table of Contents...The table of contents of the Bible, with the 7 Deuterocanonical books, is inspired.

An inspired Table of Contents, hmm… Well, in that case, I reject your Table of Contents as the eighth Deuterocanonical book.

Well, if you're not interested in the subject, why are you even here, at all???

I expected quicker discussions. Clearly, this has not been one of them.

Easy to rest it if you have none.

Ba-DUM-tss! :D

What baloney, no wonder this country is in the state that it's in!

I rest my case.

But it is there. See the article I provided.

(Sigh) I shall read it when I have the time. Then, I shall send you a private message debunking the whole article bit by bit. Is that better now?

So sorry, I gave you 10. Too much for your brain?

No. Too much for my schedule and for my patience.

Which is no case at all. Peter ordained Matthias, Paul ordained Timothy and Titus, you say that's not Biblical? What does ordination mean, to you? Something you can get off the internet? :doh:

You are repeating the same argument — again, the Bible does not say that this ordination implies any sort of transference of the ‘power to forgive sins’. I rest my case.
 
Upvote 0

The Portuguese Baptist

Centre-right conservative Christian-Democrat
Oct 17, 2015
1,141
450
25
Lisbon, Portugal
✟18,877.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Not sure where you read that he said that. None of our doctrines contradict the Bible.

Well, I believe they do. We have spent the last few pages of this thread discussing that, and we are both now gradually coming to rest our cases.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Granted! I rest my case. (If you need to take up so much of my time to prove something, anyway, it's probably not very important — otherwise, you would find a way to summarise it.)



I rest my case.



Not in the context of Ephesians 2:8-9. These verses mention ‘works’ in general, with no such specification.
It says nothing about works, but says loads about our Catholic belief.
He never said we must do it to be saved. Instead, he said that anyone who would just believe would be saved (John 1:12; John 3:16; John 6:28-29).
I've never said you must do it to be saved. But faith without works is dead.
In which passage do you read ‘believing in Jesus’ in the same category as ‘feeding the hungry’?
It's implied.
Yes, but it is faith that saves you, not the works. If you have true faith, you will inevitably do those works and also be saved (not because of those works, though, but because of that faith). If you convert seconds before your death, you have no time to do any good works, but your faith saves you.
I've been saying "It's grace that saves you and gives you faith." What part of what I've written don't you understand? But works proceed from faith.
No half-brothers in ancient times?
No concept of half-brothers.
Granted, I should clarify. What I meant was that, when Jesus was on Earth, they would not use the terms ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ to describe members of the Church of Christ as we do today. The Church was only actually founded in Acts (even though her members had been elected before time began). Those with Jesus would not have used those terms to describe the Church because they did not know there was such a church. Besides, why would they mention Jesus' father and mother to then suddenly mention spiritual brothers and sisters?
But Paul did use 'brothers and sisters'. The Church was instituted by Christ, and began at Pentecost. It doesn't really matter what terms were used. They knew, cuz Christ instituted it.
They never say Mary's children, only Jesus' brothers and sisters.
So, now the Church decides which books belong in the Bible?
No, then the Church decided which books belonged.
An inspired Table of Contents, hmm… Well, in that case, I reject your Table of Contents as the eighth Deuterocanonical book.
Yeah, I know.

I expected quicker discussions. Clearly, this has not been one of them.
Theological discussions will seldom be 'quick'. I'd think you'd know that. People spend years in seminaries learning their faith.
Ba-DUM-tss! :D



I rest my case.



(Sigh) I shall read it when I have the time. Then, I shall send you a private message debunking the whole article bit by bit. Is that better now?
You won't be able to debunk it, so don't waste your time. Read it, learn what Catholics believe, and I'll be happy, whether you agree or disagree. I'm not trying to convert you, but to explain Catholic belief to those who don't know, based on what they say they think Catholics believe.
No. Too much for my schedule and for my patience.
As I said above, this stuff is very deep. You can scratch the surface, but you won't get it unless you understand all the rest.
I'm not here to convert, but to correct misinterpretations, such as yours with praying to saints and indulgences.
You are repeating the same argument — again, the Bible does not say that this ordination implies any sort of transference of the ‘power to forgive sins’. I rest my case.
It is implied. Again, the doctrine of the Trinity is not clearly stated either, but both of us believe it. Doctrine is not in Scripture, but woven from Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
because Catholics do not believe in salvation by faith and works.
Actually (jumping in here) i have had RCs tell me strongly that they do. Meaning that by the grace of God they merit eternal life, which statements of Trent do may it sound like.

Regarding those who cooperated with grace, Trent concludes that,
"If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema." (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32.)

Shortened this teaches, "If anyone says that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God does not truly merit eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself, let him be anathema."

And unless the RC is know enough to understand that the only way this can possibly be said is that "merit' does not mean one actually earns eternal life by his works and holiness, but that God rewards God-given faith (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of the works which He is really the author of, who "worketh in you [born again believers] both to will and to do of his good pleasure, (Philippians 2:13) then they will believe they God will accept them into Heaven because they are basically pretty good. Which from my experience, is just what most Caths and mainline Prot people say.

If they know a little more, then they may be like this Catholic Answers poster:
I feel when my numbers up I will appoach a large table and St.Peter will be there with an enormous scale of justice by his side. We will see our life in a movie...the things that we did for the benefit of others will be for the plus side of the scale..the other stuff,,not so good will..well, be on the negative side..and so its a very interesting job Pete has. .... ” http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4098202&postcount=2
Wrong. Strike 2. We never ignore the Bible.
Nor do the so-called Jehovah's Witnesses, but in both cases it is presumed that the leadership possesses a degree of ensured veracity so that the Bible only assuredly means what they say, though she and her devotees reduce Scripture to being an abused servant compelled to support what really are traditions of men.
God's creation. Mary is called the New Eve,
Where does the Holy Spirit say this in His wholly inspired word? Where is Mary shown being manifestly tested the same three ways Eve was (pleasure, possessions, prestige/power: Gn. 3:6) and Christ was (Mt. 4:1-11) yet without sin? (Heb. 4:15)

Why would the Holy Spirit leave this title out of Scripture, along with Mary being sinless and most every laudatory title and attribute Catholics ascribe to her, when the Spirit characteristically mentions exceptions to the norm, from extraordinary age (Methuselah), to not dying (Enoch), to length of fast, (Ezekiel) to miraculous birth (to Abraham and Sarah), to extraordinary height (Ogg) or strength (Samson) or toes (Goliath), or exceeding holiness (Job, Noah, Daniel) supernatural transport (Phillip), the extraordinary post marital length of celibacy of Anna, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, to virgin birth (Mary), to diet (John the Baptist), to the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, to the thrice mentioned sinlessness of Christ?

Certainly a derived doctrine as the Trinity is demanded by Scripture, since all 3 persons are called God, and the very nature of God is important to salvation, but it is certainly is not necessary for Mary to be sinless in order for her Creator to use her to provide the body of His incarnation, any more than those thru whom God breathed out His pure written word were.

Nor is Mary unique in being blessed among women (actually of only Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite was it said she would "be blessed shall she be above women in the tent.," Judges 5:24) Nor was she the only women to have supernatural visitation and a miraculous birth, hough Mary was highly graced due to whom she was privileged to be the mother of.

I am not saying that one cannot make a case for Mary being a new Eve, but this is part of the multitudinous laudatory praises given to the Mary of Catholicism, thinking of her far "above that which is written," (1Co. 4:6) even of any angel or mortal, and in fact in the hyper exaltation of Mary she much is made to parallel Christ.

And as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God, (Romans 8:14)
and we are to follow His lead here, who is very reticent about giving praises and

laudatory titles to anyone but the Lord, and says actually quite little about Mary. She is not even mentioned in the life of the NT church after mention of her being one of the women of prayer. Out of which scarcity Caths extrapolate all sorts extra and unScriptural platitudes and engage in what is actually worship in the Biblical sense.
Why do you have a problem with intercessory prayer? Do you ever ask someone to pray for you?
That is simply not the same thing, as one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such, which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them.

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?
moses.gif
mary.gif


Actually, it doesn't contradict at all. Being forgiven is different from paying for our transgressions.

There is no distinctive word for worship in Scripture, and instead idolatry is described by such things as the above. The Holy Spirit of God provides apporx. 200 prayers in Scripture but not only single supplication anyone in Heaven by those on earth except by pagans. Including to the only Queen of Heaven no less. (Jer. 44)
No, it doesn't. Jesus told his apostles that "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven, who's sins you retain are retained." That means people had to tell them about their sins, in order to be forgiven.
And though Catholics do not like it, the gospels are understood in the light of the rest of the NT, and wherein we never see your interpretation of all believers regularly coming to priests to be forgiven, and in fact you will not even find one single instance where the Holy Spirit called NT minsters "priests" in distinction to the laity, as the only sacerdotal priesthood in the NT church is that of all believers.

Moreover, while the magisterium is given the judicial power of binding and loosing, as was the OT magisterium (Dt. 17:8-13) and even fathers over daughters and husbands over wives (which a vow of perpetual virginity would require) as well as civil authorities, (Numbers 30:5.8; Rm. 13:1-7; 1Pt. 2:13) yet in the spiritual realm this power is provided for all holy believers of fervent prayer such as Elijah, who had power to spiritually bind and loose the heavens, (1Ki. 17:1; 1Ki 18:18,42-45)

For after speaking of judicial judgments regarding personal conflict, Mt. 18 expands the teaching on binding/loosing by saying, Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19,20)

Likewise in James 5, in which the intercession of presbuteros - not hierus=priests - obtains healing, even if (likely) as a consequence of chastisement for sin (cf. Mt. 9:2-7) is followed by the only exhortation to confess sins to others, which is a general one to one another, with the promise of healing, not due to clerical status, but due to holy fervent prayer: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," (James 5:16) is what James says Elijah exampled, binding and loosing the heavens, (Ja. 5:17,18) which is exhorted for all believers. Blessed be God. I am no Elijah sadly. Nor are RC priests.

Loosing those who are afflicted or in discipline delivering souls to bondage are also examples of this power. (Lk. 4:18; 13:16; 1Cor. 5:1-5)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Why do you have a problem with intercessory prayer? Do you ever ask someone to pray for you?
Not mentally, nor presuming any are fit to do so, or that those in another country can hear me unless enabled by technology, and only God is shown to be the direct object and recipient of prayer from earth and able to hear the ability to hear the corporate requests to Him. Angels and elders offering prayers as a memorial preceding the latter day judgments do not constitute this, while personal communication btwn created beings in Heaven or earth meant both were visible and were in the the same realm, versus simply praying to God.

PTDS by www.peacebyjesus, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Actually (jumping in here) i have had RCs tell me strongly that they do. Meaning that by the grace of God they merit eternal life, which statements of Trent do may it sound like.

Regarding those who cooperated with grace, Trent concludes that,
"If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema." (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 32.)

Shortened this teaches, "If anyone says that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God does not truly merit eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself, let him be anathema."

And unless the RC is know enough to understand that the only way this can possibly be said is that "merit' does not mean one actually earns eternal life by his works and holiness, but that God rewards God-given faith (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of the works which He is really the author of, who "worketh in you [born again believers] both to will and to do of his good pleasure, (Philippians 2:13) then they will believe they God will accept them into Heaven because they are basically pretty good. Which from my experience, is just what most Caths and mainline Prot people say.

If they know a little more, then they may be like this Catholic Answers poster:
I feel when my numbers up I will appoach a large table and St.Peter will be there with an enormous scale of justice by his side. We will see our life in a movie...the things that we did for the benefit of others will be for the plus side of the scale..the other stuff,,not so good will..well, be on the negative side..and so its a very interesting job Pete has. .... ” http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4098202&postcount=2

Nor do the so-called Jehovah's Witnesses, but in both cases it is presumed that the leadership possesses a degree of ensured veracity so that the Bible only assuredly means what they say, though she and her devotees reduce Scripture to being an abused servant compelled to support what really are traditions of men.

Where does the Holy Spirit say this in His wholly inspired word? Where is Mary shown being manifestly tested the same three ways Eve was (pleasure, possessions, prestige/power: Gn. 3:6) and Christ was (Mt. 4:1-11) yet without sin? (Heb. 4:15)

Why would the Holy Spirit leave this title out of Scripture, along with Mary being sinless and most every laudatory title and attribute Catholics ascribe to her, when the Spirit characteristically mentions exceptions to the norm, from extraordinary age (Methuselah), to not dying (Enoch), to length of fast, (Ezekiel) to miraculous birth (to Abraham and Sarah), to extraordinary height (Ogg) or strength (Samson) or toes (Goliath), or exceeding holiness (Job, Noah, Daniel) supernatural transport (Phillip), the extraordinary post marital length of celibacy of Anna, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, to virgin birth (Mary), to diet (John the Baptist), to the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, to the thrice mentioned sinlessness of Christ?

Certainly a derived doctrine as the Trinity is demanded by Scripture, since all 3 persons are called God, and the very nature of God is important to salvation, but it is certainly is not necessary for Mary to be sinless in order for her Creator to use her to provide the body of His incarnation, any more than those thru whom God breathed out His pure written word were.

Nor is Mary unique in being blessed among women (actually of only Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite was it said she would "be blessed shall she be above women in the tent.," Judges 5:24) Nor was she the only women to have supernatural visitation and a miraculous birth, hough Mary was highly graced due to whom she was privileged to be the mother of.

I am not saying that one cannot make a case for Mary being a new Eve, but this is part of the multitudinous laudatory praises given to the Mary of Catholicism, thinking of her far "above that which is written," (1Co. 4:6) even of any angel or mortal, and in fact in the hyper exaltation of Mary she much is made to parallel Christ.

And as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God, (Romans 8:14)
and we are to follow His lead here, who is very reticent about giving praises and
laudatory titles to anyone but the Lord, and says actually quite little about Mary. She is not even mentioned in the life of the NT church after mention of her being one of the women of prayer. Out of which scarcity Caths extrapolate all sorts extra and unScriptural platitudes and engage in what is actually worship in the Biblical sense.


That is simply not the same thing, as one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such, which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them.

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?
moses.gif
mary.gif


Actually, it doesn't contradict at all. Being forgiven is different from paying for our transgressions.

There is no distinctive word for worship in Scripture, and instead idolatry is described by such things as the above. The Holy Spirit of God provides apporx. 200 prayers in Scripture but not only single supplication anyone in Heaven by those on earth except by pagans. Including to the only Queen of Heaven no less. (Jer. 44)

And though Catholics do not like it, the gospels are understood in the light of the rest of the NT, and wherein we never see your interpretation of all believers regularly coming to priests to be forgiven, and in fact you will not even find one single instance where the Holy Spirit called NT minsters "priests" in distinction to the laity, as the only sacerdotal priesthood in the NT church is that of all believers.

Moreover, while the magisterium is given the judicial power of binding and loosing, as was the OT magisterium (Dt. 17:8-13) and even fathers over daughters and husbands over wives (which a vow of perpetual virginity would require) as well as civil authorities, (Numbers 30:5.8; Rm. 13:1-7; 1Pt. 2:13) yet in the spiritual realm this power is provided for all holy believers of fervent prayer such as Elijah, who had power to spiritually bind and loose the heavens, (1Ki. 17:1; 1Ki 18:18,42-45)

For after speaking of judicial judgments regarding personal conflict, Mt. 18 expands the teaching on binding/loosing by saying, Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19,20)

Likewise in James 5, in which the intercession of presbuteros - not hierus=priests - obtains healing, even if (likely) as a consequence of chastisement for sin (cf. Mt. 9:2-7) is followed by the only exhortation to confess sins to others, which is a general one to one another, with the promise of healing, not due to clerical status, but due to holy fervent prayer: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," (James 5:16) is what James says Elijah exampled, binding and loosing the heavens, (Ja. 5:17,18) which is exhorted for all believers. Blessed be God. I am no Elijah sadly. Nor are RC priests.

Loosing those who are afflicted or in discipline delivering souls to bondage are also examples of this power. (Lk. 4:18; 13:16; 1Cor. 5:1-5)
You forgot something...



Naw, just kidding. That was thoroughly excellent. I will not be needing fries with that, thank you very much.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟21,391.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Even if they contradict the Bible? Not sure where you read that…

I don't think the Bible says that any Catholic teaching contradicts the Bible. In fact, the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church, and not by itself.

Do you agree with the Bible that we should hold fast to the traditions as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter?

The Immaculate Conception is part of the Word of God, and as such I believe it.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You forgot something...
Naw, just kidding. That was thoroughly excellent. I will not be needing fries with that, thank you very much.

There is much left out actually, but thank God for what helps
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Otto
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,351
10,606
Georgia
✟911,824.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Ok so -- going with the first definition then.

"A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma."

In Mark 7:6-13 Christ addresses the point "teaching for DOCTRINE the commandments of men".


Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


Jesus started a new tradition:

Luke 10:16
'Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

I would not lightly reject those sent by Jesus if I were you.

I think you will agree with me that these texts are very important.

"Though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven preach to you a different gospel other than what you have already received - let him be accursed" Gal 1:6-9

2 Cor 11
12 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,351
10,606
Georgia
✟911,824.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I don't think the Bible says that any Catholic teaching contradicts the Bible. In fact, the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church, and not by itself.

Do you agree with the Bible that we should hold fast to the traditions as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter?

The Immaculate Conception is part of the Word of God, and as such I believe it.

1. The Immaculate Conception is mentioned nowhere in the entire Bible. I thought you knew that - since 155 posts and still not one text speaking about Mary's mother or any need for Mary to be born sinless like Christ.
2. The fact that you think the Bible fully supports all Catholic doctrine - is a good sign for a Catholic. I would not want to be a Catholic that believed that the Bible says Catholic doctrine is wrong - but I am Catholic "Anyway".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I don't think the Bible says that any Catholic teaching contradicts the Bible.
Well of course it does, but how can it when Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares?
In fact, the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church, and not by itself.
Which argument, that no Catholic teaching contradicts the Bible since the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church, means that the discerners and stewards of Holy Writ, under the historical magisterium, are the infallible interpreters of it? Thus dissent from which cannot be valid, and those who are in rebellion to God.
Which (though you may not realize it) effectively nukes the church.

For the church began with common souls discerning John being "a prophet indeed," as well as another itinerant Preacher and disciples, in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Secondly, "by the Catholic Church" all you can claim is that rather than the writing and compilation being an project of the magisterium, individuals (who were not Catholic) were moved by the Spirit to pen the OT and the words of the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ from the Father (Jn. 16:12-15) which were wholly inspired of God whether man recognized them as being so or not.

And that while the canon of Scripture was largely settled relatively early, scholarly doubts and disagreements continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon for RCs, after the death of Luther (and his non-binding judgment on books, which had Catholic support).
That is a lot for RC propagandists to handle, but it needs to be said.
Do you agree with the Bible that we should hold fast to the traditions as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter?
Certainly (note according to Catholics, all the below fall under the class of oral tradition before they were written) :

1. Oral preaching of Scriptural truths, thus in oral preaching, the Lord,

• "answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
•"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." (Matthew 22:29)
• "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying," (Matthew 22:31)
• "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?" (Matthew 22:42-44)
• "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." (Luke 24:44)
"Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, " (Acts 17:2)
• "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28)
• "And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening." (Acts 28:23)

And secondly by the Scriptural supernatural attestation:

"Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ." (Romans 15:19)

2. In so doing such preaching or in written form sometimes affirmed things as true which had been passed down outside Scripture, (cf. 2:Tim. 3:8) though not necessarily as simply existing as oral truths, and Scripture also affirmed parts of writings such as from the book of Enoch, (Jude 1:14,15) thus separating wheat from tares.

3. The NT sometimes included new revelation (like the revelation of the mystery of church to Paul) as part of the inspired preaching of the word of God (which is uniquely anointed and powerful: Heb. 4:12, and not simply truth), neither of which Rome claims to do (she claims her oral tradition is inspired, but not the her forms of promulgation of it, even while claiming infallibility).

Thus, the Holy Spirit having inspired men of God to pen His word, both what was first preached as well as directly written, we have wheat separated from tares.

And it is abundantly evidenced that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

If someone wants to claim some oral preaching is equal to Scripture as the word of God then they must claim that they are speaking as wholly inspired of God. The word of God is not simply True, but it has an anointing that sets it apart from other words, and thus such became established as being of God, without compulsion to include it.

By the time of Christ a body of writings had been established as being of God, to which the Lord and NT appealed to, ) and foundational for the church, the gospel itself being " promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," (Romans 1:2 but the establishment of these was not due to magisterial decree.

However, Rome presumes that she can declare other teachings that existed as oral tradition to be the inspired word of God (only in their oral form), but this is not how both men and writings of God were established as being so. For instead of the assurance of these (and even that of Scripture) being of God resting upon the premise of ensured magisterial infallibility as per Rome, both men and writings of God were discerned and established as being so due to their Divine qualities and attestation, sometimes in dissent from the historical magisterium and stewards of Divine revelation.

The reason born again Prots reject the binding traditions of Catholicism is because they do not warrant it, neither by the weight of Scriptural warrant or the veracity of Rome, which is the real basis for assurance for a Catholic.
The Immaculate Conception is part of the Word of God, and as such I believe it.
We obviously do not see this in Scripture, but that is not your basis for assurance that this is true anyway. Thus a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium.

Like as regards the Assumption:

"...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true." ” Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

And which is not surprising since there is no testimony for hundreds of years to an extraScriptural event it decrees must be believed, and which decree her own scholars were against. But history is whatever Rome says it is.

As no less than Manning reasoned,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. - Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, "The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟21,391.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1. The Immaculate Conception is mentioned nowhere in the entire Bible. I thought you knew that - since 155 posts and still not one text speaking about Mary's mother or any need for Mary to be born sinless like Christ.
2. The fact that you think the Bible fully supports all Catholic doctrine - is a good sign for a Catholic. I would not want to be a Catholic that believed that the Bible says Catholic doctrine is wrong - but I am Catholic "Anyway".

Do you agree with the Bible that we should hold fast to the traditions, whether given orally or by letter?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟21,391.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well of course it does, but how can it when Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares?

The Bible--the Book of the Catholic Church--never contradicts Catholic doctrine, which is the Word of God.

The Bible well supports the Word of God about the Immaculate Conception. The Papacy--established by Christ in the Apostle Rock-- is right to testify to the inspiration of Scripture and Tradition (together, the Word of God) and to the truth about the Mother of God.
 
Upvote 0